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 .
Acknowledgments
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on December 15, 2025. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claim 3 has been cancelled by Applicant.
Claim interpretation
Independent claim 1, recites: “with the smart contract, automatically executing on the blockchain when the vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates that the parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred…” The examiner notes that the claimed limitation is a contingent limitation and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met. (See MPEP 2111.04 II.) In the above quoted claim limitation, the step “wherein execution includes: (i)…(II)…(III)…(IV)…” is required if the condition “when the vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates that the parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred” happens. The claimed limitation may be practiced without the condition happening, and neither of steps (i) to (iv) is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim steps (i) to (iv) are contingent to the condition “when the vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates that the parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred” and are not given patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112 rejections, the amendment overcomes the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the double patenting rejections, a Terminal Disclaimer was filed on December 15, 2025, and then double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s amendment and arguments were fully considered, but the arguments merely consider the current amendment to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leise (US Patent No. 10,891,694,) in view of Floyd (US Patent No. 10,713,727,) further in view of Long (US Patent Application No. 2020/0409362.)
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, Leise teach:
receiving, at one or more processors, vehicle sensor data and/or electronic device data generated from sensors mounted on or within (a) a vehicle, and/or (b) an electronic device located within the vehicle; (recorded data received from the vehicle: Col. 14 l. 40-Col. 15 l. 11)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “sensors mounted on or within (a) a vehicle, and/or (b) an electronic device located within the vehicle,” it is sufficient that one of the options a) or b) is taught.
determining, by the one or more processors, a parametric event by analyzing the vehicle sensor data and/or electronic device data , wherein the parametric event is associated with a corresponding severity of loss, severity of vehicle damage, and/or other vehicle-related event; (analyzing recorded data associated with a vehicle accident (i.e., parametric event): Col. 14 ll. 40-60, Col. 27 ll. 40-50)
generating, by the one or more processors and for the parametric event, a corresponding smart contract; (generating a smart contract: Col. 22 l. 60-Col. 23 l. 8)
with the smart contract, automatically executing on the blockchain when the vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates that the parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred; (smart contract automatically executed when a trigger condition is satisfied: Col. 6 ll. 6-25)
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “when the vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates …” it is sufficient that one of the options is taught by the prior art.
wherein executing includes:
(i) initiating an instantaneous notice of loss (INOL) with the smart contract;
(ii) communicating with a … service entity with the smart contract; (filing a legal action: (Col. 31 ll. 46-53, Col. 57 ll. 15-27, sending tow truck: Col. 57 ll. 15-27)
(iii) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity with the smart contract; or
(iv) communicating with a vehicle salvage entity with the smart contract;
The examiner notes that as explained in the claim interpretation section of this document, with respect to claim 1, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim steps (i) to (iv) are contingent to the condition “when the vehicle sensor data or electronic device data indicates that the parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred” and do not have patentable weight.
The examiner further notes that even if given patentable weight to the steps (i) to (iv), for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “wherein executing includes: (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv)…” it is sufficient that one of the options is taught by the prior art.
In addition, the examiner notes that the name and/or type of the service entity that the system communicates with (i.e., vehicle repair, taxi service, vehicle salvage service, etc.) does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the name or type of the entity does not affect any of the claimed features. Therefore, as long as the prior art teaches communicating with a service entity, the service entity can be any type of entity and the prior art teaches the claimed feature.
deploying, by the one or more processors, the smart contract…on the blockchain. (smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger (i.e., blockchain): Col. 22 l. 60-Col. 23 l. 8
at a particular address on the blockchain. (smart contract has an address: Col. 6 ll. 6-17, Col. 17 l. 65-col. 18 l. 3)
In addition, with respect to claims 8 and 15, Leise teach:
a computer system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that executed by the one or more processors, (Col. 16 l. 65-Col. 17 l. 16, Claims 11 and 15)
Leise do not explicitly teach; however, Floyd teach:
storing, by the one or more processors, the generated smart contract in a database; (smart contract database: Col. 11 ll. 15-22, Col. 20 ll. 14-23)
querying, by the one or more processors, the database using a vehicle unique identifier to locate the smart contract; (vehicle indication identifying a vehicle (i.e., unique identifier): Col. 9 l. 66-Col. 10 l. 8, Col. 14 ll. 44-50, query smart contract database using vehicle indication: Col. 16 ll. 24-45, Col. 20 ll. 51-61)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of smart contracts for managing vehicle events, as taught by Floyd , into the system of Leise for responding to vehicle events based on collected sensor data using a smart contract, in order to determine transactions compliance with smart contracts. (Floyd : Abstract, Col. 9 l. 66-Col. 10 l. 23)
Leise and Floyd do not explicitly teach; however, Long teaches:
providing, via a component graphic user interface and based upon the determining, an alert to a vehicle operator including one or more actions; (driver assistant system detects (determines) operational conditions that require intervention: [0025]-[0026] and based on the determining, provides alerts to the drives via a user interface: [0027], [0029]-[0031])
in response to detecting that a timer associated with the alert reaches a time threshold, performing at least one of the one or more actions. (remediative actions taken by the autonomous driving handoff system to control operation of the vehicle in response to thresholds being satisfied: [0029]-[0030], [0045])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the driver-assistance system, as taught by Long , into the system of Leise and Floyd for processing vehicle related events, in order to alert the user about operational events of the vehicle and control the vehicle through time sensitive scenarios. (Long : Abstract, [0014])
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Leise and Floyd and Long teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein the parametric event comprises any one of:
(i) theft involving a vehicle;
(ii) a collision involving the vehicle; (Col. 7 ll. 35-65)
(iii) total loss of the vehicle.
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “generating the smart contract to define…as any one of (i)…(ii)…(iii)…” it is sufficient that one of the options (i), (ii) or (iii) is taught by the prior art.
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Leise and Floyd and Long teach the limitations of claims 9 and 16.
Moreover, Leise teach:
wherein the transaction includes vehicle sensor data generated from sensors mounted on or within the vehicle. (the recorded data is packaged into transactions: Col. 14 l. 61-Col. 15 l. 11, Col. 16 l. 65-Col. 17 l. 16)
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leise , in view of Floyd and Long, further in view of Watkins (US Patent Publication No.: 2020/0267503.)
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Leise and Floyd and Long teach the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16.
Moreover, Leise teach:
generating the smart contract that defines actions (generating a smart contract: Col. 22 l. 60-Col. 23 l. 8)
Leise and Floyd and Long do not explicitly teach, however, Watkins teach:
wherein the executing includes all of:
(i) initiating the instantaneous notice of loss (INOL); (communication hub initiates early notice of loss: [0091]-[0092], [0095])
(ii) communicating with the taxi or ride-share service entity; (communication hub initiates rental services: [0081], [0091], [0102], claim 7)
(iii) communicating with the vehicle repair service entity; (communication hub initiates repair services: [0081], [0095], [0098], [0102], claim 29)
(iv) communicating with the vehicle salvage entity. (communication hub initiates salvage services: [0081], [0095], [0098], [0102], claim 30)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of the communication hub of Watkins , for crash event detection and responding , into the system of Leise and Floyd and Long, for responding to vehicle events based on collected sensor data using a smart contract, in order to provide multiple services after a crash event, including initiating a notice of loss, communication with car rentals, repair services and salvage services. (Watkins : Abstract, [0005]-[0006])
In addition, the examiner notes that the name and/or type of the service entity that the system communicates with (i.e., vehicle repair, taxi service, vehicle salvage service, etc.) does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the name or type of the entity does not affect any of the claimed features. Therefore, as long as the prior art teaches communicating with service entities, the service entities can be any type of entity and the prior art teaches the claimed feature.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins , as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Johnson (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0284627)
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins teach the limitations of claims 4 and 11.
Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins do not explicitly teach; however, Johnson teach:
receiving, at one or more processors, supplemental data generated from one or more sources; (data captured by scene survey system: [0132])
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the supplemental data to determine, confirm, or verify the parametric event. (verify sensor data by analyzing the data captured: [0132]-[0134])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scene surveying system for collecting additional vehicular data, as taught by Johnson , into the system of Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins for responding to vehicle events based on collected sensor data using a smart contract, in order to verify and calibrate collected sensor data. (Johnson : Abstract, [0038])
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Leise , Floyd , Long, Watkins and Johnson teach the limitations of claims 5 and 12.
Moreover, Johnson teach:
wherein the one or more sources includes any one or more of:
smart infrastructure sensor;
an environmental conditions sensor; (data captured from scene survey system (i.e., environmental conditions sensor) used for verification: [0132])
an electronic device located in the vehicle;
a camera located in an area in which the vehicle is located; ([0086], [0110], [0118])
a third-party server.
The examiner notes that, for an optional claim limitation to be taught by a prior art, it is sufficient that the prior art teach one of the options. As for the claim recitation “wherein the one or more sources includes any one or more of…” it is sufficient that one of the sources is taught by the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scene surveying system for collecting additional vehicular data, as taught by Johnson , into the system of Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins for responding to vehicle events based on collected sensor data using a smart contract, in order to verify and calibrate collected sensor data. (Johnson : Abstract, [0038])
With respect to claim 19, Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins teach the limitations of claim 18.
Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins do not explicitly teach; however, Johnson teach:
receive supplemental data generated from one or more sources; (data captured by scene survey system: [0132])
wherein the one or more sources includes any one or more of (i) smart infrastructure sensor, (ii) an environmental conditions sensor, (iii) an electronic device located in the vehicle, (iv) a camera located in an area in which the vehicle is located, or (v) a third-party server; ([0086], [0110], [0118])
analyze the supplemental data to determine, confirm, or verify the parametric event. (verify sensor data by analyzing the data captured: [0132]-[0134])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scene surveying system for collecting additional vehicular data, as taught by Johnson , into the system of Leise , Floyd, Long and Watkins for responding to vehicle events based on collected sensor data using a smart contract, in order to verify and calibrate collected sensor data. (Johnson : Abstract, [0038])
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leise , in view of Floyd , Long, Watkins , and Johnson , as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Nelluri (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0402190)
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Leise , Floyd , Long, Watkins , and Johnson teach the limitations of claims 5, 12 and 19.
Leise , Floyd , Long, Watkins , and Johnson do not explicitly teach; however, Nelluri teaches:
updating the smart contract based upon analyzing the supplemental data. ([0087], claim 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the smart contract modification based on environmental sensor data, as taught by Nelluri, into the system of Leise , Floyd , Long, Watkins , and Johnson for responding to vehicle events based on collected sensor data using a smart contract, in order to validate the smart contract based on additional data. (Nelluri: Abstract, [0007])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698