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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 3/24/25, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 4, 11 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-10,12-18 and 20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim
amendments.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, this claim recites a judicial exception. The claim recites a computer system for managing transactions associated with vehicle using a distributed ledger including receiving a transaction listing associated with a vehicle, generating a transaction, verifying an identity of an entity using a credential, and authorizing and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger using a consensus protocol. These limitations describe managing and recording vehicle-related transactions and verifying identities, which constitute certain methods of organizing human activity and data manipulation, and therefore recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including one or more processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a distributed ledger, and a consensus protocol, are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions such as receiving, processing, verifying, and storing data .The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing transaction records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited computer components perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 2, this claim recites receiving a subsequent transaction listing including data for a first entity and a second entity, generating a transaction transferring a vehicle from the first entity to the second entity, and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger. These limitations describe managing and recording a transfer of ownership between parties, which is a commercial or legal interaction and therefore a method of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea.
The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, and the distributed ledger, perform generic computer functions such as receiving, generating, and recording data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 3, this claim recites responsive to recording the transaction in the distributed ledger, update a virtual, three-dimensional representation of the vehicle based upon the updated state of the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, analyzing and updating information related to a vehicle transaction and its status, which constitute data manipulation and managing information, an abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, the distributed ledger, and virtual representation represent performing generic computer functions such as processing, storing and displaying data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 5, this claim discloses a number of prior vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity, a number vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity within a time threshold, or a maintenance record for the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, and analyzing historical transaction and maintenance information associated with an entity or vehicle, which constitute data gathering and analysis, an abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, the distributed ledger, and virtual representation represent perform generic computer functions such as processing, storing and displaying data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 6, this claim discloses that the portion of a transaction record of the vehicle, the location, and the maintenance characteristic of the vehicle indicated by the updated state of the vehicle collectively comprise and offer for sale of the vehicle, a manufacturer recall for the vehicle, a maintenance update for the vehicle, aa current location of the vehicle and a quote for the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, storing ad managing vehicle-related information and commercial data, which constitute “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, an abstract idea. The additional elements are no more than generic computer components to process and record information in a distributed ledger. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 7, this claim discloses that the transaction includes data corresponding to a verifiable credential geld by the first entity, the data including that the first entity owns the vehicle. These limitations describe verifying and recording ownership information associated with a transaction, which constitutes a commercial or legal interaction and data manipulation, an abstract idea. The additional elements are no more than generic computer components to process and record information in a distributed ledger. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per independent claim 8, this claim recites a judicial exception. The claim recites a computer-implemented method for managing transactions associated with vehicle using a distributed ledger including receiving a transaction listing associated with a vehicle, generating a transaction, verifying an identity of an entity using a credential, and authorizing and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger using a consensus protocol. These limitations describe managing and recording vehicle-related transactions and verifying identities, which constitute certain methods of organizing human activity and data manipulation, and therefore recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites additional elements, including one or more processors, a distributed ledger, a public ledger layer, and a consensus protocol, are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions such as receiving, processing, verifying, and storing data .The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing transaction records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, claim 8 does not recite an inventive concept. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited computer components perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 9, this claim recites receiving a subsequent transaction listing including data for a first entity and a second entity, generating a transaction transferring a vehicle from the first entity to the second entity, and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger. These limitations describe managing and recording a transfer of ownership between parties, which is a commercial or legal interaction and therefore a method of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea.
The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, and the distributed ledger, perform generic computer functions such as receiving, generating, and recording data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 10, this claim recites responsive to recording the transaction in the distributed ledger, update a virtual, three-dimensional representation of the vehicle based upon the updated state of the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, analyzing and updating information related to a vehicle transaction and its status, which constitute data manipulation and managing information, an abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, the distributed ledger, and virtual representation represent performing generic computer functions such as processing, storing and displaying data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 12, this claim discloses a number of prior vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity, a number vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity within a time threshold, or a maintenance record for the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, and analyzing historical transaction and maintenance information associated with an entity or vehicle, which constitute data gathering and analysis, an abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, the distributed ledger, and virtual representation represent perform generic computer functions such as processing, storing and displaying data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 13, this claim discloses that the portion of a transaction record of the vehicle, the location, and the maintenance characteristic of the vehicle indicated by the updated state of the vehicle collectively comprise and offer for sale of the vehicle, a manufacturer recall for the vehicle, a maintenance update for the vehicle, aa current location of the vehicle and a quote for the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, storing ad managing vehicle-related information and commercial data, which constitute “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, an abstract idea. The additional elements are no more than generic computer components to process and record information in a distributed ledger. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 14, this claim discloses that the transaction includes data corresponding to a verifiable credential geld by the first entity, the data including that the first entity owns the vehicle. These limitations describe verifying and recording ownership information associated with a transaction, which constitutes a commercial or legal interaction and data manipulation, an abstract idea. The additional elements are no more than generic computer components to process and record information in a distributed ledger. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per independent claim 15, this claim recites a judicial exception. The claim recites a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for managing transactions associated with vehicle using a distributed ledger including receiving a transaction listing associated with a vehicle, generating a transaction, verifying an identity of an entity using a credential, and authorizing and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger using a consensus protocol. These limitations describe managing and recording vehicle-related transactions and verifying identities, which constitute certain methods of organizing human activity and data manipulation, and therefore recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites additional elements, including one or more processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a distributed ledger, and a consensus protocol, are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions such as receiving, processing, verifying, and storing data .The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing transaction records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, claim 15 does not recite an inventive concept. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited computer components perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 16, this claim recites receiving a subsequent transaction listing including data for a first entity and a second entity, generating a transaction transferring a vehicle from the first entity to the second entity, and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger. These limitations describe managing and recording a transfer of ownership between parties, which is a commercial or legal interaction and therefore a method of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea.
The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, and the distributed ledger, perform generic computer functions such as receiving, generating, and recording data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 17, this claim recites responsive to recording the transaction in the distributed ledger, update a virtual, three-dimensional representation of the vehicle based upon the updated state of the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, analyzing and updating information related to a vehicle transaction and its status, which constitute data manipulation and managing information, an abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, the distributed ledger, and virtual representation represent performing generic computer functions such as processing, storing and displaying data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 18, this claim discloses a number of prior vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity, a number vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity within a time threshold, or a maintenance record for the vehicle. These limitations describe collecting, and analyzing historical transaction and maintenance information associated with an entity or vehicle, which constitute data gathering and analysis, an abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, computer-readable media, the distributed ledger, and virtual representation represent perform generic computer functions such as processing, storing and displaying data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per dependent claim 20, this claim discloses that the transaction includes data corresponding to a verifiable credential geld by the first entity, the data including that the first entity owns the vehicle. These limitations describe verifying and recording ownership information associated with a transaction, which constitutes a commercial or legal interaction and data manipulation, an abstract idea. The additional elements are no more than generic computer components to process and record information in a distributed ledger. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1), and further in view of NAKASAKA (US 20240296158 A1), and further in view of
Batcher et al (US 20240106665 A1).
As per claim 1, MICHAELIS et al discloses:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more
processors and storing instructions thereon, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes
the one or more processors to, ([10091] In yet another embodiment, a node of an ad-hoc network cluster is described, comprising a communication interface for sending and receiving information to other nodes, a non-transitory information storage device for storing processor-executable instructions);
wherein the distributed ledger includes a public distributed ledger layer for recording identification and
ownership information for vehicles and a consensus mechanism implemented by the local consensus protocol, ([00148] Manager nodes may retrieve public cryptographic blocks from routing blockchain
network 504, or from local ledger nodes, and update their routing tables in accordance with the information in the cryptographic blocks. [00149] Routing blockchain network 504, or local ledger nodes, may operate on a concept of rewarding routing activity with a good performance score, i.e., a reward (i.e., a higher performance score) is based on a routing node's performance and not its computational
effort as in proof-of-work blockchains. In this way, a routing node's performance (and hence trustworthiness and reliability) is memorialized in metrics meaningful to a DID issuing domain
(i.e., an issuer entity) on a distributed ledger (routing blockchain network 504, or local ledger
nodes) by consensus and thus minimizing the computational overhead of such a distributed performance scoring system);
generate a transaction including a description of the transaction listing, and data corresponding to a verifiable credential associated with the first entity, verify an identity of the first entity by validating the verifiable credential, authorize, using a local consensus protocol, recording the transaction in the distributed ledger, (MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1) [0091] At block 326, a user of requesting entity, such as a user of user device 104, a node, etc., requests access to the resource by sending a request to access policy evaluator node 106 via local-area network 124 (if applicable) and wide-area network 122. The request comprises an identification of the requested resource, in one embodiment a DID of the resource, an identity of the user (which may also be a DID assigned to the user), and the verifiable credential of the user...Access policy evaluator node 106 responds with the applicable verifiable presentation template for accessing the resource by this user; [0092] At block 328 access policy evaluator node 106 performs an authorization technique to determine if the user is authorized to access the resource; [0093] A typical authorization technique is to compare a username and password to a list stored by access policy evaluator node 106, to see if the user entered a correct password that matches the user's username; [0094] recent techniques based on blockchain technology have been developed that encrypt such authorization information and allow it to be stored on a distributed ledger; [0096] In any case, at block 330, after access policy evaluator node 106 determines that the requesting user is authorized to access the resource, access policy evaluator node 106 causes an authorization record to be created based on the authorization event template previously posted to authorization blockchain network 110 in block 308 and an identity of the user requesting access to the resource);
in response to verifying the identity of the first entity and authorizing recording the transaction to the distributed ledger, record the transaction in the distributed ledger, maintained by the plurality of participants, (MICHAELIS et al ( [0078] At block 306, the issuing entity causes an authorization event template to be created in association with the resource. The authorization event template comprises an identification of the resource and an address where the resource may be accessed (i.e., a URL), an identification of one or more users/entities that are authorized to access the resource (in one embodiment, a "realm" is listed, the realm associated with a "tails file" on a distributed identifier (DID) blockchain network in an embodiment where users are grouped into organizations/domains/realms. Each realm has an associated tails file stored on the DID blockchain network that associates users and the resources they can access. In this embodiment, the authorization event template specifies which realms' tails files access policy evaluator node 106 should consider when checking whether a user has access to a resource. While a "tails file" is specific to the Hyperledger Indy implementation, DID chains
use signed relationship tables that associate user and resource DIDs.), a signed token that is used
to access the resource by a requesting entity (such as a person, computer, robot, drone, etc.), the
one or more conditions, and in some embodiments, the one or more permissions; [0081] At block 310, the issuer entity may notify one or more users that a resource associated with the newly-created authorization event template is available by sending a message via wide-area network 122, local-area network 124 to user device 104; [0082] At block 312, the issuer entity may create a verifiable credential
template comprising one or more schema, a public key used to identify the issuer entity, and an identification of the verifiable credential template; [0085] At block 316 the issuer entity may generate a verifiable credential each for one or more users based on the authorization event template and particulars of each user, respectively; [0084] At block 314, after the verifiable credential template has been created, the issuing entity submits the verifiable credential template to one of the nodes 116 of
blockchain verifiable credential network 114 via issuer node 102, where it is then provided by node
116 to all of the other nodes 116 of verifiable credential network 114 in accordance with well-
known blockchain protocols. Thus, the verifiable credential template is stored in a distributed
fashion in verifiable credential network 114 and publicly accessible by any node in resource access
system 100).
MICHAELIS et al does not disclose the following limitation, however NAKASAKA discloses:
receive a transaction listing from a first entity, the transaction listing including (1) entity data
corresponding to the first entity, (11) a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to a vehicle, and (iii) an
updated state of the vehicle indicating portion of a transaction record of the vehicle, a location, or a
maintenance characteristic of the vehicle, ([0174] Information terminal 10a of the first user receives an
operation from the first user and generates and deploys transaction data including. a non-fungible
token (NFT) The ticket token contract may further include the source and destination of movement of
the tickets,...; ALSO See Claim 1 OF NAKASAKA: “storing first transaction data into the distributed ledger when the first user performs at least one of (i) consuming a first amount of a resource out of a predetermined an amount of a resource with an expiration limit or (ii) handing a second amount of a resource out of the predetermined amount of the resource over to the second user, the first transaction data including a record of the at least one of the consumption and the handover by the first user; [0174] Information terminal 10a of the first user receives an operation from the first user and generates
and deploys transaction data including a ticket token contract (S302). The ticket token contract is, for
example, a non-fungible token (NFT). The ticket token contract includes: the number of tickets; a
distribution order (ordinal number); a consumption state indicating whether the tickets have been
consumed; the expiration limit (shelf life) of the tickets; and records of use of the tickets.”) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Livesay in the systems of MICHAELIS et al, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
MICHAELIS et al does not disclose: wherein a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle is linked to the NFT in the distributed ledger.
However, Batcher et al (US 20240106665 A1) discloses:
([0091] In some implementation, each assembled product can be represented by a unique NFT 234
minted for that respective product, with each NFTs transaction data comprising production statistics for
the product 242. Example statistics that can be archived in the NFT can include, but are not limited to
part identifier (e.g., a VIN number of an assembled vehicle)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Batcher et al in the systems of MICHAELIS et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1), and further in view of NAKASAKA (US 20240296158 A1), and further in view of Batcher et al (US 20240106665 A1), and further in view of SPIVACK (WO 2021159096 A1).
As per claim 2, MICHAELIS et al does not disclose:
(iii) the NFT linked to the VIN of the vehicle,
However, Batcher et al (US 20240106665 A1) discloses:
([0091] In some implementation, each assembled product can be represented by a unique NFT 234
minted for that respective product, with each NFTs transaction data comprising production statistics for
the product 242. Example statistics that can be archived in the NFT can include, but are not limited to
part identifier (e.g., a VIN number of an assembled vehicle)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Batcher et al in the systems of MICHAELIS et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
MICHAELIS et al does not disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: receive a
subsequent transaction listing from the first entity, the subsequent transaction listing including (i) the
entity data corresponding to the first entity, (11) second entity data corresponding to a second entity,
(iv) a subsequent updated state of the vehicle; generate a subsequent transaction including a transfer of
the vehicle from the first entity to the second entity and a description of the subsequent transaction
listing; and record the subsequent transaction in the distributed ledger.
However, SPIVACK (WO 2021159096 A1) discloses: [00195] One or more parties may enact a transaction
or transfer of ownership of a physical thing (such as a product or a wallet or a collectible or unit of
currency) and/or a digital thing (such as a token, data file, or digital object or application) by scanning an
object that contains a surface that functions as an authenticity seal; [00196] Alternatively, an ownership
transfer request can be broadcast publicly (e.g.,. on a distributed ledger), which can then be retrieved
and countersigned by the current owner. Once their permission is granted then the database is updated
with a record of the transaction event and the identity of the new owner of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by SPIVACK in the systems of MICHAELIS et al, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, MICHAELIS et al does not disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: responsive to
recording the transaction in the distributed ledger, update a virtual, three - dimensional representation
of the vehicle based upon the updated state of the vehicle.
However, SPIVACK (WO 2021159096 A1) discloses: [0032] Embodiments of the present disclosure
include systems, methods and apparatuses of a security device. One embodiment includes a security
device (e.g., physical security device, tag, Blocktag) which can include, an authenticity component having
A micro-optics array containing a 2D or 3D geometric array of micro-optics and/or micro-structures
and/or micro-optic systems; [00126] Here the Yin Yang and Lock shapes and orientations are the
symbols, the colors are created with pigment or identifiable ink or dye. The translucent polygons
represent different types of micro-optical effects (different types of lenses or diffractives etc.). Even with
these features, this combination can generate a large number of variations. In fact there can be more
features - such as each lens type having a particular orientation in three-dimensions, ([00206] Some
embodiments of the security device applications include augmented reality (AR) use cases. augmented
reality and physical reality use-cases include using a Blocktag to generate a secure AR marker (e.g., by
the AR engine 350 of the host server 300) for a physical location or object. For example, a Blocktag can
be used as a secure marker at a location (on a piece of furniture, or on a piece of architecture or a tree,
for example) that would be unique to that location, so the system can be certain that anyone scanning it
is actually at that location. From there the system (e.g., deployed by the AR engine 350 of the host
server of FIG.3A) can then launch augmented reality, virtual reality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by SPIVACK in the systems of MICHAELIS et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, MICHAELIS et al does not disclose: wherein the entity data includes (1) a number of prior vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity, (11) a number of vehicle-based transactions executed by the first entity within a time threshold, or (111) a maintenance record for the vehicle.
However, SPIVACK (WO 2021159096 A1) discloses: [00218] A well-used shipping port would build up
transactions quickly and maintain a high number of transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by SPIVACK in the systems of MICHAELIS et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, MICHAELIS et al does not disclose: wherein the transaction further includes data corresponding to a verifiable credential held by the first entity, the data indicating that the first entity owns the vehicle.
However, SPIVACK (WO 2021159096 A1) discloses: When Bob scans the authentication tag on X he then
authenticates himself on his device in order to request a transfer. Sue receives the request and approves
it. At that point Bob becomes the registered owner of X.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by SPIVACK in the systems of MICHAELIS et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 9, please see the rejection for claim 2.
As per claim 10, please see the rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 12, please see the rejection for claim 5.
As per claim 14, please see the rejection for claim 7.
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for
similar reasons.
As per clam 16, please see rejection for claim 2.
As per claim 17, please see rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 20, please see rejection for claim 7.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1) and further in view of NAKASAKA (US 20240296158 A1), and further in view of
Batcher et al (US 20240106665 A1), and further in view of COSTIGAN (AU 2002301438 A1).
As per claim 6, MICHAELIS et al does not disclose: wherein the transaction characteristic, the location, and the maintenance characteristic of the vehicle indicated by the updated state of the vehicle collectively comprise: 1) an offer for sale of the vehicle, (ii) a manufacturer recall for the vehicle, (111) a
maintenance update for the vehicle, (iv) a current location of the vehicle, and (v) a quote for the vehicle.
However, COSTIGAN (AU 2002301438 A1) discloses: (Abstract: "The Invention pertains to an on-line
system for the collection, analysis and distribution of information relating to motor vehicles; ALSO SEE:
"Integration With Other Systems The system will be able to integrate with other software applications
be having the facility to export and import data in various common formats. This will allow the system to
integrate with a system user's general ledger system, accounting package, stock control software, or
other software systems"; ALSO SEE "The method of claim 27 wherein said step of at least one of
compiling or updating said information in said computer system further comprises: Accessing
information selected from the following group: vehicle information collected during the process of
offering a vehicle for sale at an auction vehicle information collected by insurance companies as a
result of issuing insurance cover or processing an insurance claim"; The method of claims 27 to 30
further comprising the step of: O Generating at least one report selected from the following group: A
Vehicle Information Report showing one or more of the following vehicle damage or repair history. A
Police Book report showing the present location of a particular vehicle within the dealer network. The
method of claims 27 to 45 further comprising allow system users and the public to view, bid...on-line").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by COSTIGAN in the systems of MICHAELIS et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 13, please see the rejection for claim 6.
As per claim 18, please see rejection for claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field through disclosing techniques that (1) improve security of blockchain technologies by verifying the identity of users using verifiable credentials prior to updates being recorded on a distributed ledger and (2) reduce transaction latency by authorizing transactions using a local consensus protocol by disclosing the following limitations: generating "a transaction including a description of the transaction listing and data corresponding to a verifiable credential associated with the first entity," verifying "an identity of the first entity by validating the verifiable credential, "authorizing "using a local consensus protocol, recording the transaction in the distributed ledger," and "in response to verifying the identity of the first entity and authorizing recording
the transaction to the distributed ledger," recording "the transaction in the distributed ledger maintained by the plurality of participants, wherein a vehicle identification number (VIN) of
the vehicle is linked to the NFT in the distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger
includes a public distributed ledger layer for recording identification and ownership
information for vehicles and a consensus mechanism implemented by the local consensus
protocol.". However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon review of the newly amended claims, the limitations do not amount to a technological improvement under 35 USC 101. The claimed features of generating a transaction, verifying identity using verifiable credentials, authorizing transaction using a local consensus protocol, and recording the transaction in a distributed ledger describe no more than routine and conventional uses of computer technology and blockchain systems, which are well-understood, and applied to the abstract idea of managing vehicle transactions and ownership information. As described, the claims are directed to using conventional blockchain techniques to implement a business process through tracking vehicle ownership and transactions, linking VINs to NFTs, and recording data in a ledger. The claims do not improve the functionality of the computer itself ,or provide a novel technical solution to ta technological problem.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 3/24/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1). Independent claims 8 and 15 are now also rejected in view of MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1). Claims that depend from independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected in view of MICHAELIS et al (CA 3170849 A1) based on their dependency.
Prior Art Considered
The following is prior at considered by the Examiner, however not used in the present office action.
Cella (US 20220366494 A1)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
April 13, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights