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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Furthermore, the additional/modified claim language by the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection. Examiner has augmented the prior art rejections in light of Applicant's amendments and/or arguments, as indicated below.
Regarding the rejection under USC 101, Applicant argues that the current claim language provides a practical application that improves the technological process based on assertion that it is physically impossible for a human mind to perform a non-linear logical audit of this data matrix in real-time to derive a condemnation status and use of tool integrity. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Examiner would like to point out that under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the currently provided claim language teaches abstract ideas that can be performed by human mind or using pen and paper without significantly more elements. For example, a tool integrity of determining the fidelity of the hardware interface (OEM vs. 3rd party) and assigning weight can be performed by human mind. Furthermore, the currently provided claim language does not require performing nonlinear audit of data matrix comprising 3000-5000 diagnostic codes with manufacturer's diagnostic logic for such a vehicle typically exceeding 8,000 pages.
Applicant also argues that “McQuown does not teach or suggest performing a non-linear transformation to exonerate such components”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Examiner would like to point out that such specific language of “performing a non-linear transformation to exonerate such components” is not currently claimed by the claim language. Furthermore, Examiner would like to point out that under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), determining reusability of a component based on information not initially identified as well as using different steps to address various different components/steps during the diagnostic procedure can be considered a non-linear logical transformation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 analyses for claim 24-32:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 24 is directed to a process. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A process for determining the reusability of one or more electrical components of a motor vehicle, the process comprising:
receiving, by a reusability determination server, a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code; and
determining, by the reusability determination server, a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations;
wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a reusability metric using transformation of diagnostic procedures based on scan report in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity in their mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A process for determining the reusability of one or more electrical components of a motor vehicle, the process comprising:
receiving, by a reusability determination server, a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code; and
determining, by the reusability determination server, a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations;
wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving a diagnostic scan report” and “obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database”, it is considered mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, using a reusability determination server recited in the claim is considered as insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer component to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of a server is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 25-32 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
101 analyses for claim 33-39:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 33 is directed to a system. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A system comprising:
a reusability determination server having a processor to:
process a received diagnostic scan report for a motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules;
obtain diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code; and
determine a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations;
wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a reusability metric using transformation of diagnostic procedures based on scan report in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity in their mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising:
a reusability determination server having a processor to:
process a received diagnostic scan report for a motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules;
obtain diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code; and
determine a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations;
wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database”, it is considered mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, using a reusability determination server including processor to process information recited in the claim is considered as insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer component to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server having a processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of a server having a processor is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 34-39 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
101 analyses for claim 40-46:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 40 is directed to an article. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
An article, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform a process for determining the reusability of one or more electrical components of a motor vehicle, the process comprising:
receiving a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code; and
determining a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations;
wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a reusability metric using transformation of diagnostic procedures based on scan report in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity in their mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An article, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform a process for determining the reusability of one or more electrical components of a motor vehicle, the process comprising:
receiving a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code; and
determining a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations;
wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving a diagnostic scan report” and “obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database”, it is considered mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, using a processor recited in the claim is considered as insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer component to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 17 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of having a processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of having a processor is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 41-46 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24-26, 30-31, 33-35, 38-42, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McQuown (US 20020059269 A1).
Regarding claim 24, McQuown teaches a process for determining the reusability of one or more electrical components of a motor vehicle (0090 wherein whether a component needs to be repaired before being reused is determined), the process comprising:
receiving, by a reusability determination server, a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules (0037 wherein “The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules”);
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code (0037, 0088-0090 wherein the troubleshooting instructions regarding the fault code are obtained according to the outcome of the diagnosis of the vehicle; “[0037] An operational parameter database 44 is the storage site for the operational data and information items that are transmitted between the monitoring and diagnostic service center 20 and the locomotive 12. The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules; “Subsequent to start step 200, step 202 allows to provide a database comprising detailed data for health assessment and servicing of a selected equipment and system thereof, and an expert rule-based troubleshooting wizard for eliciting information regarding the selected equipment and system and for providing troubleshooting instructions to determine the nature of the equipment fault and the servicing required for the selected equipment and system”); and
determining, by the reusability determination server, a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component (para 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines reusability of a component based on information not initially identified as well as uses different steps to address various different components/steps (non-linear logical transformation) during the diagnostic procedure; “If not overfull, the user will check a sensor/device and replace if a defective Diagnostic Interactive Display (DID) panel pressure reading is detected, step 310”; “If repairs are not required, the user will inspect power assemblies for blow by into the crankcase, step 338. The user will then determine whether a blow by is found, step 340. If a blow by is found, the user will replace the defective power assemblies”) based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures (at least in 0037, 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines whether the component is reusable (i.e. good health or needs repair) based on logical flow of procedures guided by the wizard and based on information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions; “The system also includes a processor 260 configured to process the observation information relative to the troubleshooting wizard 251 to determine whether or not said selected equipment 12 and system 301 needs to be serviced, and if so the nature and extent of that service”).
Regarding claim 25, McQuown teaches wherein the logical dependency includes an absence of an operation to replace the first electrical component within the ordered series of operations (Fig 8, para 0088-0090 wherein the logical dependency includes absence of operation to replace the component provided by the ‘if’ logic of the diagnostic step; “ If not overfull, the user will check a sensor/device and replace if a defective Diagnostic Interactive Display (DID) panel pressure reading is detected, step 310”; “ If a blow by is not found, the user will consider that a turbo may have failed seals, step 344, and then inspect or replace the turbo, step 346”).
Regarding claim 26, McQuown teaches wherein the logical dependency includes a logical correlation between a presence or absence of a first diagnostic trouble code and a presence or absence of a second diagnostic trouble code identified within the diagnostic procedures (Fig 8, para 0088-0090 wherein the logical dependency includes correlation between various abnormality detections; “ If not overfull, the user will check a sensor/device and replace if a defective Diagnostic Interactive Display (DID) panel pressure reading is detected, step 310”; “ If faults are not logged, step 302, water is not found in the oil, step 314 or leaks are not found, step 318, the user will also apply the manometer to the crankcase and check vacuum pressure, step 322”; “If the pressure is greater, the user will inspect the crankcase eductor tubes and hoses for leaks or worn hoses, and inspect a muffler eductor tube for blockage or inner tube and remove, step 328. The user will then determine whether repairs are required, step 330”).
Regarding claim 30, McQuown teaches wherein the reusability metric is a condemnation status identifying the first electrical component as being in one of a first state indicating the component is condemned and a second state indicating the component is not condemned (at least in 0037, 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines whether the component is in good health or cannot be used without repair based on information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions; “The system also includes a processor 260 configured to process the observation information relative to the troubleshooting wizard 251 to determine whether or not said selected equipment 12 and system 301 needs to be serviced, and if so the nature and extent of that service”).
Regarding claim 31, McQuown teaches obtaining descriptive information for the motor vehicle from a vehicle information resource database, the descriptive information including one or more of: photographs of the motor vehicle (para 0044 wherein “[0044] A repair information vault 56 includes a homepage address (e.g. a universal resource locator) for each repair code, with a link to repair instructions, schematics, parts catalogues, back shop manuals, operating manuals, drawings, trouble shooting guides, fault analysis manuals, maintenance manuals, video clips, still photographs, audio instructions, etc.”); an identity of a current or previous owner; or a loss type.
Regarding claim 33, McQuown teaches a system comprising:
a reusability determination server having a processor to (Fig 2, 7 wherein information processing components are provided):
process a received diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules (0037 wherein “The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules”);
obtain diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code (0037, 0088-0090 wherein the troubleshooting instructions regarding the fault code are obtained according to the outcome of the diagnosis of the vehicle; “[0037] An operational parameter database 44 is the storage site for the operational data and information items that are transmitted between the monitoring and diagnostic service center 20 and the locomotive 12. The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules; “Subsequent to start step 200, step 202 allows to provide a database comprising detailed data for health assessment and servicing of a selected equipment and system thereof, and an expert rule-based troubleshooting wizard for eliciting information regarding the selected equipment and system and for providing troubleshooting instructions to determine the nature of the equipment fault and the servicing required for the selected equipment and system”); and
determine a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component (para 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines reusability of a component based on information not initially identified as well as uses different steps to address various different components/steps (non-linear logical transformation) during the diagnostic procedure; “If not overfull, the user will check a sensor/device and replace if a defective Diagnostic Interactive Display (DID) panel pressure reading is detected, step 310”; “If repairs are not required, the user will inspect power assemblies for blow by into the crankcase, step 338. The user will then determine whether a blow by is found, step 340. If a blow by is found, the user will replace the defective power assemblies”) based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures (at least in 0037, 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines whether the component is reusable (i.e. good health or needs repair) based on logical flow of procedures guided by the wizard and based on information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions; “The system also includes a processor 260 configured to process the observation information relative to the troubleshooting wizard 251 to determine whether or not said selected equipment 12 and system 301 needs to be serviced, and if so the nature and extent of that service”).
Regarding claim 34, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 25
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 35, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 26
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 38, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 30
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 39, McQuown teaches wherein the assigning first relative weights is based on a status of the diagnostic trouble codes, the status including at least one of a current status or a history status (0037, 0088-0090 wherein the determination of reusability is based on the currently provided fault codes; “[0037] An operational parameter database 44 is the storage site for the operational data and information items that are transmitted between the monitoring and diagnostic service center 20 and the locomotive 12. The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules; “Subsequent to start step 200, step 202 allows to provide a database comprising detailed data for health assessment and servicing of a selected equipment and system thereof, and an expert rule-based troubleshooting wizard for eliciting information regarding the selected equipment and system and for providing troubleshooting instructions to determine the nature of the equipment fault and the servicing required for the selected equipment and system”).
Regarding claim 40, McQuown teaches an article, comprising:
a non-transitory storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform a process for determining the reusability of one or more electrical components of a motor vehicle, the process comprising (Fig 2, 7):
receiving, by a reusability determination server, a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating motor vehicle modules that responded to a diagnostic scan request and diagnostic trouble codes identified for the motor vehicle modules (0037 wherein “The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules”);
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for eliminating a cause of a diagnostic trouble code (0037, 0088-0090 wherein the troubleshooting instructions regarding the fault code are obtained according to the outcome of the diagnosis of the vehicle; “[0037] An operational parameter database 44 is the storage site for the operational data and information items that are transmitted between the monitoring and diagnostic service center 20 and the locomotive 12. The transmitted information, which is continually updated as new information is received, includes: fault codes, repair action feedback, repair action analysis, inspection results, operational information, and repair schedules; “Subsequent to start step 200, step 202 allows to provide a database comprising detailed data for health assessment and servicing of a selected equipment and system thereof, and an expert rule-based troubleshooting wizard for eliciting information regarding the selected equipment and system and for providing troubleshooting instructions to determine the nature of the equipment fault and the servicing required for the selected equipment and system”); and
determining, by the reusability determination server, a reusability metric for a first electrical component by performing a non-linear logical transformation of the diagnostic procedures based on the diagnostic scan report to derive an electrical integrity state for the first electrical component (para 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines reusability of a component based on information not initially identified as well as uses different steps to address various different components/steps (non-linear logical transformation) during the diagnostic procedure; “If not overfull, the user will check a sensor/device and replace if a defective Diagnostic Interactive Display (DID) panel pressure reading is detected, step 310”; “If repairs are not required, the user will inspect power assemblies for blow by into the crankcase, step 338. The user will then determine whether a blow by is found, step 340. If a blow by is found, the user will replace the defective power assemblies”) based on a logical dependency within the diagnostic procedures between a state of the diagnostic scan report and a set of replaceable components identified in the ordered series of operations wherein the determining includes assigning first relative weights to information from the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures (at least in 0037, 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines whether the component is reusable (i.e. good health or needs repair) based on logical flow of procedures guided by the wizard and based on information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions; “The system also includes a processor 260 configured to process the observation information relative to the troubleshooting wizard 251 to determine whether or not said selected equipment 12 and system 301 needs to be serviced, and if so the nature and extent of that service”).
Regarding claim 41, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 25
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 42, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 26
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 45, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 30
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 46, McQuown teaches wherein the logical dependency includes an absence of a second diagnostic trouble code identified within the diagnostic procedures (para 0088-0090 wherein presence or absence of various abnormality information is provided during troubleshooting procedure; “If not overfull, the user will check a sensor/device and replace if a defective Diagnostic Interactive Display (DID) panel pressure reading is detected, step 310”; “The user will determine whether the pressure is greater than a given level, as an exemplary example is pressure greater than 0.24 inches of water column pressure, step 324. If not greater than the given level, the unit is released, step 326. If the pressure is greater, the user will inspect the crankcase eductor tubes and hoses for leaks or worn hoses, and inspect a muffler eductor tube for blockage or inner tube and remove, step 328”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 29, 37, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown (US 20020059269 A1) in view of Rozint (US 20200334927 A1).
Regarding claim 29, McQuown teaches obtaining descriptive information for the motor vehicle (para 0044 wherein “[0044] A repair information vault 56 includes a homepage address (e.g. a universal resource locator) for each repair code, with a link to repair instructions, schematics, parts catalogues, back shop manuals, operating manuals, drawings, trouble shooting guides, fault analysis manuals, maintenance manuals, video clips, still photographs, audio instructions, etc.”).
However, McQuown fails to teach the information also includes a physical impact location, and wherein the assigning first relative weights is further based on the physical impact location.
Rozint teaches obtaining the information including a physical impact location, and wherein the assigning first relative weights is further based on the physical impact location (0004, 0012, 0120 wherein “[0004] Often, repairing a vehicle involved in a collision event may require resetting, replacement, and/or reprogramming of multiple systems or sub-systems and their associated DTCs. For example, because airbag systems may be connected to seat weight sensors, replacing airbags may necessitate recalibrating the seat weight sensors”; “[0012] In some embodiments, the method may determine whether the DTC is related to the collision event by comparing the location of the vehicle component reporting the DTC to a point of impact location associated with the collision event”; “[0120] At operation 4316, the location of vehicle system reporting the DTC with respect to the point of impact (POI) (e.g., location of the collision damage) may be evaluated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified McQuown’s teachings that the reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component is based on repair diagnostic scan to incorporate Rozint’s teachings of obtaining the information including a physical impact location, and wherein the assigning first relative weights is further based on the physical impact location in order to properly determine repair needs of components involved in impact event.
Regarding claims 37 and 44, they are rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 29 mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown (US 20020059269 A1) in view of Gloos (US 20130158779 A1).
Regarding claim 32, McQuown teaches all the limitations of claim 24 including the information from the diagnostic scan report and reusability metric (para 0044 wherein “[0044] A repair information vault 56 includes a homepage address (e.g. a universal resource locator) for each repair code, with a link to repair instructions, schematics, parts catalogues, back shop manuals, operating manuals, drawings, trouble shooting guides, fault analysis manuals, maintenance manuals, video clips, still photographs, audio instructions, etc.”).
However, McQuown fails to teach wherein the information from the diagnostic scan report includes a software module identifier, and wherein the reusability metric is further based on the software module identifier.
Gloos teaches wherein the information from the diagnostic scan report includes a software module identifier, and wherein the reusability metric is further based on the software module identifier. (0011, 0059, 0083 “The fault entry in this configuration additionally includes an identification code that is assigned to the program causing the fault condition. Providing such an identification code, for example in the form of a software identification number, makes possible in an advantageous manner a further increase of the accuracy and of the effectiveness of the fault diagnosis system”; [0083] In the mentioned exemplary embodiment, an identification code for example in the form of a software identification number is thus additionally provided for diagnostic purposes”; “Here, a common mechanism for storing additional information to the error code or the DTC can be employed, for example in the form of an error data set. This error data set can subsequently be read out in a workshop in order to determine from it information regarding a repair”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified McQuown’s teachings having the information from the diagnostic scan report and reusability metric to incorporate Gloos’ teachings of wherein the information from the diagnostic scan report includes a software module identifier, and wherein the reusability metric is further based on the software module identifier. Doing so would increase of the accuracy and of the effectiveness of the fault diagnosis system (Gloos, para 0011) and enable appropriate repair/replace operation of components.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
