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 .
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category: a method or a system or non-transitory computer readable medium.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 or claim 9 or claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea of detecting a change in a condition of the vehicle relating to a total loss of the vehicle; in response to the detecting the change in the condition, retrieving a VIN of the vehicle from or the vehicle; generating a transaction: (i) including the VIN of the vehicle, and (ii) describing the total loss of the vehicle; accessing the VIN-based distributed ledger by using the VIN of the vehicle, or a hash or an encrypted version thereof as a key to access the VIN-based; and adding the transaction to the VIN-based. This concept of conducting a transaction fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 9 or claim 17 include: by one or more processors, by the one or more processors; a memory unit; by the one or more processors; by the one or more processors, distributed ledger; one or more processors, transceivers, sensors, and/or servers; one or more processors; and a program memory coupled to the one or more processors; by the one or more processors, computer system. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system and display amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of by one or more processors, by the one or more processors; a memory unit; by the one or more processors; by the one or more processors, distributed ledger; one or more processors, transceivers, sensors, and/or servers; one or more processors; and a program memory coupled to the one or more processors; by the one or more processors, computer system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 1, claim 9 or/and claim 17 is/are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-8 and 21, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 10-16, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 9. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 18 and 20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 17. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to 35 § 101 technological improvement, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way processors; distributed ledger, transceivers, sensors, memory and computer system. Rather, Applicant’s specification and claims describe using a distributed ledger for tracking VIN recordkeeping. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic processors; distributed ledger, transceivers, sensors, memory and computer system. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695