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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment dated July 27, 2026. Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are pending. Claims 15-16 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are new.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 27, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby et al., U.S. Patent 12,061,971 B2 (2024) in view of Krishnamurthy et al., U.S. Patent 11,704,945 B2 (2023).
As to claim 1, Bielby et al. discloses a system for estimating a lifetime of a component of a vehicle, the system comprising:
one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (Column 4, Lines 21-32); and
a processing device in communication with the one or more sensors (Column 6, Lines 24-27), wherein the processing device is configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to perform operations comprising:
acquiring sensor data from the one or more sensors for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters indicative of one or more factors affecting the lifetime of the component of the vehicle (Column 25, Lines 35-43);
determining, using the sensor data and a lifetime model, accumulated exposure of the component to the one or more factors (Column 25, Lines 44-55); and
determining, using the accumulated exposure of the component, to the one or more factors, a remaining lifetime of the component (Column 27, Lines 7-29, Column 7, Lines 35-46).
Bielby et al. does not disclose a mission route, as claimed.
Krishnamurthy et al. discloses
generating a mission route for the vehicle, the mission route capable of being completed by the vehicle within the remaining lifetime of the component (Column 11, Lines 47-65); and
controlling operation of the vehicle along at least a portion of the mission route (Column 11, Lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system, as disclosed by Bielby et al., with the use of a mission route, as claimed, as disclosed by Krishnamurthy et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the vehicle to travel to a location during the life of the component and allow for safer operation while the component is functioning in the vehicle.
As to claim 2, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Column 5, Lines 55-58, Figure 2).
As to claim 3, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the vehicle is a semi-autonomous vehicle or a non- autonomous vehicle (Column 5, Lines 55-58, Figure 2, Column 25, Lines 44-55).
As to claim 4, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a thermostat to measure temperature (Column 4, Lines 21-32).
As to claim 5, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a vibration sensor to measure vehicle vibration (Column 9, Lines 15-21, Column 4, Lines 21-32).
As to claim 8, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the one or more parameters include temperature, vehicle vibration, vehicle mileage, and/or humidity (Column 4, Lines 21-32, vibration sensors).
As to claim 9, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the component includes at least one of a camera, a vehicle sensor, light detection and ranging (LiDAR), and/or radio detection and ranging (RADAR) (Column 6, Lines 29-58).
As to claim 10, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the one or more sensors are configured to generate the sensor data in real-time (Column 6, Lines 43-58).
As to claim 11, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the one or more sensors are configured to generate the sensor data in predetermined time intervals (Column 9, Line 60 – Column 10, Line 14).
As to claim 12, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the component is an electric device associated with the vehicle (Column 4, Lines 21-32, Column 6, Lines 29-42).
As to claim 13, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the operations comprise generating an alert via a user interface when the determined remaining lifetime of the component is below a lifetime threshold (Column 25, Lines 44-55, Column 27, Lines 7-14).
As to claim 14, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein if the determined remaining lifetime of the component is below a lifetime threshold, the operations comprise scheduling a maintenance event to replace or repair the component (Column 6, Line 59 – Column 7, Line 4, Column 7, Line 60 – Column 8, Line 7, Column 8, Lines 47-49).
As to claim 17, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the lifetime model is a prediction model (Column 13, Lines 39-64).
As to claim 18, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the operations comprise electronically storing the sensor data in a database, the sensor data indicative of environmental and operational standards in which the component was used with the vehicle (Column 13, Lines 31-64).
As to claim 19, Bielby et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for estimating a lifetime of a component of a vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
acquiring sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle for one or more parameters, the one or more parameters indicative of one or more factors affecting a lifetime of a component of the vehicle (Column 25, Lines 35-43); and
executing instructions stored in a memory with a processing device in communication with the one or more sensors to perform operations comprising:
determining, using the sensor data and a lifetime model, accumulated exposure of the component to the one or more factors (Column 25, Lines 44-55); and
determining, using the accumulated exposure of the component to the one or more factors, a remaining lifetime of the component (Column 27, Lines 7-29, Column 7, Lines 35-46).
Bielby et al. does not disclose a mission route, as claimed.
Krishnamurthy et al. discloses
generating a mission route for the vehicle, the mission route capable of being completed by the vehicle within the remaining lifetime of the component (Column 11, Lines 47-65); and
controlling operation of the vehicle along at least a portion of the mission route (Column 11, Lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, as disclosed by Bielby et al., with the use of a mission route, as claimed, as disclosed by Krishnamurthy et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the vehicle to travel to a location during the life of the component and allow for safer operation while the component is functioning in the vehicle.
As to claim 20, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the method of claim 19.
Bielby et al. further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a thermostat to measure temperature, a vibration sensor to measure vehicle vibration, an odometer to measure vehicle mileage, and/or a humidity sensor to measure humidity (Column 4, Lines 21-32).
As to claim 21, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1.
As to claim 22, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the method of claim 19.
Krishnamurthy et al. further discloses wherein the mission route is a non-maintenance mission route (repair, Column 11, Lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, as disclosed by Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., with the use of a mission route that is non-maintenance, as claimed, as disclosed by Krishnamurthy et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the vehicle to travel to a location for repairs, not maintenance, and allow for safer operation while the component is functioning in the vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby et al., U.S. Patent 12,061,971 B2 (2024) as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., U.S. Patent 11,704,945 B2 (2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al., U.S. Patent 11,521,438 B2 (2022).
As to claim 6, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1. Bielby et al. further discloses mileage for the vehicle (Column 26, Lines 20-30). Bielby et al. does not disclose an odometer to measure the vehicle mileage, as claimed.
Kim et al. discloses an odometer to measure the vehicle mileage (Column 31, Lines 22-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of claim 1, as disclosed by Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., with the use of an odometer, as claimed, as disclosed by Kim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to measure the distance traveled using a standard feature in most road vehicles, allowing a measure of how far the vehicle has traveled.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby et al., U.S. Patent 12,061,971 B2 (2024), as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., U.S. Patent 11,704,945 B2 (2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conklin, U.S. Patent 12,367,715 B2 (2025).
As to claim 7, Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., discloses the system of claim 1. Bielby et al. does not disclose a humidity sensor, as claimed.
Conklin discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a humidity sensor to measure humidity (Column 11, Lines 24-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of claim 1, as disclosed by Bielby et al., as modified by Krishnamurthy et al., with the use of a humidity sensor, as claimed, as disclosed by Conklin, with a reasonable expectation of success, to measure the humidity using a device for that purpose, allowing a measure of how humid the driving conditions were to impact the longevity of the component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued the amendments dated July 27, 2026 distinguished Bielby et al. in disclosing a mission route, as claimed. Newly cited reference Krishnamurthy et al. discloses the mission route where the repair shop destination is within the distance that the vehicle can travel during the lifetime of the component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
