DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20 and 21 are pending.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 12/16/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 12/16/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, vehicle sensor data generated from sensors mounted on or within one or more vehicles;
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed, not method steps performed in the past (i.e., generated from sensors). Claiming method steps tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 11, 15 and 20 have similar issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
comparing, by the one or more processors, and with an analysis function included in the smart contract, the vehicle sensor data to parametric event data stored on the smart contract deployed on the blockchain to determine that a first type of damage rather than a second type of damage, wherein:
the parametric event data was generated from an analysis of the vehicle sensor data, the parametric event data is indicative of a severity of loss; and
the smart contract is configured to (1) receive the transaction including the vehicle sensor data from the blockchain manager and (ii) automatically execute on the blockchain when the transaction indicated that a parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed, not method steps performed in the past (i.e., generated from an analysis). Claiming method steps tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, method claims are also not defined by method steps that structural elements are configured to perform. Reciting a system element in a method claim is configured to perform a method step (i.e., configured to receive the transaction and automatically execute on the blockchain) does not necessarily mean that the method step is actually performed (i.e., receiving a transaction and automatically executing a transaction).
Claims 11, 15 and 20 have similar issues.
Claim 5 has similar issues as the notification is configured to perform an action.
Claim 23 has similar issues as the smart contract is configured to include data, wherein the data in turn is configured to perform a function.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
the smart contract was is configured to (1) receive the transaction including the vehicle sensor data from the blockchain manager and (ii) automatically execute on the blockchain when the transaction indicated that a parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred.
Even assuming that the smart contract’s configuration has patentable weight, the method step of executing only occurs “when the transaction indicated that a parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred.”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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 condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Usage of the term and/or phrase “when …” in Claim 1 suggests that there remains the possibility that the contingent limitations are not performed as the condition(s) precedent is not met. Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitation(s) fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the notification to a client device, wherein the notification causes the client device to display one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs) based upon the severity of loss.
Additionally, reciting a future intended use or purpose of transmitted data (i.e., notification causes the client device to display one or more graphic user interfaces based upon the severity of loss) does not mean that the method step is actually performed (i.e., displaying one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs) based upon the severity of loss).
Claims 5, 11, 15 and 20 have similar issues.
Claim 3 recites a method comprising receiving, from the client device, instructions to perform an action selected from the group comprising:
(i) initiating an instantaneous notice of loss (INOL);
(ii) communicating with an insurer entity;
(iii) communicating with an emergency response entity;
(iv) communicating with a towing service entity;
(v) communicating with a taxi or ride-share service entity;
(vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity; and
(vii) communicating with a vehicle salvage entity.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 13 has similar issues.
4. 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 1-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
receiving … vehicle sensor data generated from sensors mounted on or within one or more vehicles;
identifying, …, … with a [record] manager and based upon a unique identifier of a vehicle of the one or more vehicles, a … contract … [in the record];
routing, …, with the [record] manager, a transaction including the vehicle sensor data to the … contract based upon the unique identifier of the vehicle;
comparing, … , … with an analysis function included in the … contract, the vehicle sensor data to parametric event data stored on … the contract [in the record], to determine that a first type of damage rather than a second type of damage has occurred, wherein:
the parametric event data was generated from an analysis of the vehicle sensor data,
the parametric event data is indicative of a severity of loss;
the … contract [recites provisions] to analyze the vehicle sensor data to determine if a particular aspect of the vehicle damage reflected in the vehicle sensor data corresponds to the parametric event data;
… executing, … in response to comparing the vehicle sensor data to the parametric event, an action directed by the … contract, wherein the action includes generating a notification; and
transmitting, …, the notification to a client … wherein the notification … [is] based upon the severity of loss.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to determine whether provisions in a contract have been triggered which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, both subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B); MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Examiner notes that “processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of processor(s) (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20), a non-transitory computer memory (Claim(s) 11 and 20), a computer system (Claim(s) 11), a smart contract (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20), blockchain (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20), a blockchain manager (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20), and a client device (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20).
Examiner notes that the claims also recite a sensor (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20). However, while the sensor data originates from a sensor, none of the claims recite that performance of method steps involves the sensors, themselves, or that the system includes said sensors.
Examiner notes that the claims also recite a graphic user interface (Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20). However, while notifications are transmitted to the client device to display on the graphic user interface of the client device, none of the claims recite that performance of method steps involves the graphic user interface that the system includes said graphic user interface
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-8, 10, 13-18 and 21 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11, 13-16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US PG Pub. 2021/0319632) in view of Rose (US PG Pub. 2023/0035340) and Patt (US Patent 12,014,425).
Regarding Claim 1, Dutta discloses a computer-implemented method for executing a smart contract of on a blockchain, and providing a graphic user interface, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, vehicle sensor data generated from sensors mounted on or within one or more vehicles. (see para. 41-42);
identifying, by the one more processors, with a blockchain manager and based upon a unique identifier (e.g., a smart contract executable code path, a smart contract executable code name, a smart contract executable code version), a smart contract based upon the unique identifier. (see para. 74 and 97);
routing, by the one or more processors, with the blockchain manager, a transaction (transaction data) including the vehicle sensor data to the smart contract (to determine whether to invoke rules) based upon the unique identifier. (see para. 74).
comparing, by the one or more processors, and with an analysis function (determine when service is needed, identify a collision and/or degradation event, identify a safety concern event) included in the smart contract, the vehicle sensor data to parametric event data (vehicle event data or incident data) stored on a smart contract deployed on the blockchain. (see para.34-41, 46, 49, 66 and 85-86); wherein:
the parametric event data (incident data or vehicle event data) was generated from an analysis of the vehicle sensor data. (see para. 40, 61 and 88);
the parametric event data is indicative of a severity of loss (e.g., severe service needed, tire change needed or battery charge needed). (see para. 40 and 88);
the smart contract is configured to analyze the vehicle sensor data (sensor data) to determine if a particular aspect of vehicle damage (severe service needed, tire change needed or battery charge needed) reflected in the vehicle sensor data (sensor data) corresponds to the parametric event data (incident data or vehicle event data). (see para. 40-41, 66 and 88).
the smart contract is configured to (i) receive a transaction from a computing device and (ii) automatically execute on the blockchain when the transaction indicated that a parametric event corresponding to the smart contract has occurred; (see para. 34-41);
automatically executing, by the one or more processors in response to comparing the vehicle sensor data to the parametric event data, an action directed by the smart contract, wherein the action includes generating a notification (execute reminders and notifications). (see para. 70); and
transmitting (communicating), by the one or more processors, the notification to a client device (external device), wherein the notification causes the client device to display data based upon the severity of loss. (see para. 110).
Dutta does not explicitly teach a method wherein smart contracts are identified by a unique identifier of a vehicle of the one or more vehicles. However, if a smart contract is identified by a unique identifier and the smart contract is tied to a vehicle, then the vehicle is tied to a unique identifier (i.e., the unique identifier of the smart contract is the identifier of the vehicle).
Regardless, Rose discloses a method wherein data includes a unique identifier of the vehicle (vehicle identification number or VIN). (see para. 94).
Dutta does not teach a method comprising comparing data to determine that a first type of damage rather than a second type of damage.
Rose discloses a method comprising comparing data to determine that a first type of damage rather than a second type of damage (location, such as front vs. rear, or severity). (see para. 14-16, 74 and 79; Claim 11).
Dutta does not explicitly teach a method wherein the displayed data is a graphic user interface. However, as noted in the claim interpretation section, the claimed method is not displaying a graphic user interface or displaying any data. The claimed invention is transmitting a notification. Causing a client device to display one or more graphic user interface(s) based upon the severity of the loss is the intended purpose of the notification.
Regardless, Patt discloses a method comprising transmitting, by the one or more processors, the notification to a client device (mobile device), wherein the notification causes the client device to one or more graphic user interfaces based upon the severity of loss. (see fig. 9A- 9D; col. 25, line 65 – col. 26, line 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta by incorporating a unique identifier of a vehicle, as disclosed by Dutta, into the smart contract pertaining to the vehicle thereby tying the smart contract to the vehicle to which it pertains.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta and Rose by incorporating a graphic user interface, as disclosed by Patt, thereby enabling communication with a user via a traditional and conventional means.
Regarding Claim 2, Dutta discloses a method comprising receiving, by the one or more processors from the client device, an indication that a user interacted with the one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs).
Patt discloses a method comprising receiving, by the one or more processors from the client device, an indication that a user interacted with the one or more graphic user interfaces (user input). (see col. 25, line 65 – col. 26, line 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose and Patt by incorporating an indication of interaction by a user with a graphic user interface, as disclosed by Patt, thereby tracking and monitoring all communication with the user via the graphical user interface.
Regarding Claim 3, Dutta discloses a method comprising receiving, from the client device (user device), instructions to perform an action selected from the group comprising: (vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity (service center). (see para. 43).
Regarding Claim 4, Dutta discloses a method comprising recording, to the smart contract, an indication that the action (vehicle service) was performed. (see para. 36-41 and 87).
Regarding Claim 5, Dutta does not teach a method wherein the notification is configured to cause the one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs) to enable the client device to perform an action selected from the group comprising: (i) initiating an instantaneous notice of loss (INOL); (ii) communicating with an insurer entity; (iii) communicating with an emergency response entity; (iv) communicating with a towing service entity; (v) communicating with a taxi or ride-share service entity; (vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity; and (vii) communicating with a vehicle salvage entity.
Patt discloses a method wherein the notification is configured to cause the one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs) to enable the client device to perform an action selected from the group comprising: (ii) communicating with an insurer entity (insurance claim services); (iii) communicating with an emergency response entity (emergency services); (iv) communicating with a towing service entity (tow truck); and (vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity (repair services). (see fig. 5B and 9C; col. 19, lines 20-34; col. 26, lines 9-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose and Patt by incorporating communication with an insurer, emergency services, towing services or a repair server, as disclosed by Patt, as all such entities are standard and conventional to communicate with following a vehicular accident.
Regarding Claim 6, Dutta discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from the client device, a first indication that the action was performed (service event has been completed). (see para. 74); and
recording (logging), to the smart contract, a second indication that the action was performed. (see para. 88).
Regarding Claim 10, Dutta discloses a method wherein the parametric event includes any one of (ii) a collision involving the vehicle. (see para. 41 and 66).
Regarding Claims 11, 13-16 and 20, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 21, Dutta discloses a method wherein the transaction includes the blockchain manager using a unique identifier as an access key. (see para. 87, 89 and 92).
Dutta does not teach a method wherein the unique identifier of the vehicle is the access key.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose and Patt by incorporating a unique identifier of a vehicle, as disclosed by Nagla, as an access key to data pertaining to the vehicle thereby tying the access key to the vehicle to which it pertains.
Regarding Claim 22, Dutta does not teach a method wherein the particular aspect of vehicle damage is a broken window or a destruction of a body panel of the vehicle.
Patt discloses a method a method wherein the particular aspect of vehicle damage is a broken window or a destruction of a body panel (left rear quarter panel) of the vehicle. (see col. 13, lines 45-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose and Patt by incorporating an identification of the vehicle damage, as disclosed by Patt, as identification of vehicle damage would aid in assessing the severity of the damage.
Regarding Claim 23, Dutta does not explicitly teach a method wherein smart contract is further configured to include a list of applicable vehicle unique identifiers configured to enable a query of a database to locate the smart contract.
Regardless, Rose discloses a method wherein data includes a unique identifier of the vehicle (vehicle identification number or VIN). (see para. 94).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutt, Rose and Patt by duplicating claim elements contained in Rose (e.g., the first vehicle unique identifier) to create additional claim elements (e.g., multiple vehicle unique identifiers) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose and Patt by incorporating a unique identifier of a vehicle, as disclosed by Nagla, into the smart contract pertaining to the vehicle thereby tying the smart contract to the vehicle to which it pertains.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta, Rose and Patt, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ricci (US PG Pub. 2021/0232642).
Regarding Claim 7, Dutta discloses a method comprising:
performing, by the one or more processors, an action (transaction approval). (see para. 68); and
recording, to the smart contract, and indication that the action has been performed. (see para. 68).
Dutta does not teach a method comprising associating, by the one or more processors, the notification with a timer that measures an amount of time that has been elapsed since the transmission of the notification; or detecting, by the one or more processors, that the timer reached a threshold amount of time without detecting a user interaction with the one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs).
Ricci discloses a method a method comprising:
associating, by the one or more processors, the notification (verification message) with a timer that measures an amount of time (predetermined period of time) that has been elapsed since the transmission of the notification (verification message). (see para. 560-562);
detecting, by the one or more processors, that the timer reached a threshold amount of time without (predetermined period of time) detecting a user interaction (no interaction or no confirmation) with the one or more graphic user interfaces (GUIs) (via gesture capture region of GUI). (see para. 239 and 560-562); and
performing, by the one or more processors, an action (function) in response to the detection (of no interaction and no confirmation). (see para. 560-562).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose and Patt by incorporating automatic performance of post-vehicular accident actions if no user interaction is received, as disclosed by Ricci, to account for vehicular accidents wherein the user is incapacitated, or the graphic user interface has been disabled or damaged.
Regarding Claim 8, Dutta does not teach a method wherein performing the action comprises performing, by the one or more processors, an action selected of the group comprising (i) initiating an instantaneous notice of loss (INOL); (ii) communicating with an insurer entity; (iii) communicating with an emergency response entity; (iv) communicating with a towing service entity; (v) communicating with a taxi or ride-share service entity; (vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity; and (vii) communicating with a vehicle salvage entity.
Patt discloses a method wherein performing the action comprises performing, by the one or more processors, an action selected of the group comprising (ii) communicating with an insurer entity (insurance claim services); (iii) communicating with an emergency response entity (emergency services); (iv) communicating with a towing service entity (tow truck); and (vi) communicating with a vehicle repair service entity (repair services). (see fig. 5B and 9C; col. 19, lines 20-34; col. 26, lines 9-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dutta, Rose, Patt and Ricci by incorporating communication with an insurer, emergency services, towing services or a repair server, as disclosed by Patt, as all such entities are standard and conventional to communicate with following a vehicular accident.
Regarding Claims 17-18, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current rejection. However, some arguments remain relevant, as they apply to a reference and/or rejection still utilized in the current rejection. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is similar to Example 42: Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated, and tries to establish eligibility through a perceived similarity to Office Examples. See Arguments, pp. 11-12.
These arguments are acknowledged but are not found persuasive.
As a preliminary matter, Examiner notes that the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent.
Applicant argues:
In Example 42, the USPTO stated that the automatic generation and transmission of messages was patent eligible because it ensured "that all users can quickly be notified of any changes without having to manually look up or consolidate all of the providers' updates. This ensures that each of a group of health care providers is always given immediate notice and access to changes so they can readily adapt their own medical diagnostic and treatment strategy in accordance with other providers' actions."
Amended claim 1 provides an analogous improvement: when a parametric event occurs (such as vehicle damage), the smart contract automatically executes and generates a notification that is transmitted to a client device, causing display of GUIs based upon the severity of loss. This ensures that users are quickly notified of vehicle incidents without having to manually monitor or look up vehicle status, allowing them to readily adapt their response in accordance with the severity of the loss. See, e.g., specification, paras. 0101, and 0111. Accordingly, like Example 42, amended claim 1 integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and is patent eligible. See Arguments, p. 12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Example 42 does not demonstrate integration of an abstract idea into a practical application just because it “allow[ed] remote users to share information in real time” but because it solved a problem specifically arising from computer technology (i.e., an inability for computer systems to share records in non-standard formats stored locally) with a technical solution (i.e., by converting records into a standardized format). See Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, p. 17, Background.
As Example 42 solved a technology-based problem with a technology-based solution, Example 42 was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by virtue of improving the functioning of computers or other technology. As in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014), Example 42 is a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
However, the specification in the instant case does not provide evidence that that the claimed invention is directed to solve a technological problem via an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
For example, the specification provides no evidence or suggestion that the claimed invention could not be performed with conventional and standard technology utilizing its existing capabilities.
Examiner asserts that claimed invention is analogous to Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the court stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality (i.e., not an improvement to blockchain technology or computer technology). Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s and blockchain’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., vehicle damage-type differentiation) that uses computers as tools.
Applicant further argues:
Specifically, the claimed comparison step is not merely an abstract mental process or a generic data comparison. Rather, the claim requires that the comparison be performed "with an analysis function included in the smart contract" to "determine that a first type of damage rather than a second type of damage has occurred." This recitation ties the analysis to a specific technical implementation-an analysis function embedded within a smart contract deployed on a blockchain-that performs damage-type differentiation based upon vehicle sensor data. Such damage-type differentiation (e.g., distinguishing between a broken window and destruction of a body panel) based upon sensor data analysis cannot practically be performed in the human mind, as it requires automated processing of sensor data streams to identify specific damage characteristics. This technical implementation provides a meaningful limitation on the claim that goes beyond merely "applying" an abstract idea to a generic computer, and instead recites a particular manner of analyzing vehicle sensor data within a blockchain-based smart contract architecture. See Arguments, p. 13 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A specific technical implementation (i.e., a technical solution) is only half of the requirement to establish an “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” The technical implementation (i.e., the technical solution) has to address a technical problem (i.e., a problem routed in technology).
A mental process includes processes that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Mental processes include processes that would require “the use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). And processes that utilize a computer. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claims that recite limitations “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are not mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is “detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” and “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The examples provided require a computer. A computer is inherent to the underlying process (e.g., there is no network traffic, data packets or pixels without a computer). This is not the case with the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites determining damage-type differentiation based upon vehicle sensor data analysis. Examiner notes that the claimed invention vehicle sensor data is just vehicle data that originates from a vehicle sensor. Drivers and mechanics analyze vehicle sensor data in their mind every time they look at a car’s dashboard (e.g., check engine light, tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) light, anti-lock braking system (ABS) light, traction control light, master warning light, transmission light, low coolant light, low fuel light and oil light).
As such, analysis of vehicle sensor data to make damage-type differentiations are processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
7. 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 25, 2026