DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0001], the application number 17/748740 is recited. This application has since become Patent Number 12,293,616. The patent number should be include in P[0001] to improve the quality of the document.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites the acronym/abbreviation ECU. The full wording of the acronym/abbreviation should be included to clearly identify the element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 1 thru 20 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the corresponding vehicle component" in lines 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this is the same as the “vehicle scan tool function relevant to a vehicle component” in lines 6 and 7. If these are the same, the examiner suggests changing the word “relevant” to “corresponding” in line 6.
Claim 8 recites “a selectable link” in line 3, while “a selectable link” is earlier recited in line 3. It is unclear if this is a new selectable link, or the same selectable link. The examiner assumes it is the same selectable link for continued examination.
Claim 14 recites “a component-to-function mapping” in line 3, while “a component-to-function mapping” is earlier recited in line 2. It is unclear if this is a new component-to-function mapping, or the same component-to-function mapping. The examiner assumes it is the same component-to-function mapping for continued examination.
Claim 19 recites “a computing device” in line 4, while “A computing device” is earlier recited in line 1. It is unclear if this is a new computing device, or the same computing device. The examiner assumes it is the same computing device for continued examination.
Claim 19 recites “a non-transitory computer readable memory” in lines 4 and 5, while “a non-transitory computer readable memory” is earlier recited in lines 1 and 2. It is unclear if this is a new non-transitory computer readable memory, or the same non-transitory computer readable memory. The examiner assumes it is the same non-transitory computer readable memory for continued examination.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the corresponding vehicle component" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this is the same as the “vehicle scan tool function relevant to a vehicle component” in lines 8 and 9. If these are the same, the examiner suggests changing the word “relevant” to “corresponding” in line 8.
Claim 20 recites “a computing device” in line 4, while “a computing device” is earlier recited in line 2. It is unclear if this is a new computing device, or the same computing device. The examiner assumes it is the same computing device for continued examination.
Claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer readable memory” in lines 4 and 5, while “a non-transitory computer readable memory” is earlier recited in line 1. It is unclear if this is a new non-transitory computer readable memory, or the same non-transitory computer readable memory. The examiner assumes it is the same non-transitory computer readable memory for continued examination.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the corresponding vehicle component" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this is the same as the “vehicle scan tool function relevant to a vehicle component” in lines 8 and 9. If these are the same, the examiner suggests changing the word “relevant” to “corresponding” in line 8.
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 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.
Claims 1 thru 5, 7, 8, 11 thru 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cancilla et al Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0101074 A1 in view of Thorley et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0177757 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20 Cancilla et al teach the claimed method, methods for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information (Figures 1, 2A, 2B), the claimed computing device comprising one or more processors and computer readable medium having instructions executable of the processors, a system for and the claimed computing device, a processor (claims 26 and 27) being part of the system that dynamically adjusts searches for diagnostic information (title) comprising a diagnostic device (abstract), and the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions, a computer readable medium having stored instructions for causing a processor to perform steps of the method (claims 26 and 27), comprising:
the claimed receiving vehicle service content by a computing device, “FIG. 2B At Step 200, the diagnostic device receives a first set of search criteria related to a problem with a vehicle.” P[0050], “The diagnostic device may be any type of device, such as a handheld device. For example, the vehicle repair technician might use a personal digital assistant ("PDA") or other such handheld device as the diagnostic device. Alternatively, the diagnostic device might not be a handheld device but rather might be a desktop computer, a laptop computer or some other type of diagnostic equipment.” P[0015], the diagnostic device equates to the claimed computing device, and “the vehicle repair technician might enter a first search string of "2002 Corvette No Start". The four different words for this search string (e.g., "2002", "Corvette", "No" and "Start") would generally constitute the search criteria for the first search.” P[0023];
the claimed identifying a vehicle scan tool function relevant to a vehicle component of the plurality of vehicle components, “At Step 202, the diagnostic device performs a first search using the first set of search criteria, wherein the first search returns an ordered list of results to the first search.” (P[0050] and Figure 2A), and the diagnostic device can display the results of the search for each entry in the list, the diagnostic device might only display part of the entry, then the entry (similar to a hyperlink) can be selected in order to view the full entry P[0025], the list of results equate to the claimed vehicle scan tool function, the results for the list equate to the claimed vehicle component of the plurality of vehicle components (see various vehicle parts that are searched for getting results P[0034] thru P[0036]);
the claimed modifying the service content to include a selectable option corresponding to the vehicle component, the full view of the selected entry is viewed after the displayed part of the entry is selected (the selectable entry is similar to a hyperlink) P[0025], and “after running the first search, the diagnostic device can receive an ordered list of results to the first search and then display them on the diagnostic device. The user might then select one or more of the results in the list to be viewed on the device. For example, the list might only show a partial entry for each result, and the user might select a result in order to view the full entry.” P[0043];
the claimed selectable option is selectable to initialize a vehicle scan tool to perform the vehicle scan tool function related to relevant vehicle component, “the vehicle repair technician might enter a first search string of "2002 Corvette No Start". The four different words for this search string (e.g., "2002", "Corvette", "No" and "Start") would generally constitute the search criteria for the first search. While the vehicle repair technician might enter the search string directly, the vehicle repair technician might alternatively specify the search criteria in some other manner (e.g., selecting terms from a dropdown menu) and the diagnostic device might then combine the selected search criteria to form the search string.” P[0023], and “While the diagnostic device might supplement the search string based on a pattern with the first search string, the diagnostic device might also expand the first search string. For example, if the user enters "2002 Corvette No Start", then the diagnostic device might use the internal reference database to identify additional keywords related to "no start," which can then be added to the second search string. For instance, the internal reference database might associate "no start" with the keywords of "starter solenoid," "fuel injector," "battery," and "neutral safety switch." After retrieving these keywords, the diagnostic device can add them to the first search string in order to more efficiently focus the results on those possible causes to the no start problem.” P[0036]
the claimed providing the modified vehicle service content including the selectable option for display on the vehicle scan tool, “after running the first search, the diagnostic device can receive an ordered list of results to the first search and then display them on the diagnostic device” P[0043], “the diagnostic device displays the reordered list of results to the second search, as shown at Step 216” (P[0051] and Figure 2B), the entries from the list may be selectable similar to a hyperlink P[0025].
Cancilla et al do not explicitly teach the claimed selectable option can initialize a vehicle scan tool to perform the identified vehicle scan function on a vehicle related to the vehicle component, but the purpose of a vehicle diagnostic device would be to perform the check on the vehicle to find the problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect a diagnostic tool to perform a diagnosis of the vehicle. Additionally, Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed vehicle service content comprises a wiring diagram that illustrates a plurality of vehicle components, the claimed components are identified in the wiring diagram, and the claimed modified service content includes the wiring diagram.
Thorley et al teach,
the claimed vehicle service content comprises a wiring diagram that illustrates a plurality of vehicle components, “The method 1000 may begin in an operation 1002, the wireless device 400, at the processor 502, receives from the image sensor 501 of the wireless device 400, the image 444 of the wire loom 102 between the first vehicle component 110(1) and the second vehicle component 110(2) of the vehicle 100.” (P[0071] and Figure 10), “In an operation 1006, the processor 502 of the wireless device 400 may identify one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 based upon at least the image 444 or the position 442 of the wire loom 102, or both the image 444 and the position 442 of the wire loom 102.” (P[0074] and Figure 10), “In an operation 1008, the processor 502 may generate the interactive wiring diagram 700 based upon the identification of the wire loom 102. The interactive wiring diagram 700 may be generated to include the trace route 706, also generated by the processor 502. The trace route 706 may be a representation of one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 in a schematic format (similar to the schematic wiring diagram 300).” (P[0076] and Figure 10), and “In an operation 1010, the processor 502 is configured to display the interactive wiring diagram 700 on the display 402” (P[0077] and Figure 10);
the claimed components are identified in the wiring diagram, “The processor 502, upon identification of the wire loom 102 may obtain additional information regarding the wire loom 102 from the database 512. Such information may include, but is not limited to, an image of the wire loom 102, identifying characteristics of the wire loom 102 such as a number of the plurality of wires 202(1)-202(m), individual connection schemes for the plurality of wires 202(1)-202(m) to be used for generation of the trace route 706 as well as for the generation of the interactive wiring diagram 700, and surrounding environment of the wire loom 102, and the like, or combinations thereof. Further, such information may be used to include additional vehicle components, e.g., splices, connectors, ground points, etc., present in the wire loom 102 but not directly visible in the image 444. For example, FIGS. 7, 8, 9A, 9B, and 9C show the third vehicle component (as the third vehicle component image 702) present between the first vehicle component image 110(1)′ and the second vehicle component image 110(2)′, which third vehicle component was not visible to the technician in FIG. 1, and in fact may include a fault location (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8).” (P[0076] and Figure 10);
the claimed selectable option can initialize a vehicle scan tool to perform the identified vehicle scan function on a vehicle related to the vehicle component, “In an operation 1012, the processor 502 may receive an input specifying a starting point and an end point in the trace route 706 displayed on the display 402. Alternatively, the input received by the processor 502 may be on the interactive wiring diagram 700 instead of the trace route 706. For example, the technician may provide an input to select any point as the starting point on the wire loom image 102′ using the map point selection icon 704h. The map point selection icon 704h may be dragged and dropped on the interactive wiring diagram 700 and/or the trace route 706.” (P[0078] and Figure 10), “In the operation 1014, the processor 502, upon receiving the input, may show the viewer (i.e., the technician) an animation of the wire loom 102 on the display 402, represented by the wire loom image 102′ from the starting point to the end point” (P[0079] and Figure 10), and “In an operation 1016, the processor 502 may identify at least one fault location in one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 in the wire loom 102 based upon the animation as part of the display of the wire loom image 102′.” (P[0080] and Figure 10), the identification of the fault location equates to the claimed perform the identified vehicle scan function; and
the claimed modified service content includes the wiring diagram, “In an operation 1020, the processor 502 may provide audio output or visual output or both associated with the animation. For example, the processor 502 may provide audio cues to the technician indicating where the fault location might be present on the wire loom 102, as part of the animation, or independently. Such audio or visual outputs may be based on at least one of a location and color of the first vehicle component 110(1). For example, the first vehicle component 110(1) may be a green colored connector located near an alternator (not shown) of the vehicle 100, and the processor 502 may indicate to the technician that based upon the green color and the location of the first vehicle component 110(1), the first vehicle component 110(1) is an output port of the alternator.” (P[0082] and Figure 10).
The inclusion of the wiring diagram in the diagnostic evaluation of the vehicle of Thorley et al would be combined with Cancilla et al by performing fault diagnosis in Cancilla et al after the selection from the search results is made with the wiring diagram providing additional information for the technician to evaluate the fault. The performance of a diagnostic on the vehicle is the obvious next step to the determination of a list of possible problems with the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 2 Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed wiring diagram further illustrates a wiring schematic for a portion of the vehicle. Thorley et al teach, “The interactive wiring diagram 700 may be generated to include the trace route 706, also generated by the processor 502. The trace route 706 may be a representation of one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 in a schematic format (similar to the schematic wiring diagram 300).” P[0076]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 3 Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed portion of the vehicle includes at least one vehicle system, “The processor 502, upon identification of the wire loom 102 may obtain additional information regarding the wire loom 102 from the database 512. Such information may include, but is not limited to, an image of the wire loom 102, identifying characteristics of the wire loom 102 such as a number of the plurality of wires 202(1)-202(m), individual connection schemes for the plurality of wires 202(1)-202(m) to be used for generation of the trace route 706 as well as for the generation of the interactive wiring diagram 700, and surrounding environment of the wire loom 102, and the like, or combinations thereof. Further, such information may be used to include additional vehicle components, e.g., splices, connectors, ground points, etc., present in the wire loom 102 but not directly visible in the image 444. For example, FIGS. 7, 8, 9A, 9B, and 9C show the third vehicle component (as the third vehicle component image 702) present between the first vehicle component image 110(1)′ and the second vehicle component image 110(2)′, which third vehicle component was not visible to the technician in FIG. 1, and in fact may include a fault location (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8).” P[0076], the vehicle components equate to the claimed vehicle system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 4 Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed wiring diagram further illustrates wiring connecting the plurality of vehicle components. Thorley et al teach, “In an operation 1006, the processor 502 of the wireless device 400 may identify one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 based upon at least the image 444 or the position 442 of the wire loom 102, or both the image 444 and the position 442 of the wire loom 102.” (P[0074] and Figure 10), and “the processor 502 may determine the position 442 of the wire loom 102 with respect to the vehicle components 110(1)-110(n) and identify the wire loom 102 as a connection between specific ones of the vehicle components 110(1)-110(n), e.g., the first vehicle component 110(1) and the second vehicle component 110(2)” P[0075]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 5 Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed wiring diagram further illustrates locations of each of the plurality of vehicle components. Thorley et al teach, “In an operation 1006, the processor 502 of the wireless device 400 may identify one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 based upon at least the image 444 or the position 442 of the wire loom 102, or both the image 444 and the position 442 of the wire loom 102.” (P[0074] and Figure 10), and “the processor 502 may determine the position 442 of the wire loom 102 with respect to the vehicle components 110(1)-110(n) and identify the wire loom 102 as a connection between specific ones of the vehicle components 110(1)-110(n), e.g., the first vehicle component 110(1) and the second vehicle component 110(2)” P[0075]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 7 Cancilla et al teach the claimed vehicle scan tool includes a navigable menu for which the vehicle scan tool function is further selectable to initialize performance on the vehicle related to the corresponding vehicle component, “While the vehicle repair technician might enter the search string directly, the vehicle repair technician might alternatively specify the search criteria in some other manner (e.g., selecting terms from a dropdown menu) and the diagnostic device might then combine the selected search criteria to form the search string.” P[0023]. Cancilla et al do not explicitly teach the claimed selectable option can initialize a vehicle scan tool to perform the identified vehicle scan function on a vehicle related to the vehicle component, but the purpose of a vehicle diagnostic device would be to perform the check on the vehicle to find the problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect a diagnostic tool to perform a diagnosis of the vehicle.
Thorley et al teach, the claimed selectable to initialize performance on the vehicle related to the corresponding vehicle component, “In an operation 1012, the processor 502 may receive an input specifying a starting point and an end point in the trace route 706 displayed on the display 402. Alternatively, the input received by the processor 502 may be on the interactive wiring diagram 700 instead of the trace route 706. For example, the technician may provide an input to select any point as the starting point on the wire loom image 102′ using the map point selection icon 704h. The map point selection icon 704h may be dragged and dropped on the interactive wiring diagram 700 and/or the trace route 706.” (P[0078] and Figure 10), “In the operation 1014, the processor 502, upon receiving the input, may show the viewer (i.e., the technician) an animation of the wire loom 102 on the display 402, represented by the wire loom image 102′ from the starting point to the end point” (P[0079] and Figure 10), and “In an operation 1016, the processor 502 may identify at least one fault location in one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 in the wire loom 102 based upon the animation as part of the display of the wire loom image 102′.” (P[0080] and Figure 10), the identification of the fault location equates to the claimed perform the identified vehicle scan function. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 8 Cancilla et al teach the claimed vehicle service content includes textual vehicle service content, and modifying the vehicle service content comprises converting the associated context into the selectable link within the vehicle service content, “The vehicle repair technician can then select the entry (similar to a hyperlink) in order to view the full entry.” P[0025], and “The user might then select one or more of the results in the list to be viewed on the device.” P[0043].
Regarding claim 11 Cancilla et al teach the claimed selectable option comprises a selectable link and the claimed modifying the vehicle service content comprises converting the vehicle component into the selectable link, “The vehicle repair technician can then select the entry (similar to a hyperlink) in order to view the full entry.” P[0025], and “The user might then select one or more of the results in the list to be viewed on the device.” P[0043]. Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed converting is in the wiring diagram. Thorley et al teach, “In an operation 1012, the processor 502 may receive an input specifying a starting point and an end point in the trace route 706 displayed on the display 402. Alternatively, the input received by the processor 502 may be on the interactive wiring diagram 700 instead of the trace route 706. For example, the technician may provide an input to select any point as the starting point on the wire loom image 102′ using the map point selection icon 704h.” P[0078], the selected points could include the claimed vehicle component. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 12 Cancilla et al teach the claimed modifying the vehicle service content comprises including the selectable option in a dropdown menu proximate to the vehicle component, “While the vehicle repair technician might enter the search string directly, the vehicle repair technician might alternatively specify the search criteria in some other manner (e.g., selecting terms from a dropdown menu) and the diagnostic device might then combine the selected search criteria to form the search string.” P[0023]. Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed selectable options is proximate to the vehicle component in the wiring diagram. Thorley et al teach, “the display 402 allows the technician to input selection through a touch screen for interactive navigation and selection, wherein the technician can select a menu item by touching the selection on the screen 404” P[0030], “A “journey” along the wire loom 102 is then defined as the animation of the wire loom image 102′ showing how the wire loom 102 would be visible if a person were to move from the starting point to the end point on the wire loom 102, with one or more points in between the starting point and the end point on the wire loom 102 that may be viewed in detail to identify a fault location.” P[0066], and “the first vehicle component 110(1) may be a green colored connector located near an alternator (not shown) of the vehicle 100, and the processor 502 may indicate to the technician that based upon the green color and the location of the first vehicle component 110(1), the first vehicle component 110(1) is an output port of the alternator” P[0082]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the use of a wiring diagram in the diagnosis of vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 13 Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed vehicle scan tool function comprises a test function performable on the vehicle with the vehicle scan tool, but purpose of Cancilla et al is to have a diagnostic device receive a first set of search criteria related to a problem with a vehicle (abstract). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a diagnostic device would perform testing of the vehicle system(s). Thorley et al teach, “The present disclosure generally pertains to the field of testing devices for vehicles.” P[0001], and “In an operation 1016, the processor 502 may identify at least one fault location in one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202 in the wire loom 102 based upon the animation as part of the display of the wire loom image 102′. For example, the fault location may be displayed as shown in FIG. 8 at the third vehicle component image 702 (e.g., a splice in the wire loom 102). In one aspect, alternatively or additionally, such identification fault location may include an audio output or a visual output indicating the fault location in one or more of the plurality of wire connections 202. For example, the display 402 may show a graphic pointing to the fault location and output a beep to bring the technician attention to where in the wire loom 102 a fault may be possible. Accordingly, the technician may be able to diagnose the wire loom 102 at that particular fault location, rather than looking for each and every intermediate vehicle component between the first vehicle component 110(1) and the second vehicle component 110(2).” (P[0080] and Figure 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the diagnosis device for finding vehicle faults of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 14 Cancilla et al teach the claimed identifying the vehicle scan tool function based on a component-to-function mapping, “Once the diagnostic device determines a pattern in the search strings, the diagnostic device might alter the second search string based on the identified pattern. For example, in this case, the diagnostic device determines that the pattern is that both search strings are searching for problems related to the ignition system.” P[0033] and “once the diagnostic device determines that the user is querying problems related to the ignition system, the diagnostic device might use an internal reference database to find various key words corresponding to problems with the ignition system. Accessing the internal reference database with "ignition system" might return the keywords of "fuel injector," "battery," "neutral safety switch," and "starter solenoid."” P[0034], the ignition system problems related to the different parts equates to the claimed component-to-function mapping.
Regarding claim 15 Cancilla et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), the identifying of the vehicle scan tool function comprises:
the claimed identifying a vehicle system associated with the vehicle component, “the diagnostic device determines that the pattern is that both search strings are searching for problems related to the ignition system. Although the second search string includes "starter solenoid," which is one possible problem with the ignition system, this might not necessarily be the particular problem with the vehicle. That is, some problem other than the starter solenoid might be causing the vehicle not to start. In order to obtain results related to other possible causes of the ignition system problem with the vehicle, the diagnostic device might expand the second search string.” P[0033];
the claimed identifying a second vehicle component is part of the vehicle system, “While the diagnostic device might supplement the search string based on a pattern with the first search string, the diagnostic device might also expand the first search string. For example, if the user enters "2002 Corvette No Start", then the diagnostic device might use the internal reference database to identify additional keywords related to "no start," which can then be added to the second search string. For instance, the internal reference database might associate "no start" with the keywords of "starter solenoid," "fuel injector," "battery," and "neutral safety switch." After retrieving these keywords, the diagnostic device can add them to the first search string in order to more efficiently focus the results on those possible causes to the no start problem.” P[0036], the "starter solenoid," "fuel injector," "battery," and "neutral safety switch" equate to the first and second vehicle components; and
the claimed identifying the vehicle scan tool function based on the second vehicle component and a component-to-function mapping, “once the diagnostic device determines that the user is querying problems related to the ignition system, the diagnostic device might use an internal reference database to find various key words corresponding to problems with the ignition system. Accessing the internal reference database with "ignition system" might return the keywords of "fuel injector," "battery," "neutral safety switch," and "starter solenoid."” P[0034], the ignition system problems related to the different parts equates to the claimed component-to-function mapping.
Regarding claim 16 Cancilla et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), the identifying of the vehicle scan tool function comprises:
the claimed determining that the vehicle component is part of a vehicle system, “the diagnostic device determines that the pattern is that both search strings are searching for problems related to the ignition system. Although the second search string includes "starter solenoid," which is one possible problem with the ignition system, this might not necessarily be the particular problem with the vehicle.” P[0033]; and
the claimed identifying the vehicle scan tool function based on the vehicle system and a system-to-function mapping, “Once the diagnostic device determines a pattern in the search strings, the diagnostic device might alter the second search string based on the identified pattern. For example, in this case, the diagnostic device determines that the pattern is that both search strings are searching for problems related to the ignition system.” P[0033] and “once the diagnostic device determines that the user is querying problems related to the ignition system, the diagnostic device might use an internal reference database to find various key words corresponding to problems with the ignition system. Accessing the internal reference database with "ignition system" might return the keywords of "fuel injector," "battery," "neutral safety switch," and "starter solenoid."” P[0034], the ignition system problems (no start) equates to the claimed system-to-function mapping.
Regarding claim 17 Cancilla et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed identifying a configuration parameter for performance of the vehicle scan tool function within the vehicle service content, “Upon receiving the search criteria for the second search, the diagnostic device can retrieve from memory the search criteria for the first search. Then, the diagnostic device can compare the two sets of search criteria in order to identify a possible pattern in the searches performed by the vehicle repair technician.” P[0028], and “Once the diagnostic device determines a pattern in the search strings, the diagnostic device might alter the second search string based on the identified pattern. For example, in this case, the diagnostic device determines that the pattern is that both search strings are searching for problems related to the ignition system. Although the second search string includes "starter solenoid," which is one possible problem with the ignition system, this might not necessarily be the particular problem with the vehicle. That is, some problem other than the starter solenoid might be causing the vehicle not to start.” P[0033]; and
the claimed modifying the vehicle service content to include the configuration parameter with the selectable option, “once the diagnostic device determines that the user is querying problems related to the ignition system, the diagnostic device might use an internal reference database to find various key words corresponding to problems with the ignition system” P[0034], when a new search is completed, then the system displays the results for selection by the technician P[0025].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cancilla et al Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0101074 A1 and Thorley et al Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0177757 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fish et al Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0314627 A1.
Regarding claim 6 Cancilla et al do not teach the claimed plurality of vehicle components comprises a plurality of ECUs and at least one vehicle communication link. Thorley et al teach the claimed vehicle communication link, “the wireless device 400 includes the camera 406 having the image sensor 501 (e.g., a charge coupled device (CCD)), a processor 502, the display 402, an input device in the form of a touchscreen and/or a keypad 504, a memory 508, and the database 512, and a wireless communication circuit 538” (P[0038] and Figure 5). Thorley et al do not teach explicitly teach the claimed plurality of ECUs, but do teach “The animation may proceed from displaying the first vehicle component image 110(1)′ to the third vehicle component image 702 to the second vehicle component image 110(2)′.” P[0079]. The first, second and third vehicle components may be included as the claimed plurality of ECUs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al with the wiring diagram including multiple components of Thorley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide comfortable viewing of the wiring diagram and accurate identification of failure components in the actual wiring diagram (Thorley et al P[0004]).
Fish et al teach the claimed plurality of ECUs, “Automotive mechanics and service professionals use a wide range of digital diagnostic tools to interface with the ECUs in vehicles both to diagnose issues with the vehicles” P[0004], and “In the system 100, the diagnostic tools 124 and 144 are computing devices that include internal processors, memories, user input/output devices, data ports for communication with in-vehicle ECUs, and network interface devices for communication with the diagnostic analysis server 104 through the network 132.’ P[0039]. It is common for a vehicle to have multiple ECUs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for a diagnostic device to search vehicle diagnostic information of Cancilla et al and the wiring diagram including multiple components of Thorley et al with a vehicle including multiple ECUs that are diagnosed of Fish et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide access to additional information and suggestions for repair procedures based on the DTC and other diagnostic data from a vehicle (Fish et al P[0005]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 9 thru 17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 8, 11, 14 thru 16, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are recited in a different order than the patented claim limitations. When the claims are considered as a whole (in regards to all independent and dependent claims), the patented claims would read on the application claims (if available as prior art).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8 thru 10, 12 thru 17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6 thru 9, 11 thru 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,354,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are recited in a different order than the patented claim limitations. When the claims are considered as a whole (in regards to all independent and dependent claims), the patented claims would read on the application claims (if available as prior art).
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,221,738. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are recited in a different order than the patented claim limitations. When the claims are considered as a whole (in regards to the independent claims), the patented claims would read on the application claims (if available as prior art).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and have approved terminal disclaimer(s) to overcome the above double patenting rejections.
Related Art
The examiner points to Larson et al Patent Number 6,556,904 B1 as art that is related to the claimed limitations but not relied upon for any rejection. Larson et al is directed to an apparatus and method for providing automotive vehicle information from a remote system to an automotive service device through a communications link (abstract), provides an index of available data sets of automotive specifications, allowing the user to view and select from among a variety of choices (Figure 3 Box 112), and with the selection of a particular set of automotive vehicle specifications by the user (Figure 3 Box 114) providing access to the requested data transferred to and displayed for the user on the host computer of the automotive service device (Figure 3 Box 116).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights