Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed March 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
5. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-7), a machine (claims 8-14) and a manufacture (claims 15-20); where the machine and the manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process (See e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
6. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
A computer-implemented method of building and utilizing [[an autonomous vehicle- related event blockchain]], the method comprising:
receiving, [[via one or more processors and/or transceivers]], a subscription request: (i) to provide a data stream associated with [[a smart contract]] and (ii) pertaining to an autonomous vehicle;
in response to the data stream indicating that the triggering condition has occurred, determining, [[via the one or more processors]], an action to implement based upon autonomous vehicle events associated with [[the one or more sensors]].
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., implementing an action, such as generating a usage-based insurance quote). While claim 1 does not explicitly state that the action corresponds to generating an insurance quote, the specification (See Paragraph 3) and dependent claims make it clear that the action corresponds to insurance-related activities. Therefore, for the purpose of analyzing the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the “action” has been interpreted as corresponding to insurance-related activities.
Step 2A, Prong 2
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., an autonomous vehicle-related event blockchain, one or more processors and/or transceivers, a smart contract, and one or more sensors). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation, “forming a consensus with distributed nodes to update, via the one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle-related blockchain to indicate (i) the autonomous vehicle events, and/or (ii) the action to implement to facilitate maintaining an up-to-date shared ledger of autonomous vehicle events.” This limitation simply recites a process for utilizing blockchain technology to form a consensus between multiple distributed nodes regarding the autonomous vehicle events. However, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the blockchain is structured, or how the blockchain is implemented to for a consensus between nodes. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic blockchain technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
in response to receiving the subscription request, determining, via the one or more processors, one or more sensors that generate sensor data relevant to the smart contract; and
receiving, via the one or more processors, the data stream.
These limitations simply recite processes for “determining” information regarding one or more sensors, and receiving a data stream. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the sensors are identified and/or how the data stream is received from the sensors. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2024)).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., an autonomous vehicle-related event blockchain, one or more processors and/or transceivers, a smart contract, and one or more sensors), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)); (See also applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 41-47).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) has been revaluated in Step 2B:
in response to receiving the subscription request, determining, via the one or more processors, one or more sensors that generate sensor data relevant to the smart contract; and
receiving, via the one or more processors, the data stream.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of mere data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
9. Independent claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 8 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 8 and 1 is that claim 8 is drafted as a system rather than a method. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 8 recites generic computer components (e.g., computer system comprising one or more processors, sensors, and/or transceivers, one or more sensors that generate sensor data, a smart contract, and an autonomous vehicle-related blockchain) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 8, claim 8 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Claim 15 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 15 and 1 is that claim 15 is drafted as a computer-readable medium rather than as a method. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 15 recites generic computer components (e.g., A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions, one or more processors, a smart contract, one or more sensors, and an autonomous vehicle-related blockchain) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 15, claim 15 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
10. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 simply state that the method comprises a process for updating the smart contract. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the smart contract is updated. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic smart contract technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 simply provide further definition to the “action” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that the action comprises various commercial/insurance-related actions does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of action initiated by the method.
Claims 7 and 14 simply provide further definition to the “autonomous vehicle events” recited in claims 1 and 8. Simply stating that the autonomous vehicle events are related to various data and technologies does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type information used in the method.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding Double Patenting
12. The double patenting rejection applied to claims 1-20 in the Non-Final Rejection has been withdrawn in response to the terminal disclaimer filed by the applicant on March 5, 2026.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
13. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 7-14) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis under 2019 PEG, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein in line with the 2019 PEG guidance and the amended claims. Applicant is directed to the above full Alice/Mayo analysis in the 101 rejection.
Additionally, on page 9 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are patent eligible because they address a particular technological problem presented by peer-to-peer networks such as blockchain technology, and because they claim limitations directed towards the inventors’ actual specific solutions, not all potential solutions to the technical problem.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner note that the claims do not provide any indication of a technical improvement to blockchain technology, or any other technology or technological field. As discussed further below, the claims provide little technical detail regarding how the claimed functions are performed. Therefore, the broad recitation of blockchain-related technology within the claims does not amount to a technical solution to a particular technological problem.
Additionally, on pages 9 and 10 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “In arguing that the claim limitations of the claimed subject matter are directed toward ineligible subject matter, the Office Action failed to address the determination of which sensor to poll at the electronic device of the autonomous vehicle that exists as a node in a peer-to-peer network based upon the subscription request associated with a trigger condition of the smart contract by ignoring: (i) the importance of the limitation disclosing the subscription request, and (ii) the step disclosing the determination of which autonomous vehicle sensor is relevant to the smart contract, so as to ensure that the only transactions that are generated are the ones that pertinent to the smart contract.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that simply reciting a process for determining one or more sensors relevant to the smart contract does not amount to a technical improvement to any technology or technological field. The claims provide no technical detail regarding how the sensors are identified, or how they function to provide the data stream. In fact, claim 1 does not positively recite any process in which the sensors are used to collect and/or transmit the sensor data. Rather, claim 1 simply states that the sensors are determined based on being somehow relevant to the smart contract. Simply stating that the process of receiving the subscription request includes identifying a sensor which is relevant to the smart contract does not provide any indication that the process of collecting the sensor data has been technically improved. Similarly, claim 1 provides no technical detail regarding how the smart contract functions to implement the action. Rather, the claim simply states that the smart contract is associated with a trigger condition, and that an action is implemented in response to determining that the triggering condition has occurred. Therefore, the claims provide no indication that the process of implementing the smart contract have been technically improved. Such limitations amount to no more than merely applying a generic smart contract to facilitate the performance of the abstract idea.
Additionally, on pages 10 and 11 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “More specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are directed to an improvement in conventional peer-to-peer networks and the monitoring of distributed networks of autonomous vehicles for at least the following reasons. That is, the claimed subject matter consists of a hierarchical, improved peer-to-peer network centered around a method that involves receiving a subscription request to provide a data stream associated with a trigger condition of a smart contract and pertaining to an autonomous vehicle. In this way, the subscription request initiates the electronic device disposed at the autonomous vehicle to monitor data from the autonomous vehicle sensors related to the trigger condition and causes transactions to be generated only in response to detecting a trigger condition.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that claim 1 does not provide any technical detail regarding how the trigger condition is detected, or how the action is implemented in response to the trigger condition being detected. In fact, claim 1 does not positively recite a process for performing the action. Rather, the claim simply broadly states that an action is determined in response to determining that the trigger condition has been met. Such limitations do not provide any indication of a technical improvement regarding the monitoring of distributed networks of autonomous vehicles.
Additionally, on page 11 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “By employing a hierarchical monitoring architecture-comprising a subscription request and an electronic device disposed at the autonomous vehicle-the claimed method ensures that the electronic device monitors only those sensors relevant to the subscription request. Subsequently, the method receives data streams and transactions associated with the trigger condition from the autonomous vehicle, thereby enabling targeted and efficient data collection across the distributed network. By doing so, this system ensures that transactions from each of the one or more autonomous vehicles are generated only in response to state-based changes as opposed to operational-data-based changes, thereby reducing the number of transactions generated each period and thereby decreasing network traffic, congestion, and block size. See Specification, para. 0029.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that simply stating that data is only collected from a particular sensor, or group of sensors, does not provide an indication of a technical improvement to any technology or technological field. The claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the sensors are selected, or how the sensors function to collect the sensor data. Rather, the claims simply state that the sensors are determined/identified based on the smart contract. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely gathering data associated with one or more sensors. Additionally, simply stating that the transactions are generated in response to the trigger condition being met does not amount to a technical improvement to any technology or technological field. As discussed above, the claims provide no technical detail regarding how the trigger condition is detected, or how the actions are implemented in response to the trigger condition being met. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than simply defining the conditions under which the abstract idea is performed (i.e., the action is simply performed in response to the data stream containing certain data).
Additionally, on page 12 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The Office Action gives short shrift to the receiving the subscription request step (i), ignores the determination of the sensors based upon the subscription request and (ii), and ignores the ordered combination, all of which explains why the Office Action alleges that the inventive concept is not evident in the claims themselves. See Office Action, p. 13.” Similarly, on page 14 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “It is this unique ordered combination of what is being monitored and how the monitoring is being used that allows for the improvement of peer-to-peer networks via a reduction in network congestion and a reduction in validation time so as to address the issue of fixed block size and limited network bandwidth. Applicant respectfully submits that just as the claims in Bascom contained an inventive concept, so too do the claim limitations here.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner has not ignored these steps. Rather, the examiner has noted that the claims do not recite sufficient technical detail regarding how these steps are performed. As noted above, the claims provide little technical detail regarding how the data is monitored and used to implement the determined “actions.”
Additionally, on page 14 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claim limitations contain specific limitations that are not traditionally present in claims drawn to abstract ideas. For example, the claim limitations limit the claimed subject matter to a particularized solution involving a unique ordered combination of receiving a subscription request for a data stream associated with a trigger condition of a smart contract, determining which sensor disposed at the autonomous vehicle provides the relevant information, and then generating transactions based upon that condition so as to ensure that each transaction is generated in response to a change in state of the vehicle as opposed to operation data based transactions, which occur more frequently than state-based transactions, reducing the congestion of the peer-to-peer network and solving issues related to peer-to-peer blockchain networks.” The examiner notes that preemption is not a standalone test for patent eligibility. Furthermore, preemption concerns have already been addressed by the Examiner through the application of the two-step framework. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim (See Ariosa Diagnostics, In.c v. Seqenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed Cir. 2015); Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 123 USPQ2d 1813, 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility (Ariosa, 788 F.3d 1379).
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
14. All prior rejections applied to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments. On page 15 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Page 17 of the Office Action argues that Nagla's "registration request" teaches the claimed subscription request. However, Applicant respectfully submits the process Nagla discloses regarding a vehicle owner submitting a registration request is fundamentally different from the use of "subscription request" in the instant application. Namely, Nagla's registration request relates to entering a user's vehicle record data in the peer-to-peer marketplace (see, e.g., Nagla, col. 3, 11. 25-29), while amended claim I recites "a subscription request: (i) to provide a data stream associated with a trigger condition of a smart contract." See also Specification, paras. 0023 and 0073.” The examiner respectfully agrees with this argument. Specifically, the examiner notes that the “registration request” described by Nagla is not related to providing a data stream associated with a triggering condition of a smart contract. While Nagla teaches a vehicle registrations process that allows data associated with the user’s vehicle to be uploaded to a peer-to-peer marketplace, this registration process does not include a request to provide a data stream associated with a trigger condition of a smart contract. A suitable combination of references could not be identified in the prior art to sufficiently teach the specific processes recited in the independent claims for receiving the specific subscription request, identifying sensors based on the request, and performing actions based on a triggering condition associated with a smart contract associated with the data stream.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Crabtree (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210035224): Describes a system and method that utilizes telemetric data for the dynamic pricing of insurance premiums. The system and method employ a contractual framework for the client to authorize an insurer full access to their telemetric data relative to the insurance instrument being negotiated.
Hyde (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20130304513): Describes systems and methods for determining a property and insurance policy based, at least in part, upon characteristics of an autonomous drive mode selection system.
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 WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights