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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding paragraph 0031-0032 of the specification, it recites “[0031] The diagnostic scan report may list additional information showing diagnostic trouble codes ("DTCs") for the radio control unit. For example, DTC "B0560" may be associated with symptom byte "08," corresponding DTC Description "Tachometer Circuit," and symptom description, "Performance - Signal Invalid." A "symptom byte," as used herein, refers to a two-character hexadecimal code appended to a DTC to provide more specific information about the nature of the fault, aiding in quicker and more accurate diagnosis.
[0032] The diagnostic scan report additionally indicates that DTC "B 125A" may be associated with symptom byte "02," corresponding DTC Description "Antenna Signal Circuit," and symptom description, "Short to Ground." DTC "Ul8AF" may be associated with symptom byte "00," corresponding DTC Description "Lost Communication with Telematics Communication Interface Control Module on Infotainment Ethernet Bus," and, in this case there may not be a corresponding symptom description. DTC "Ul8AF" may be associated with symptom byte "04 …".
Based on the disclosure, it should read “[0031] The diagnostic scan report may list additional information showing diagnostic trouble codes ("DTCs") for the radio control unit. For example, DTC "B0560" may be associated with symptom type "08," corresponding DTC Description "Tachometer Circuit," and symptom description, "Performance - Signal Invalid." A "symptom type," as used herein, refers to a two-character hexadecimal code appended to a DTC to provide more specific information about the nature of the fault, aiding in quicker and more accurate diagnosis.
[0032] The diagnostic scan report additionally indicates that DTC "B 125A" may be associated with symptom type "02," corresponding DTC Description "Antenna Signal Circuit," and symptom description, "Short to Ground." DTC "Ul8AF" may be associated with symptom byte "00," corresponding DTC Description "Lost Communication with Telematics Communication Interface Control Module on Infotainment Ethernet Bus," and, in this case there may not be a corresponding symptom description. DTC "Ul8AF" may be associated with symptom type "04 …".
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.
Claim 1-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determining, by a reusability determination server, a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures ….”.
It’s unclear based on the claim language, whether these first electrical component are the same or different components. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers these first electrical component to be any of the same or different components.
Regarding claim 9 and 17, they rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 1 mutandis mutatis.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected independent claims, and also inherit the deficiencies described above. Therefore, they are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Furthermore, claims 4-5, 7-8, 12-13, 15-16, 20-23 also contain similar issue regarding clarity of the claim regarding the phrase “a first electrical component” as provided in rejection of claim 1.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Examiner notes wherein all claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein.
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 1-23 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 1-8:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 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 a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determining, by a reusability determination server, a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 grade 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 a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determining, by a reusability determination server, a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 2-8 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 9-16:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 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 the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules;
obtain diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determine a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 grade 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 the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules;
obtain diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determine a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 10-16 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 17-23:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 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 which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determining a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 grade 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 which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules;
obtaining diagnostic procedures from a diagnostic procedures database, the diagnostic procedures corresponding to the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle; and
determining a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 18-23 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) 1-4, 9-12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McQuown (US 20020059269 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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 a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or 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 the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle (0037, 0089-0090 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 a reusability determination server, a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 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 2, McQuown teaches obtaining descriptive information for the motor vehicle from a vehicle information resource database (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.”).
Regarding claim 3, McQuown teaches the descriptive information for the motor vehicle includes 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.”); previously performed diagnostic scan reports for the motor vehicle; an identity of the current or previous owner(s) of the motor vehicle; a chain of custody of the motor vehicle; an indication of whether a motor vehicle manufacturer's vehicle communication interface, diagnostic software, or diagnostic procedures were used to perform the diagnostic scan report; or a loss type, damage type, or physical event that occurred having potential of loss or harm to the motor vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, McQuown teaches transmitting the reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle to a user interface for display (at least 0092 wherein “The information displayed on the portable unit 14 directs the step-by-step activities of the technician through the repair process including providing documentation and information from the various databases and modules discussed in conjunction with FIG. 2”).
Regarding claim 9, 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 which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or modules (Fig 2,7, para 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 the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle (0037, 0089-0090 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 grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 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 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 2
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 3
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 4
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 17, 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 a diagnostic scan report for the motor vehicle, the diagnostic scan report indicating which motor vehicle systems or modules responded to a diagnostic scan request and any diagnostic trouble codes identified for any of the motor vehicle systems or 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 the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report, the diagnostic procedures indicating an ordered series of operations for repairing or replacing at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle corresponding to one of the diagnostic trouble codes identified in the diagnostic scan report contingent upon an outcome of a first task, verification, validation, or other first test on the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle (0037, 0089-0090 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 a reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component of the motor vehicle based on the diagnostic scan report and the diagnostic procedures, the determining including 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 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 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 2
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 3
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 4
mutandis mutatis.
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) 7-8, 15-16, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown (US 20020059269 A1) in view of Sumcad (US 20230237854 A1).
Regarding claim 7, McQuown teaches wherein the determining, by the reusability determination server, of the at least a first electrical component's reusability ((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 information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions) is based, at least partially, on the diagnostic trouble codes in the diagnostic scan report corresponding to the at least a first electrical component ((at least in 0032, 0037, 0088-0090 wherein the computing platform determines whether the component is reusable (i.e. good health or needs repair) based on information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions; “The on-board monitoring system identifies faulty components and provides fault codes for use by the repair technician in diagnosing the problem”).
However, McQuown fails to teach reusability in another motor vehicle or elsewhere is based, at least partially, on an absence of the diagnostic trouble codes in the diagnostic scan report corresponding to the at least a first electrical component.
As discussed, McQuown teaches fault codes indicates faults with components affecting reusability of the component (0032).
Sumcad teaches determining reusability of a component in another vehicle based on presence or absence of trouble indicator (0024, 0029 wherein “The health detection sub-module 50 may assess the health of the respective electronic components 20 and determine their salvageability through a binary outcome output, with the respective electronic components 20 being classified as either “working” or “non-working”; “Upon receipt of the self-diagnosis for the first vehicle 14A, it is determined that the body control module 24 and the assisted driving module 26 are damaged (classified as non-working), however, the powertrain control module 22 is classified as working. The set 12 includes a second vehicle 14B that is idle, on preventative maintenance and compatible. Here, the working components of the first vehicle 14A may be harvested to reconfigure the second vehicle 14B, which may then be sent out to complete the mission of the first vehicle 14A”).
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 of determining at least a first electrical component's reusability based on fault codes to incorporate Sumcad’s teachings of determining reusability of a component in another vehicle based on presence or absence of trouble indicator in order to determine reusability in another motor vehicle or elsewhere is based, at least partially, on an absence of the diagnostic trouble codes indicating working components in the diagnostic scan report corresponding to the at least a first electrical component. Doing so would enable optimized continuity of local vehicle services when damage within the set of fleet vehicles occurs (Sumcad, para 0030).
Regarding claim 8, McQuown teaches wherein the reusability grade for the at least a first electrical component based on repair diagnostic scan ((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 information from the diagnosis and the troubleshooting instructions).
However, McQuown fails to teach the reusability grade is further based, at least in part, on at least one of a repair diagnostic scan or repair descriptive information about a secondary motor vehicle under repair.
Sumcad teaches reusability grade of a component in another vehicle currently under repair (0024, 0029 wherein “The health detection sub-module 50 may assess the health of the respective electronic components 20 and determine their salvageability through a binary outcome output, with the respective electronic components 20 being classified as either “working” or “non-working”; “Upon receipt of the self-diagnosis for the first vehicle 14A, it is determined that the body control module 24 and the assisted driving module 26 are damaged (classified as non-working), however, the powertrain control module 22 is classified as working. The set 12 includes a second vehicle 14B that is idle, on preventative maintenance and compatible. Here, the working components of the first vehicle 14A may be harvested to reconfigure the second vehicle 14B, which may then be sent out to complete the mission of the first vehicle 14A”).
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 Sumcad’s teachings of reusability grade of a component in another vehicle currently under repair in order to have the reusability grade is further based, at least in part, on at least one of a repair diagnostic scan or repair descriptive information about a secondary motor vehicle under repair. Doing so would enable to identify currently inoperable components of the second vehicle and use components harvested from first vehicle to enable optimized continuity of local vehicle services when damage within the set of fleet vehicles occurs (Sumcad, para 0030).
Regarding claim 15 and 22, they are rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 7 mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 16 and 23, they are rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 8 mutandis mutatis.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights