CTNF 19/106,178 CTNF 98760 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This office action is in response to the patent application filed on February 24, 2025. Claims 16-35 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. DE 10 2022 124 470.9 , filed on September 23, 2022. 23-19 AIA Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action the part of the applicant is required at this time. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The examiner thanks the applicant for adding the ISO 14229-1 text to the record. However, a portion of the document is unreadable due to the pixelization. It is requested the applicant upload a more clear version of the NPL upon the next filing. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 27 recites wherein the second cyclic heartbeat signal is more indicative of the remaining diagnosis session time. This will be interpreted in view of the specification page 4 which states “For example, the diagnosis session time can depend on a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle”. Therefore a signal indicative of the remaining diagnosis time will be interpreted as any signal related to when the vehicle may end the diagnostic session. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 27 recites …more indicative… which would requires a point of comparison that is not in the claim limitation. It is recommended to remove the “more”. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 16-17, 21, & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by ISO 14229 3 rd edition 2020-02, hereafter ISO . Regarding Claim 16, ISO discloses A method for controlling a diagnosis session of a vehicle, comprising (ISO Section 10.2.1, Examiner Note: ISO discloses a diagnostic control session) : sending, to a server, a readiness signal indicative of a readiness for the diagnosis session (ISO Fig. 25 & table 232, Examiner Note: ISO discloses 1 ReadDataByPeriodicIdentifier request message (i.e. readiness signal) which is sent to a server on step 1) ; at least one of receiving, from the server, a first cyclic heartbeat signal or sending, to the server, a second cyclic heartbeat signal (ISO Fig. 25 & table 232, Examiner Note: ISO discloses 4 ReadDataByPeriodicIdentifier periodic response message from the server to the client application (i.e. first cyclical heartbeat). ISO further discloses 6 ReadDataByPeriodicIdentifier periodic data response message to the server from the client application (i.e. second cyclical heartbeat)) ; and initializing the diagnosis session based on the first cyclic heartbeat signal or the second cyclic heartbeat signal (ISO section 10.2.1, Examiner Note: ISO discloses the diagnostic session starting when the client identifier sends to the server) . Regarding Claim 17, ISO discloses The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein: the first cyclic heartbeat signal and the second cyclic heartbeat signal are indicative of a parameter of the diagnosis session (ISO Section 11.5, Examiner Note: ISO discloses various parameters which are a part of ReadDataByPeriodicIdentifier). Regarding Claim 21, ISO discloses The method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: changing a firewall setting of a terminal associated with the vehicle during a performance of the diagnosis session (ISO Section 10.4, Examiner Note: ISO discloses security (i.e. firewall) settings being changed during a diagnostic session) . Regarding Claim 31, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 16, and it has been determined that claim 31 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 16; Therefore, claim 31 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 16 . Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISO as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20230318823 A1 , to Geng et al., hereafter Geng . Regarding Claim 20, as shown above, ISO discloses The method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: However, ISO does not specifically disclose further comprising ending the diagnosis session if the first cyclic heartbeat signal cannot be received. Geng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising ending the diagnosis session if the first cyclic heartbeat signal cannot be received (Geng [0325] & Fig. 7A-7B, Examiner Note: Geng teaches when the key management system does not receive a security heartbeat message (i.e. first cyclic heartbeat signal) from the diagnostic device (i.e. server), it renders the key ineffective, thereby ending the diagnostic session). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO with the ending diagnosis session of Geng in order to prevent unauthorized peoples from affecting the driving security of the vehicle (Geng [0004]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISO as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2022/0024339 A1 , to Jung et al., hereafter Jung . Regarding Claim 22, ISO discloses The method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: However, ISO does not specifically disclose determining a status of the vehicle; and ending the diagnosis session based on the determined status of the vehicle. Jung, directed to the same problem, teaches determining a status of the vehicle; and ending the diagnosis session based on the determined status of the vehicle (Jung [0051] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Jung teaches that if the ICCB (in-cable control box), which used for monitoring electrical power applied to the vehicle battery, is cut off (i.e. status of vehicle), S18, diagnosis mode is released (i.e. ended based on status of vehicle) and it is switched to charging mode) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO with the determining vehicle status of Jung in order to recognize sooner when a failure has occurred (Jung [0012]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 23, 28-30, & 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISO as applied to claim s 16 & 31 above, and further in view of US 6,330,499 B1 , to Chou et al., hereafter Chou . Regarding Claim 23, as shown above, ISO discloses The method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: However, ISO does not specifically disclose obtaining at least one criterion of a presence of a user of the vehicle or obtaining a consent of the user to initialize the diagnosis session, wherein the diagnosis session can only be initialized if at least one of the criteria has been obtained . Chou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining at least one criterion of a presence of a user of the vehicle or obtaining a consent of the user to initialize the diagnosis session, wherein the diagnosis session can only be initialized if at least one of the criteria has been obtained (Chou Col. 9 Rows 31-39, Examiner Note: Chou teaches the first step in a diagnostic session is initiated by the driver wherein this is the only way to initialize the diagnostic session for this event flow). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO with the driver initiation of Chou in order to better communicate malfunctions to the driver prior to irreparable damage (Chou Col. 1 Rows 18-30). Regarding Claim 28, ISO discloses ...performing the method as claimed in claim 16… However, ISO does not specifically disclose A non-transitory computer storage medium having a computer program for… when the computer program runs on a computer, a processor, or a programmable hardware component. Chou teaches A non-transitory computer storage medium having a computer program for… when the computer program runs on a computer, a processor, or a programmable hardware component (Chou Col. 2 Rows 55-63 & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Chou teaches a processor and memory of which the method runs) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO with the hardware of Chou in order to better perform the method of communicating malfunctions to the driver prior to irreparable damage (Chou Col. 1 Rows 18-30). Regarding Claim 29, ISO discloses … the method as claimed in claim 16. However ISO does not specifically disclose A device for controlling a diagnosis session of a vehicle, comprising: an interface for communication with a server or a vehicle terminal; and a data processing circuit, which is designed to perform… Chou teaches A device for controlling a diagnosis session of a vehicle, comprising: an interface for communication with a server or a vehicle terminal (Chou Col. 5 Rows 61-67, Examiner Note: Chou teaches the diagnostic server being able to interact with a vehicle client (i.e. vehicle terminal) and call-center (i.e. interface for communication)) ; and a data processing circuit, which is designed to perform (Chou Col. 2 Rows 55-63 & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Chou teaches a processor and memory of which the method runs) … Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO with the hardware of Chou in order to better perform the method of communicating malfunctions to the driver prior to irreparable damage (Chou Col. 1 Rows 18-30). Regarding Claim 30, ISO in view of Chou teaches …a device as claimed in claim 29. However, the modification does not specifically teach A vehicle having… Chou further teaches A vehicle having (Chou Col. 2 Rows 55-83 & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Chou teaches the hardware being in-vehicle) … Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO in further view of Chou with the hardware of Chou in order to better perform the method of communicating malfunctions to the driver prior to irreparable damage (Chou Col. 1 Rows 18-30). Regarding Claim 34, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 28, and it has been determined that claim 34 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 28; Therefore, claim 34 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 28. Regarding Claim 35, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 29, and it has been determined that claim 35 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 29; Therefore, claim 35 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 29 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISO as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of CN 105530291 A, to Liu et al., hereafter Liu . Regarding Claim 24, ISO discloses The method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising: However, ISO does not specifically disclose obtaining at least one of surroundings information or position information; and wherein the second cyclic heartbeat signal is further indicative of at least one of the obtained surroundings information or the obtained position information. Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining at least one of surroundings information or position information; and wherein the second cyclic heartbeat signal is further indicative of at least one of the obtained surroundings information or the obtained position information (Liu Background Technology section, Examiner Note: Liu teaches a background server obtaining position information (i.e. second cyclic heartbeat signal) of each vehicle for a diagnosis device) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the diagnosis standard of ISO with the server obtaining position information of Liu in order to use auto diagnosing for fault diagnosis (Liu Background Technology Section) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 25-27 & 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoffman, Benjamin J ( US 2016/0197932 A1 ) discloses a method for updating, protecting, diagnosing, or otherwise managing a server module or device included on a vehicle. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30. 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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 T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/106,178 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights