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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 3/3/26. Claims 21-40 are pending. Applicant amends claim 21, 25, 28, 30- 31, 35, 38, and 40. After careful consideration of applicant of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
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.
Claim 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a method (device and non transitory computer readable medium) These are all statutory classes of invention. Step 1 (yes)
The examiner has identified the method claim 21 for analysis. Claims 31 and 40 are similar.
The limitations of claim 21 that are abstract include;
obtaining, by (one or more processors), vehicle condition data associated with a vehicle indicative of a longevity of the vehicle based on wear and tear on the vehicle, wherein the vehicle condition data is obtained from one or more (sensors) iteratively determining, by the (one or more processors), whether the vehicle condition data satisfies the proof-of-work rule; until the vehicle condition satisfies the proof of work rule; once the vehicle condition data satisfies the proof-of-work rule: generating, by the (one or more processor), a transaction including a representation of the vehicle condition data, wherein the transaction is stored in a distributed ledger; transmitting, by (the one or more processors), the transaction from a first participant of a plurality of participants to at least a second participant of the plurality of participants, the plurality of participants constituting a distributed ledger network, wherein a validated new block for the transaction is propagated in the distributed ledger network until consensus is reached using consensus rules that are based on tracking the vehicle condition data and an invalidated new block is disregarded and not propagated; and generating a vehicle condition report by executing a smart contract that analyzes the vehicle condition data stored on the distrusted ledger once the consensus is reached based at least in part upon the consensus regarding the vehicle condition data, the vehicle condition report including one or more descriptors indicative of a condition of the vehicle.
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity…. And thus recites a fundamental economic practice. The claims are tied to “one or more processors” “one or more sensors”, “inertial measurement unit” which may be on the mobile device. Thus just applying generic computer type components to an abstract idea does not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. It is noted that claims
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 30 claims the vehicle transmitting and further technical concepts from dependent claim 26 for example might be incorporated to overcome the rejection by creating a practical and technical application.
Thus as claimed the computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Current guidance is less generous in regards to the technical aspects and thus the inventive concept should be technical.
Here applicant has made the “one or more sensors” and processors part of the vehicle though it is one or more which could be one. The result is a vehicle report which is not transmitted or utilized. The examiner suggests further integrating the condition report to a display and using a second sensor. However, the claims have improved by clarifying the inertial measurement unit.
Claim 35 is similar to claim 25 and 36 similar to claim 26.
Prong 2A prong 2 (no)
Step 2B – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered separately or as an ordered combination. The do not have “inventive concept” that allows the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provided inventive concept.
The dependent claims 22-30, 32-39 do not further define the abstract idea such as to create a practical application. However it is noted that claims 25, 26 and 30 might be incorporated as a group to create such a practical application.
Thus claims 21-40 as presented are not patent eligible.
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) 21-22, 25-32,35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2020/0402149 to Dutta In view of Kulik 2012022780
As per claim 21, Dutta discloses; obtaining, by one or more processors,
vehicle condition data associated with a vehicle indicative of a longevity of the vehicle based on wear and tear on the vehicle,
Dutta(0030, condition of the vehicle which they also call transport in Dutta, 0031, “wear and tear” is relatively open ended)
wherein the vehicle condition data is obtained from one or more sensors
(044 of Dutta indicates that the content and types may include…. “mobile device usage”… )
in the vehicle, and the one or more sensors comprise … Dutta(0044-0045, 0041, it might also be a mobile device, accelerometer in the vehicle)
applying, by the one or more processors, a proof-of-work rule to validate the vehicle condition data; iteratively determining, by the one or more processors, whether the vehicle condition data satisfies the proof-of-work rule; until the vehicle condition data satisfies the proof of work rule
Dutta(may use proof of work, 0034 to monitor the vehicle including the condition)
Oncer the vehicle condition data satisfies the proof-of-work rule: generating, by the one or more processors, a transaction including a representation of the vehicle condition data, Application/Control
wherein the transaction is stored in a distributed ledger; transmitting, by the one or more processors, the transaction from a first participant of a plurality of participants to at least a second participant of the plurality of participants,
Dutta(0034 distributed ledger capable of maintaining records between two parties)
the plurality of participants constituting a distributed ledger network, wherein a validated new block for
the transaction is propagated in the distributed ledger network until consensus is reached using consensus rules that are based on tracking the vehicle condition data
(0031 vehicle condition tracking, 0041) and an invalidated new block is disregarded and not propagated;
Dutta(this is how a block chain works.. no peer can modify without a consensus)
and generating a vehicle condition report by executing a smart contract that analyzes the vehicle condition data stored on the distributed ledger once the consensuses is reached
Dutta(0041, a condition report is created by analyzing vehicle condition based on consensus and the purpose is to distribute the data for privacy etc.)
;based at least in part upon the consensus regarding the vehicle condition data, the vehicle condition report including one or more descriptors indicative of a condition of the vehicle.
Dutta(0052, vehicle condition report, one or more only requires one)
Dutta does not explicitly disclose what Kulik teaches; an inertial management unit. (0026)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the IMU of Kulik with the vehicle tracking of Dutta for the motivation of “providing critical information to emergency service providers” among others(0002)
Claims 31 and 40 are similar to claim 21.
As per claims 22, 32 Dutta discloses;
The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising: wherein
The vehicle condition report includes a vehicle condition metric.
Dutta(0052) Dutta teaches proof of work tracking for vehicle condition. If the proof of work is tampered or faulty, then why would the data be accepted, in 0035, “disregarded” is also found)
As per claims 25, 35 Dutta discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the vehicle condition data comprise images associated with the vehicle taken by the user mobile device, Dutta(0041, device might be a mobile device)
As per claims 26 and 36 Dutta discloses;
The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising: adding the transaction to a block of transactions; generating a solution to solve a cryptographic puzzle based at least in part upon the block of transactions; adding the solution to the cryptographic puzzle to the block of transactions; and transmitting the block of transactions to at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network. Dutta(00085… crypto puzzle)
As per claim 27 Dutta discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the generating a transaction includes generating the transaction including a cryptographic hash value corresponding to the vehicle condition data,. Dutta,(0031-4, 0052 ) Application/Control Number: 18/183,907 Page 9 Art Unit: 3693
As per claims 28 and 38 Dutta discloses;
the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein transmitting the transaction includes transmitting, by the one or more processors, the transaction to an address that stores a smart contract on the distributed ledger, and the smart contract is configured to generate the vehicle condition report based at least in part upon the vehicle condition data collected over a period of time.
Dutta(0052, at least in part could be a small part)
As per claim 30 Dutta discloses;
The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the transaction includes one or more: identity data associated with the vehicle; identity data associated with the user mobile device in the vehicle transmitting the transaction; the vehicle condition data; or an indication of a time in which the vehicle condition data were generated. (0041-2, a sensor may identify a vehicle, or it might be a device, a computing device in the vehicle could be a mobile phone in the vehicle or a vehicle type computer)
As per claims 29 and 39 Dutta discloses; he computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the generating the transaction includes:
obtaining, by the one or more processors, sets of vehicle condition data each at a different time;
and generating a plurality of transactions each including a representation of one of the sets of vehicle condition data obtained at a particular time.
Dutta(0044, any of the vehicles, ie more than one) Application/Control Number: 18/183,907 Page 10 Art Unit: 3693
Claim(s) 23-24, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2020/0402149 to Dutta in view of Kulik 2012022780 and further in view of US Patent to Leise 10839015
As per claims 23, 33 Dutta and Kulik do not explicitly disclose;
The computer-implemented method of claim 22, wherein: the vehicle condition metric includes one or more of an estimated lifetime of the vehicle, an estimated value of the vehicle, or an estimated average fuel consumption of the vehicle.
Dutta(condition 0052, 0074-5 appears to track condition in the context of damage to the vehicle) Dutta does not explicitly disclose the valuation portion;
Leise teaches; an estimated value based on mileage for example. Col. 29 and col. 30.
It is noted that at least one from the group consisting only requires one.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the monitoring system of Dutta with the condition tracking of Leise for the motivation of “managing the vehicle life cycle process between multiple participants” (Col. 1 lines 10-20)
As per claims 24, and 34 Dutta and Kulik do not explicitly discloses machine learning model though it discloses vehicle monitoring. Leise teaches machine learning algorithms for vehicles. Col. 25 lines 30-35, It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the monitoring system of Dutta with the machine learning of Leise for the motivation of “managing the vehicle life cycle process between multiple participants” (Col. 1 lines 10-20)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 3/3/26. Claims 21-40 are pending. Applicant amends claim 21, 25, 28, 30- 31, 35, 38, and 40. After careful consideration of applicant of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Response to Claim Objections – withdrawn in view of amendment.
Amended Claims 21-40 Are Allowable Under 35 U.S.C. & 112(a) – withdrawn in view of amendment.
Amended Claims 21-40 Are Allowable Over 35 U.S.C. & 101
The Patent Office rejects claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Office Action at 4-6.
Applicant amends independent claims 21, 31, and 40 to overcome the rejection under § 101. Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40 integrate the idea into a practical application, and should be allowable, in light of recent guidance from the Patent Office.
A. Under Revised Step 2A, Amended Independent Claims 21, 31, and 40 Integrate
the Ideas into a Practical Application
"Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field"; and "Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment." MPEP § 2016.04(d).
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an improvement to other technology or technical field, and also recite use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a particular technological environment. For example, amended independent claim 11 recites significant additional elements above and beyond what the Office Action identifies as the abstract idea, such as "generating a vehicle condition report by executing a smart contract that analyzes the vehicle condition data stored on the distributed ledger once the consensus is reached, based at least in part upon the consensus regarding the vehicle condition data." Amended independent claims 31 and 40 recite similar limitations with additional elements beyond what the Office Action identifies as the abstract idea.
The specific, concrete approach in these additional elements provides a combination of steps that improves the technical field and uses the ideas in meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment. Indeed, the particular limitations of the claims integrates the ideas into a practical application.
Accordingly, amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40 integrate the ideas into a practical application and should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Here practical application is subjective. However, on review of current guidance and the applicants invention. It appears that the concept is that a centrally located database is the current art (per the spec) but, this invention distributes the invention and uses a consensus type mechanism to compare remotely stored data and then if the consensus data is consistent then the vehicle report will be deemed to be “accurate” or something like that. Thus the practical application is to track condition and avoid fraud because the data is stored in many locations. This feature is however found in Dutta 0041 so it might not serve as the inventive element unless another feature could be added. Machine learning is supported at least topographically 010 and 0047 which might be another technical avenue to explore.
B. Under Step 2B, Amended Independent Claims 21, 31, and 40 Recite an Inventive
Concept by Adding Specific Limitations that Are Not Well-Understood, Routine,
or Conventional Activity in the Field
Moreover, "[l]imitations the courts have found to qualify as 'significantly more' when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: . Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. MPEP § 2016.05(I)(A); see also MPEP§2106.05(d).
Applicant respectfully submits that the ordered combination of limitations of amended independent
claims 21, 31, and 40 add specific limitations that are improvements beyond what is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Specifically, as quoted above, amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40 recite a non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of systems and ordered combination of limitations above and beyond any alleged abstract idea.
Here none of the limitations are non-conventional but, the examiner outlined a practical application approach.
Applicant respectfully submits that the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Patent Office provides no evidence that demonstrates otherwise for the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40.
Here in regards to ordered combinations of limitations, that is not generally a persuasive argument. However, if the inventive concept is displayed as discussed it makes senses that this might be statutory. Likewise if the machine learning elements were highlighted, there might be persuasive if indeed supported.
Dependent claims are argued by virtue of dependency.
Amended Claims 21-40 Are Allowable in View of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 USC 103
The Patent Office rejects claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over various combinations of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0402149 to Dutta, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0022780 to Kulik, and U.S. Patent No. 10,839,015 to Leise (collectively, the "Cited References").
Applicant respectfully submits that the Cited References do not disclose, show, teach, or suggest every limitation of amended claims 21- 40.
A. Amended Independent Claims 21, 31, and 40 Are Allowable
Specifically, amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40 require, in part, "wherein the transaction is propagated in the distributed ledger network until consensus is reached using consensus rules that are based on tracking the vehicle condition data; and generating a vehicle condition report based at least in part upon the consensus regarding the vehicle condition data."
Nowhere do the Cited References teach or suggest these limitations, whether taken alone or in combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the allowance of amended independent claims 1 and 11.
Here the examiner has updated the rejection. However, it is noted that “at least in part” could be a little bit and thus is not really much of a limitation. However, the limitation could be strengthened by requiring more than “in part”
Claims 22-30 and 32-39 are argued by virtue of dependency.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is from an IP.com search.
Blockchain Based Verification Of Vehicle History For Pre-owned Vehicle Industry, IEEE 2021
BCVehis: A Blockchain-Based Service Prototype of Vehicle History Tracking for Used-Car Trades in China, IEEE, 2020
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights