DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/969,820 filed on December 5, 2024 in which claims 1-10 were presented for examination and the amendments filed December 6, 2024 in which claims 1-9 were amended and claim 10 was cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending, of which claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 5, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites a system including a “means that are adapted so as to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1.” This limitation appears to state that the intended use of the means to perform the method of claim 1.
“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “means that are adapted so as to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1” in claims 8. Specifically, the referenced method steps of claim 1 are sufficient algorithmic steps to perform the recited function. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Further, such an interpretation ensures that this claim also satisfies the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP § 2181(V).
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4-9, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites a method for determining a cause of a failure of a vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites a “system” for determining a cause of failure of a vehicle. The Specification expressly states that the invention may be implemented using a computer program. (Spec. ¶ 30). Accordingly, the recited “system” is computer software per se and is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture” or a “composition of matter,” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a “computer program product” for determining a cause of failure of a vehicle. The plain and ordinary meaning of “computer program product” includes software per se implementations. Accordingly, the recited “computer program product” is computer software per se and is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture” or a “composition of matter,” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a cause of failure for a fault in a manufactured vehicle (3), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining production data (13) that pertain to the production of the manufactured vehicle (3) and are associated with the manufactured vehicle (3);
determining utilization data that pertain to the utilization of the manufactured vehicle (3) and are associated with the manufactured vehicle (3);
comparing the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with the production data (13) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), wherein at least one measured value of the utilization data (15) is compared with a specified permitted range, and determination of a fault report pertaining to the measured value and the specified permitted range,
assigning the fault report to the manufactured vehicle (3);
comparing the production data (13) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), and the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with production data pertaining to reference vehicles, utilization data pertaining to reference vehicles, and fault reports pertaining to reference vehicles, wherein a failure cause is associated with every fault report pertaining to a reference vehicle; and
determining a failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), with reference to the comparison.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation/s constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each of these limitations can be performed in the mind via knowledge of vehicles and processing the operation of the vehicle at the high level claimed. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a cause of failure for a fault in a manufactured vehicle (3), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining production data (13) that pertain to the production of the manufactured vehicle (3) and are associated with the manufactured vehicle (3);
determining utilization data that pertain to the utilization of the manufactured vehicle (3) and are associated with the manufactured vehicle (3);
comparing the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with the production data (13) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), wherein at least one measured value of the utilization data (15) is compared with a specified permitted range, and determination of a fault report pertaining to the measured value and the specified permitted range,
assigning the fault report to the manufactured vehicle (3);
comparing the production data (13) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), and the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with production data pertaining to reference vehicles, utilization data pertaining to reference vehicles, and fault reports pertaining to reference vehicles, wherein a failure cause is associated with every fault report pertaining to a reference vehicle; and
determining a failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), with reference to the comparison.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations that the method is “computer-implemented” the examiner submits that these limitations are instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In particular, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and merely requires the presence of a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “computer-implemented” method amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: additional mental steps. Each of the further limitations expound upon the [repeat judicial exception] and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental steps into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-9 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, this claim recites the limitations “forming, with reference to the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), one or more part-quantities of the production data, utilization data, and/or fault reports pertaining to the reference vehicles; and determining, with reference to the part-quantity or quantities, the failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the comparison.” (Emphasis added).
Because this claim uses an “and/or,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim includes situations in which “one or more part-quantities of the production data” are not used or obtained. Thus, in these situations, the claimed “determining” step would be impossible to perform. Therefore, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the present invention, rendering this claim indefinite.
To overcome this rejection the examiner recommends the following optional amendments:
4. The method according to claim 1, comprising:
forming, with reference to the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), one or more part-quantities of the production data, utilization data, and fault reports pertaining to the reference vehicles; and
determining, with reference to the part-quantity or quantities, the failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the comparison.
4. The method according to claim 1, comprising:
determining one or more part-quantities of the production data;
forming, with reference to the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), one or more part-quantities of the production data, utilization data, and/or fault reports pertaining to the reference vehicles; and
determining, with reference to the part-quantity or quantities, the failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sankavaram et al., US Publication 2020/0394850 (hereinafter Sankavaram).
Regarding claim 1, Sankavaram discloses a computer-implemented method for determining a cause of failure for a fault in a manufactured vehicle (3), wherein the method comprises the following steps “determining production data (13) that pertain to the production of the manufactured vehicle (3) and are associated with the manufactured vehicle (3)” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 5, 63) by obtaining DFMEA data (¶ 63), which is defined to include manufacturing (i.e., production) data for the various vehicle systems. (¶ 5). Additionally, Sankavaram discloses “determining utilization data that pertain to the utilization of the manufactured vehicle (3) and are associated with the manufactured vehicle (3)” (Sankavaram ¶ 68) by receiving vehicle operation signals from the vehicle. Further, Sankavaram discloses “comparing the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with the production data (13) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), wherein at least one measured value of the utilization data (15) is compared with a specified permitted range, and determination of a fault report pertaining to the measured value and the specified permitted range” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 44, 71) by comparing the DTCs that are part of the vehicle operation signals to the DFMEA data to identify a failure mode (i.e., a fault report, ¶ 71). Sankavaram previously disclosed that these values may be related to ranges of values. Moreover, Sankavaram discloses “assigning the fault report to the manufactured vehicle (3)” (Sankavaram ¶ 71) by producing a fault diagnosis for the vehicle. Likewise, Sankavaram discloses comparing the production data (13) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), and the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with production data pertaining to reference vehicles, utilization data pertaining to reference vehicles, and fault reports pertaining to reference vehicles, wherein a failure cause is associated with every fault report pertaining to a reference vehicle” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 43, 81 and Fig. 3) by creating a dependency model of the production data, the utilization data, and the fault report (Sankavaram ¶ 81, Fig. 3) and indicating that this data may include the same data from a “plurality of other vehicles, such as a fleet of vehicles having a common OEM.” (Sankavaram ¶ 43). Finally, Sankavaram discloses “determining a failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), with reference to the comparison” (¶ 32) by using the dependency model to determine the cause of the failure mode of another subsystem was the failure of the first subsystem.
Regarding claim 2, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram discloses “wherein the production data (13) are determined during the production of the vehicle (3)” (Sankavaram ¶ 5) where the DFMEA may be generated during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 5, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram discloses “wherein the method also comprises the following steps: determining production data that pertain to the production of the reference vehicles and are associated with the reference vehicles” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 4, 63) where the DFMEA data of the “plurality of other vehicles, such as a fleet of vehicles having a common OEM” includes production data associated with those vehicles. Further, Sankavaram discloses “determining utilization data that pertain to the utilization of the reference vehicles and are associated with the reference vehicles” (Sankavaram ¶ 43) where the DTC data (i.e., utilization data) of the fleet must necessarily be determined to be included in the historical data. Moreover, Sankavaram discloses “assigning fault reports to the reference vehicles” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 44-45) where the fault report pertaining to the vehicles may be added as historical data. Finally, Sankavaram discloses “assigning a failure cause to every fault report that pertains to a reference vehicle” (Sankavaram ¶ 43) where the diagnostic association data (i.e., the failure causes) are stored for the historical data of the fleet.
Regarding claim 7, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram discloses “comprising adding the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), the failure cause associated with the manufactured vehicle (3), and/or the elimination of the fault in the manufactured vehicle (3) to the utilization data (15) pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3)” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 44-45) where the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle may be added as historical data.
Regarding claim 8, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram discloses a “system (1) for determining a cause of a failure of a manufactured vehicle (3) with means that are adapted so as to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1” (Sankavaram¶ 38) where the vehicle backend services facility 80 is such a system, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram discloses a “computer program product containing executable code that when executed carries out the steps of the method according to claim 1.” (Sankavaram ¶ 39).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sankavaram in view of Pradhan et al., US Publication 2025/0108814 (hereinafter Pradhan).
Regarding claim 3, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram does not appear to explicitly disclose “restricting the functionality of the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) and/or with reference to the failure cause determined with reference to the comparison.”
However, Pradhan discloses a vehicle diagnostic system including the step of “restricting the functionality of the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) and/or with reference to the failure cause determined with reference to the comparison” (Pradhan ¶ 56) by disabling the component affected by the determined fault.
Sankavaram and Pradhan are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle diagnostic tools.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sankavaram and Pradhan before him or her to modify the fault detection of Sankavaram to include the component disablement of Pradhan.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that disabling faulting equipment would result in a safer vehicle.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sankavaram in view of Automata et al., US Patent 12,415,525 (hereinafter Automata).
Regarding claim 4, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram discloses “forming, with reference to the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3), one or more part-quantities of the production data, utilization data, and/or fault reports pertaining to the reference vehicles” (Sankavaram ¶¶ 43-45) where the historical data of the “plurality of other vehicles, such as a fleet of vehicles having a common OEM” includes the fault reports pertaining to those vehicles.
Sankavaram does not appear to explicitly disclose determining, with reference to the part-quantity or quantities, the failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the comparison.
However, Automata discloses a vehicle diagnostic tool including the step of “determining, with reference to the part-quantity or quantities, the failure cause for the fault report pertaining to the manufactured vehicle (3) with reference to the comparison” (Automata col. 5, ll. 21-52) by considering the number of parts downstream of the component that may be affected when identifying a fault.
Sankavaram and Automata are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle diagnostic tools.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sankavaram and Automata before him or her to modify the determination of linked system faults of Sankavaram (¶ 31) to include the use of the quantity of parts when determining faults of Automata.
The motivation for doing so would have been that such calculations “improve automative diagnostic work flows and efficiency.” (Automata col. 5, ll. 53-55).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sankavaram in view of Swearingen et al., US Publication 2022/0398871 (hereinafter Swearingen).
Regarding claim 6, Sankavaram discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Sankavaram does not appear to explicitly disclose “eliminating, with reference to the failure cause determined, the fault in the manufactured vehicle (3).”
However, Swearingen discloses a vehicle diagnostic tool for determining part failures including the step of “eliminating, with reference to the failure cause determined, the fault in the manufactured vehicle (3)” (Swearingen ¶ 4) by performing the repair.
Sankavaram and Swearingen are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle diagnostic tools.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sankavaram and Swearingen before him or her to modify the process of Sankavaram to include the performance of the repair of Swearingen.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that performing the repair would result in a safer vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Chinnadurai et al., US Publication 2008/0004764, System and method for collecting vehicle diagnostic data.
Chen et al., US Publication 2014/0188329, System and method for analyzing vehicle faults over a range of vehicles.
Richter et al., US Publication 2017/0039785, System and method for determining the cause of a vehicle fault.
Straub et al., US Publication 2022/0068046, System and method for comparing real world vehicle part tolerance data with production data related to the part tolerance.
Howard, US Publication 2022/0245971, System and method for detecting vehicle faults.
Keller et al., US Publication 2022/0388689, System and method for diagnosing vehicle faults.
Mishra et al., US Publication 2023/0133248, System and method for recording vehicle sensor data to generate vehicle records.
Thoele et al., US Publication 2023/0153766, System and method for comparing fault data from a plurality of vehicles to determine a particular vehicle’s repairability.
Kumar et al., US Patent 11,062,536, System and method for performing statistical analysis on vehicle fault data.
Bagschik et al., US Patent 11,351,995, System and method for generating a model of vehicle fault data.
Covington, US Patent 11,527,110, System and method for generating vehicle health records.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662