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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a response filed on 6/23/2026.
2. This is a final Office Action on the merits. Claims 2-21 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
3. This application is a continuation application of US Pat. 10984004, US Pat. 12229149, and US Pat.11755593B2 with a priority date of 7/29/2015.
Response
4. Examiner submits that cited prior art of Rogers et al. (US Pub 20110153151 A1), in view of Merg et al (US 20130110344 A1), and in view of Merg (US Pub 20140207771 A1) already suggested applicant’s claimed concept of displaying to a client a work procedure for a client’s vehicle (including additional required tasks/parts).
Applicant argues (see REMARKS pg. 9, first para. – 6/23/2025) that Roger’151 is not the same as claimed features.“However, the Applicant respectfully submits that this is simply not the same as the features of claim 2 identified above. As best understood by the Applicant, the Office Action is reading the server 180 as the recited client device and the local shop server 170 as the recited remote server. However, the cited portions of Rogers do not state that the server 180 requests a service procedure from the local shop server 170. In addition, the cited portions of Rogers do not state that the server 180 provides vehicle usage information for a vehicle to the local shop server 170. Further, the cited portions of Rogers do not state that the server 180 receives from the local shop server 170 a supplemented service procedure, much less a supplemented service procedure including supplemental service information determined based on a failure trend identified based on the vehicle usage information. The Applicant notes that the Office Action contains no citation to Rogers as allegedly disclosing the latter set of features at all”.
The examiner submits that applicant claims similar concept of electronic communication of Rogers et al. (note that Rogers et al drawings are also their disclosures).
Independent claims 2, and 12, and 21 require a method, its implemented client device (i.e., a very well-known communication device), and a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium having similar limitations – these claims teach a very common communication concept to exchange electronic signals between a client and a remote server/technician) – these claimed tasks are suggested by cited art.
Applicant argues that: cited art (in Office Action 4/24/2026) do not teach or suggest at least the following features recited in independent claim 2; the examiner disagrees:
- requesting (e.g., representing with arrows), by a client device from a remote server, a service procedure including procedural steps for an intent of use: servicing a vehicle (e.g., a two-way communication of a process between two involved parties representing a high level of exchanging communications - examiner’s position: Rogers, Fig, 4 and Fig.6 ref. 180)
-providing related data, by the client device to the remote server, vehicle usage
information for the vehicle (e.g., providing related info., examiner’s position: Rogers, Figs.4,6)
- receiving, by the client device from the remote server, a supplemented service procedure, wherein the supplemented service procedure includes a piece of supplemental service information to supplement a particular procedural step of the service procedure (e.g., receiving information (including extra info) for related tasks), wherein the supplemental service information is determined based on a failure trend (a very common use of two-way communications between involved parties e.g., routine oil change or brake pads wear and tear or battery’s age etc) identified based on the vehicle usage mileage/information.
The claimed limitations are merely exchanging electronic communications (taught by Rogers) between different parties.
Related suggestions for above actions/limitations were provided (Office Action 4/24/26) (note that prior art provided drawings are also used to indicate prior suggestions/disclosures for one of ordinary skill in the art).
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.
5. Claims 2-8, 11-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US Pub 20110153151 A1), in view of Merg et al (US 20130110344 A1 – hereafter “Merg’344”) in view of Merg (US Pub 20140207771 A1 – hereafter “Merge’771”).
A. Per independent claim 2: Rogers suggests a method, a server, and an associated computer readable medium to exchange messages, comprising features:
Receiving a request (by a REMOTE BROWSER/client for a service procedure including procedural steps for servicing a vehicle (see Rogers, FIG.6, ref. 180);
Supplementing/adding a piece of supplemental service information to supplement a particular procedural step of the service procedure (e.g., a communication “over modem” between a LOCAL SHOP SERVER 170 and a REMOTE CLIENT 180, see Rogers, Fig. 6);
Providing, by the client device 180 to the server 170, vehicle usage information of the vehicle (e.g., current mileage, the vehicle is often using on level grounds or on mountainous areas, how heavy is a “regular load” (see a communication is exchanged between ref. 170, and ref. 180).
providing, by the LOCAL SHOP SERVER 170 to the client device (A REMOTE BROWER 180), the supplemented service (e.g., “a delivery” by ground/air: a supplemental service, see Rogers para. [0047]) procedure in response to the request.
Using a failure trend to identify the supplemental service procedure based on the received vehicle usage information (e.g., a current client’s odometer high mileage).
Rogers fails to disclose a trigger event; however, this is merely a general :announcement” when receiving a new signal (e.g., receiving an electronic message/email/SMS/text) associated with the procedural step of the service procedure, wherein the client’s screen/monitor displays the supplemental service information: “a Repair Order” (e.g., about adding extra coolant water, see Merg’771 Figs. 16-17 ref. 622 ); and Merg’771 Fig. 1 already suggests an interaction between a client 114 and a server 110 (FIG. 1 teaches that a communication encompassing a procedure of “a trigger event” from a COORDINATOR DPM 110) wherein the client device 114 displays the piece of supplemental service information in response to detecting an occurrence of the trigger event (via RO database 106) during performance of the particular procedural step of the service procedure.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Merg’771 para. [0090] “Component or system mapping CRPI 318 can comprise program instructions that are executable to map a component of the repairable item or a symptom exhibited by the repairable item to a real-fix tip”.
And Merg’771 para. [0071]: “ In that regard, fix-generator DPM 108 or coordinator DPM 110, acting as a client, can execute those applications to carry out the functions described herein as being performed by fix-generator DPM 108 or coordinator DPM 110, respectively. As an example, RO (Repair Order) collector DPM 104 or RO distributor DPM 112 can be configured as the server”; therefore, Merg’771 suggests a triggering action as claim
Merg’771 fails to expressly disclose “in response to”; however, Merg’344 suggests this detecting “broad” occurrence of the trigger/alert/warning event during performance (e.g., “Remote alert device 175 is adapted to receive alerts from a client or server 150 and to present received alerts to a user of remote alert device 175. Server 150 may generate an alert in response to receiving a data-request message from client 130. Server 150 may transmit the alert to active clients (e.g., active clients that did not request the vehicle data) to notify users of those active clients that server 150 has received a request for CVD. Server 150 may also transmit the alert to remote alert device 175 to provide the same notice to a user of remote alert device 175” see Merg’344, para. [0033]) of the particular procedural step of the service procedure (e.g., “supplemental service” can be adding extra coolant water or changing worn-out brake pads (due to a dash board light ON, see Merg’771 claim 4, Fig. 10 ref. 1016, Fig. 11 refs. 1108, and 1112, Figure 14 providing extra blank spaces for comments; see also Merg’771 ‘s updating additional service Fig. 6 ref. 626, and Fig. 8 ref. 802); these are common exchanged information about a vehicle between a client and a shop (see also Merg’344 para. [0111]).
It 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 to implement Rogers with Merge’771 and with Merge’344 to send a trigger signal to a client for a clear exchanged communication for a repair service by exchanging extra information between related parties as suggested by Merg’344 (e.g. need “User Input” in FIG. 16)
B. Per independent claims 12, and 21; Since the structural device (see Merg’771 claim 13), and computer-readable medium (see Merg’771 claim 19) require similar limitations as in independent claim 1; they are also rejected based on obviousness with similar rationales and references set forth.
C. Per dependent claims 3, and 13: A vehicle’s usage information is provided (e.g., including a current mileage of the vehicle, see Merg’771 para [0171], or see Merg’344 para [0127]).
D. Per dependent claims 4, and 14: Merg’344 also suggests about a geographical region of use of the vehicle (e.g., a GPS location of client 500, see Merg’344 para. [0130]).
E. Per dependent claims 6, and 16: Merg’344 also suggests about practicing a preventive maintenance (e.g., changing a new battery after each 3 yrs period for reliability issues, or performing a preventive maintenance as recommended from a manufacturer, see Merg’771 para. [0066]-[0067]).
F. Per dependent claims 8, and 18: Merg’363 also suggests that the supplemental service information includes a warning for a specific vehicle component predicted to fail,(e.g., an engine overheat light turns ON from the vehicle’s dash-board - e.g., while changing oil for a car, the technician discovers that a brake light is ON; therefore a supplemental action would be made: It the brake pads are excessively worn, it can lead to a drop in brake fluid levels, triggering the brake light. Some vehicles have a specific warning light for worn brake pads.
PNG
media_image2.png
493
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
G. Per dependent claims 11, and 20: Merg’771 also suggests that the trigger event includes an action to send a communication signal to a client, which is a movement made by a
Technician (see Merg’771, Fig. 1 suggests an interaction between a client 114 and a server 110),
6. Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, in view of Merg’344 in view of hereafter “Merge’771, and in view of Merg (US Pub. 20150324363 A1 hereafter Merg’363),
A. Per dependent claims 5, and 15: Merg’344 also suggests about the failure trend/problem based on recommended services identified by the manufacturer of the vehicle (e.g., performing a preventive maintenance as recommended from a manufacturer, see Merg’771 para. [0066]-[0067]).(or “The vehicle-usage indicator 430 on original RO 400 can indicate a driven distance using kilometers or some other units as an alternative or in addition to vehicle mileage data” see also a mileage measurement suggested by Merge (US 20150324363 A1) para. [0058])
It 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 to combine Rogers, Merge’771, and Merge’344 with Merge’363 to suggest about using a practical odometer measurement to check a vehicle service due for a safe driving condition since this indication from an odometer have been widely available.
B. Per dependent claims 7, and 17: Merg’363 also suggests that the failure trend /”repeating malfunction” is identified based on searching repair orders based on the vehicle usage information (e.g., a record/history shows similar failure(s) with the same car – “over-heat” problem – see Merg’363, claim 4).
7. Claims 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. , in view of Merg’344, in view of hereafter “Merge’771, and in view of Goodman (US Pat. 9890618 B1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Rogers et al. , in view of Merg’344, in view Merge’771 fail to disclose about displaying the piece of supplemental service information includes an exploded component view of a system; however, Goodman suggests an exploded component of a system ( see Goodman Fig. 12c and col. 54 lines 31-37) from this zooming ability, related parties could see that the exploded component view identifies the failure trend: e.g., a brake pad worn because of aging affecting a component of the system/vehicle’s operation).
It 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 to combine Rogers, Merge’771, and Merge’344 with Goodman to inspect details of a component using on a vehicle for a safety operation of the vehicle.
Conclusion
8. Claims 2-21 are rejected. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights