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 .
This final rejection is in response to the amendments filed on: 03/11/2026.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-6, 12, 13, 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al (US 20210065306 A1 thereafter "Dutta"), in view of Murao (US 20200349569 A1), in view of Thompson (US Application: US 20180365772, published: Dec. 20, 2018, filed: Jun. 18, 2018).
Claim(s) 3, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al (US 20210065306 A1 thereafter "Dutta"), in view of Murao (US 20200349569 A1), in view of Thompson (US Application: US 20180365772, published: Dec. 20, 2018, filed: Jun. 18, 2018), in view of Zankat et al (US 10803527 B1 thereafter "Zankat").
Claim(s) 7-11, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al (US 20210065306 A1 thereafter "Dutta"), in view of Murao (US 20200349569 A1), in view of Thompson (US Application: US 20180365772, published: Dec. 20, 2018, filed: Jun. 18, 2018), in view of Kundu et al (US 20190370760 A1 thereafter "Kundu").
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘456) remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-4, 8-15, 17, 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12007240 (hereinafter ‘240) in view of Thompson (US Application: US 20180365772, published: Dec. 20, 2018, filed: Jun. 18, 2018). The chart below is provided as a quick reference as to the difference(s). The difference(s) are addressed further below the table.
Current Application
US 12007240 B1
1. A computer-implemented method for verifying details for an accident using aggregated rideshare data stored on a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the method comprising: monitoring, by one or more processors, a distributed ledger for an indication of an accident, the indication of the accident identifying at least a user and a time period;
1. A computer-implemented method for verifying and generating a settlement quote for an accident using aggregated rideshare data stored on a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the method comprising: monitoring, by one or more processors, a distributed ledger for an indication of an accident, the indication of the accident identifying at least a user and a time period;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, in response to the indication of an accident, rideshare data from the distributed ledger, wherein the rideshare data: identifies a plurality of rideshare companies for which the user offered driving services during the time period, and identifies corresponding phases of a rideshare trip for each rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies during the time period, wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, rideshare data from the distributed ledger, wherein the rideshare data: identifies one or more rideshare companies for which the user offered driving services during the time period, and identifies a phase of a rideshare trip for each rideshare company of the one or more rideshare companies during the time period;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, accident data from one or more sensors, wherein the accident data is indicative of damage associated with the accident;
and verifying, by the one or more processors and based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party, wherein the controlling party is one of the user or one of the one or more rideshare companies.
and verifying, by the one or more processors and based upon the rideshare data and the accident data, a controlling party, wherein the controlling party is one of the user or one of the one or more rideshare companies.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: obtaining, by the one or more processors, accident data from one or more sensors, wherein the accident data is indicative of damage associated with the accident.
1. … obtaining, by the one or more processors, accident data from one or more sensors, wherein the accident data is indicative of damage associated with the accident;
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein obtaining the accident data further comprises: transmitting an indication to a computing device of the user to prompt the user to take image data of the accident;
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the accident data further comprises: transmitting an indication to a computing device of the user to prompt the user to take image data of the accident;
and receiving image data of the accident.
and receiving image data of the accident.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the phase is one of: (i) a passenger transportation phase, (ii) a passenger pickup phase, (iii) a passenger search phase, or (iv) a resting phase.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the phase is one of: (i) a passenger transportation phase, (ii) a passenger pickup phase, (iii) a passenger search phase, or (iv) a resting phase.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the driving services include item delivery services for at least one rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the driving services include item delivery services for at least one rideshare company of the one or more rideshare companies.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, responsive to the verification, a settlement quote for the accident based upon the rideshare data.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, responsive to the verification, a settlement quote for the accident based upon the rideshare data and the accident data.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising: generating a transaction including a representation of the settlement quote, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger;
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: generating a transaction including a representation of the settlement quote, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger;
and transmitting the transaction to at least one other participant of the plurality of participants maintaining the distributed ledger.
and transmitting the transaction to at least one other participant of the plurality of participants maintaining the distributed ledger.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: adding the transaction to a block of transactions;
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: adding the transaction to a block of transactions;
solving a cryptographic puzzle based upon the block of transactions;
solving a cryptographic puzzle based upon the block of transactions;
adding the solution to the cryptographic puzzle to 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.
and transmitting the block of transactions to at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein generating the transaction includes generating a transaction including a cryptographic hash value corresponding to the settlement quote, and further comprising: transmitting the settlement quote to a server computing device that issues a payment based upon the settlement quote.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein generating the transaction includes generating a transaction including a cryptographic hash value corresponding to the settlement quote, and further comprising: transmitting the settlement quote to a server computing device that issues a payment based upon the settlement quote.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein transmitting the transaction includes transmitting the transaction to an address that stores a smart contract on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract generates a payment based upon the settlement quote.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein transmitting the transaction includes transmitting the transaction to an address that stores a smart contract on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract generates a payment based upon the settlement quote.
12. A computing device for verifying details for an accident using aggregated rideshare data stored on a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the computing device comprising: one or more processors;
12. A computing device for verifying and generating a settlement quote for an accident using aggregated rideshare data stored on a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the computing device comprising: one or more processors;
a communication unit;
a communication unit;
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and the communication unit and storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: monitor a distributed ledger for an indication of an accident, the indication of the accident identifying at least a user and a time period;
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and the communication unit and storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: monitor a distributed ledger for an indication of an accident, the indication of the accident identifying at least a user and a time period;
obtain rideshare data from the distributed ledger in response to the indication of an accident, wherein the rideshare data: identifies a plurality of rideshare companies for which the user offered driving services during the time period, and identifies corresponding phases of a rideshare trip for each rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies during the time period, wherein each phrase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user; and
obtain rideshare data from the distributed ledger, wherein the rideshare data: identifies one or more rideshare companies for which the user offered driving services during the time period, and identifies a phase for each rideshare company of the one or more rideshare companies for a rideshare trip during the time period;
and verify, based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party, wherein the controlling party is one of the user or one of the one or more rideshare companies.
and verify, based upon the rideshare data and the accident data, a controlling party, wherein the controlling party is one of the user or one of the one or more rideshare companies.
13. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: obtain accident data from one or more sensors, wherein the accident data is indicative of damage associated with the accident.
12. … obtain accident data from one or more sensors, wherein the accident data is indicative of damage associated with the accident;
14. The computing device of claim 13, wherein obtaining the accident data further comprises: transmitting an indication to a computing device of the user to prompt the user to take image data of the accident;
13. The computing device of claim 12, wherein obtaining the accident data further comprises: transmitting an indication to a computing device of the user to prompt the user to take image data of the accident;
and receiving image data of the accident.
and receiving image data of the accident.
16. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the phase is one of: (i) a passenger transportation phase, (ii) a passenger pickup phase, (iii) a passenger search phase, or (iv) a resting phase.
14. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the phase is one of: (i) a passenger transportation phase, (ii) a passenger pickup phase, (iii) a passenger search phase, or (iv) a resting phase.
17. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the driving services include item delivery services for at least one rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies.
15. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the driving services include item delivery services for at least one rideshare company of the one or more rideshare companies.
18. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: generate, responsive to the verification, a settlement quote for the accident based upon the rideshare data.
17. The computing device of claim 12, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: generate, responsive to the verification, a settlement quote for the accident based upon the rideshare data and the accident data.
19. The computing device of claim 18, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: generate a transaction including a representation of the settlement quote, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger;
19. The computing device of claim 17, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: generate a transaction including a representation of the settlement quote, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger;
and transmit the transaction to at least one other participant of the plurality of participants maintaining the distributed ledger.
and transmit the transaction to at least one other participant of the plurality of participants maintaining the distributed ledger.
20. The computing device of claim 19, wherein transmitting the transaction includes transmitting the transaction to an address that stores a smart contract on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract generates a payment based upon the settlement quote.
20. The computing device of claim 19, wherein transmitting the transaction includes transmitting the transaction to an address that stores a smart contract on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract generates a payment based upon the settlement quote.
With regards to claim 1 of ‘456, claim 1 of ‘240 teaches the limitation of claim 1 of ‘456 except : obtaining, … in response to the indication of an accident, … ; wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user …;, … verifying, … based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … .
Yet Dutta teaches obtaining, … in response to the indication of an accident, … (Fig. 3A, 3B, 3E, Fig. 3F, Fig 4A, Fig 4C, 0036 and 0037: in response to an accident being reported, data is obtained through distributed block chain for instant device/vehicle and other vehicles and accident event is verified through correlations to generate an assessment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘240’s ability to obtain data from a distributed ledger, such that it would have been modified to obtain data in response to an indication of an accident, as taught by Dutta. The combination would have allowed a more comprehensive assessment for an event through additional collection of context data surrounding an indication of an event/accident.
However the combination of ‘240 and Dutta does not expressly teach wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user …;, … verifying, … based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … .
Yet Doisaki et al teaches wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user …;, … verifying, … based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … (paragraphs 0038 and 0039, 0160, Fig. 7 and Fig. 10: the ride share company’s data associated with the user’s driving events/phases are referenced (which can include pickup/boarding events) and the data includes phases/events associated with time stamps ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘240’s and Dutta’s ability to obtain and assess data in response to an event/accident, such that the obtained data can be referenced to assess a controlling party of the user or rideshare company services, as taught by Doisaki et al. The combination would have included additional contextual data analysis to make optimal insurance related assessments via status detection of when the user is driving privately or commercially based on event data (Doisaki et al, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 2 of ‘456, claim 1 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 2 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘456, claim 2 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 3 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘456, claim 3 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 5 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘456, claim 4 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 6 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 7 of ‘456, claim 6 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 7 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘456, claim 8 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 8 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘456, claim 9 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 9 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘456, claim 10 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 10 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘456, claim 11 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 11 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘456, claim 12 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 12 of ‘456, except: obtain, … in response to the indication of an accident, … ; wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user …;, … verify, … based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … .
Yet Dutta teaches obtain, … in response to the indication of an accident, … (Fig. 3A, 3B, 3E, Fig. 3F, Fig 4A, Fig 4C, 0036 and 0037: in response to an accident being reported, data is obtained through distributed block chain for instant device/vehicle and other vehicles and accident event is verified through correlations to generate an assessment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘240’s ability to obtain data from a distributed ledger, such that it would have been modified to obtain data in response to an indication of an accident, as taught by Dutta. The combination would have allowed a more comprehensive assessment for an event through additional collection of context data surrounding an indication of an event/accident.
However the combination of ‘240 and Dutta does not expressly teach wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user …;, … verify, … based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … .
Yet Doisaki et al teaches wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user …;, … verify, … based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … (paragraphs 0038 and 0039, 0160, Fig. 7 and Fig. 10: the ride share company’s data associated with the user’s driving events/phases are referenced (which can include pickup/boarding events) and the data includes phases/events associated with time stamps ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘240’s and Dutta’s ability to obtain and assess data in response to an event/accident, such that the obtained data can be referenced to assess a controlling party of the user or rideshare company services, as taught by Doisaki et al. The combination would have included additional contextual data analysis to make optimal insurance related assessments via status detection of when the user is driving privately or commercially based on event data (Doisaki et al, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 13 of ‘456, claim 12 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 13 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 14 of ‘456, claim 13 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 14 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘456, claim 14 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 16 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘456, claim 15 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 17 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘456, claim 17 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 18 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 19 of ‘456, claim 19 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 19 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
With regards to claim 20 of ‘456, claim 20 of ‘240 teaches similarly teach the limitations of claim 20 of ‘456. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite only obvious differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such as simply omitting/adding steps or elements along with their functions.
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 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, 2, 5-6, 12, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al (US 20210065306 A1 thereafter "Dutta"), in view of Doisaki et al (US Application: US 2022/0414782, published: Dec. 29, 2022, filed: Jun. 23, 2020)
As to claim 1, Dutta disclose(s) a computer-implemented method for verifying details for an accident using aggregated rideshare data stored on a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the computer-implemented method comprising: monitoring, by one or more processors, a distributed ledger for an indication of an accident, the indication of the accident identifying at least a user and a time period; [Parties involved in an accident are stored including occupant users during an accident time period [See ¶-44, 77, 87]. The accident information is stored in a blockchain ledger [See ¶-77, 83]]
Obtaining, by the one or more processors, in response to the indication of an accident, … data from the distributed ledger (Fig. 3A, 3B, 3E, Fig. 3F, Fig 4A, Fig 4C, 0036 and 0037: in response to an accident being reported, data is obtained through distributed block chain for instant device/vehicle and other vehicles and accident event is verified through correlations to generate an assessment) ... and verifying, by the one or more processors … , a controlling party, wherein the controlling party is one of the user or one of the plurality of rideshare companies. [The system determines if the driver (user) was/was not behind the wheel (controlling party) during the accident using the video data [See ¶-47]] However, Dutta do(es) not disclose "obtaining, by the one or more processors, in response to the indication of an accident, rideshare data from the distributed ledger, wherein the rideshare data: identifies a plurality of rideshare companies for which the user offered driving services during the time period, and identifies a corresponding phases of a rideshare trip for each rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies during the time period, wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user; and verifying, ... based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party … ".
Yet Doisaki et al teaches obtaining, by the one or more processors, in response to the indication of [driving event], rideshare data from [a repository] …, wherein the rideshare data: identifies a plurality of rideshare companies for which the user offered driving services during the time period (paragraphs 0030, 0038 and 0039, 0160, Fig 9 and Fig. 10: data obtained from second server repository is used to identify which a plurality of ride share company/service (such as delivery or ridesharing) is associated with the user for driving service during the time period of a driving event(s) happening during a time period/time-of-day), and identifies a corresponding phases of a rideshare trip for each rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies during the time period (paragraphs 0038 and 0039, 0160, Fig. 7 and Fig. 10: the ride share company’s data associated with the user’s driving events/phases are referenced (which can include pickup/boarding events) and the data includes phases/events associated with time stamps ), wherein each phase of the corresponding phases is associated with the driving services offered by the user; and verifying, ... based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party (Abstract, paragraph 0033, 0034: based on phase/state data, it can be verified the specific controlling party as private (the user) or commercial party (i.e. service such as rideshare company)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Dutta’s ability to obtain vehicle data using distributed blockchain in response to a vehicle event (vehicle accident/damage-event) for verification and assessment that an incident/accident has occurred (through correlation identification between obtained vehicle and driver related metadata) such that the metadata would have further included events associated with identification of service/rideshare-company or private user) as part of the assessment to recognize a controlling party (of private/user or commercial/service), as taught by Doisaki et al. The combination would have allowed Dutta to have included additional contextual data analysis to make optimal insurance related assessments via status detection of when the user is driving privately or commercially based on event data (Doisaki et al, paragraph 0006).
As to claim 2, Dutta and Doisaki et al teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: obtaining, by the one or more processors, accident data from one or more sensors, wherein the accident data is indicative of damage associated with the accident. [Dutta, The blockchain ledger is used to store video data from sensors about the accident [See ¶-47-48]]
As to claim 5, Dutta and Doisaki et al teaches disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding phase include at least one of: (i) a passenger transportation phase, (ii) a passenger pickup phase, (iii) a passenger search phase, or (iv) a resting phase [as already explained by Doisaki in the rejection of claim 1, Fig 7 and Fig 10 of Doisaki was explained to teach an event/phase includes passenger boarding/pickup, and is rejected under similar rationale]. [=
As to claim 6, Dutta and Doisaki et al teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the driving services include item delivery services for at least one rideshare company of the plurality of rideshare companies. [as already explained by Doisaki in the rejection of claim 1, paragraph 0030 of Doisaki was explained to teach an services include delivery services, and is rejected under similar rationale].
As to claim(s) 12, 13, 16-17, the claim(s) is/are directed to a system with a processor performing instructions stored in a memory analogous to the method of claim(s) 1, 2, 5-6 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, Dutta discloses a server to perform the method using a processor 104 and computer readable medium storing instructions [See ¶-61].
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al (US 20210065306 A1 thereafter "Dutta"), in view of Doisaki et al (US Application: US 2022/0414782, published: Dec. 29, 2022, filed: Jun. 23, 2020), in view of Zankat et al (US 10803527 B1 thereafter "Zankat").
As to claim 3, Dutta and Doisaki et al does not disclose "wherein obtaining the accident data further comprises: transmitting an indication to a computing device of the user to prompt the user to take image data of the accident; and receiving image data of the accident. " On the other hand, Zankat discloses "wherein obtaining the accident data further comprises: transmitting an indication to a computing device of the user to prompt the user to take image data of the accident; and receiving image data of the accident. " Zankat discloses wherein the user may be prompted to capture images of an accident [See Col 11, Ln 14-36]. The mobile device may upload the images to an external computing device 300 [See Col 14, Ln 29-39]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duta and Doisaki et al's accident data storage and assessment system with to incorporate the teachings of Zankat's image capture prompt. Motivation to do so would be to enable insurance form filling, and to perform more efficiently by eliminating user error and decreasing the chances that claim form data will need to be resubmitted, as taught by Zankat [See Col 22, Ln 41-67].
As to claim(s) 14, the claim(s) is/are directed to a system with a processor performing instructions stored in a memory analogous to the method of claim(s) 3 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7-11, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al (US 20210065306 A1 thereafter "Dutta"), in view of Doisaki et al (US Application: US 2022/0414782, published: Dec. 29, 2022, filed: Jun. 23, 2020), in view of Kundu et al (US 20190370760 A1 thereafter "Kundu").
As to claim 7, Dutta and Doisaki et al do(es) not disclose "further comprising: generating, responsive to the verification, a settlement quote for the accident based upon the rideshare data. " On the other hand, Kundu discloses "further comprising: generating, responsive to the verification, a settlement quote for the accident based upon the rideshare data. " Kundu discloses a blockchain (rideshare data) is used to generate an vehicle accident settlement [See ¶-39, 56]. The blockchain data is used to generate a settlement for the accident [See ¶-54, 60]. The settlement contract is stored in the blockchain, and payment is issued [See ¶-60-61]. The settlement contract is stored as a smart contract [See ¶-58, 60-61]. The blockchain stores sensor/vehicle data about the accident [See ¶-29]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duta and Doisaki et al's accident data storage and assessment system, to incorporate the teachings of Kundu's accident settlement methods. Motivation to do so would be to provide a secure and private recording of a settlement process, as taught by Kundu [See ¶-60].
As to claim 8, Dutta, Doisaki et al, and Kundu disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising: generating a transaction including a representation of the settlement quote, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger; [Kundu, The blockchain data is used to generate a settlement for the accident [See ¶-54, 60]] and transmitting the transaction to at least one other participant of the plurality of participants maintaining the distributed ledger. [Kundu, The settlement contract is stored as a smart contract [See ¶-58, 60-61]. The settlement contract is stored in the blockchain, and payment is issued [See ¶-60-61]. Node 1 may transmit the transaction data to at least one other node (other participant) [See ¶-24]]
As to claim 9, Dutta, Doisaki et al, Kundu disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: adding the transaction to a block of transactions; [Kundu, New transactions may be received [See ¶-24]] solving a cryptographic puzzle based upon the block of transactions; [Kundu, A leader computes a block based upon the transaction messages [See ¶-24]. Other peer nodes verify the new block (solving cryptographic puzzle) [See ¶-24]] adding the solution to the cryptographic puzzle to the block of transactions; [Kundu, Based upon verifying the block, the distributed nodes add it to the blockchain [See ¶-25]] and transmitting the block of transactions to at least one other participant in the distributed ledger. [Kundu, Node 1 may transmit the transaction data to at least one other node (other participant) [See ¶-24]]
As to claim 10, Dutta, Doisaki et al, Kundu disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein generating the transaction includes generating a transaction including a cryptographic hash value corresponding to the settlement quote, and further comprising: transmitting the settlement quote to a server computing device that issues a payment based upon the settlement quote. [Kundu, A transaction may include generating a cryptographic hash value [See ¶-22-23]. Further, the settlement transaction data may be transmitted to a smart arbiter module 220 (server computing device) that performs the payout/exchange [See ¶-36, 54]]
As to claim 11, Dutta, Doisaki et al, Kundu disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein transmitting the transaction includes transmitting the transaction to an address that stores a smart contract on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract generates a payment based upon the settlement quote. [Kundu, The settlement contract is stored as a smart contract [See ¶-58, 60-61]. The settlement contract is stored in the blockchain, and payment is issued [See ¶-60-61]. Node 1 may transmit the transaction data to at least one other addressable node (other participant) [See ¶-24, 118]. Further, the settlement transaction data may be transmitted to a smart arbiter module 220 (server computing device) that performs the payout/exchange [See ¶-36, 54]]
As to claim(s) 18-20, the claim(s) is/are directed to a system with a processor performing instructions stored in a memory analogous to the method of claim(s) 7-8, 11 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to 35 USC § 103 and claim 1, that Murao does not teach storing information on a distributed ledge, and not obtaining. However the applicant’s amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection, and Murao is now withdrawn. The examiner brings attention to how Dutta is now reevaluated to teach Obtaining, by the one or more processors, in response to the indication of an accident, … data from the distributed ledger (Fig. 3A, 3B, 3E, Fig. 3F, Fig 4A, Fig 4C, 0036 and 0037: in response to an accident being reported, data is obtained through distributed block chain for instant device/vehicle and other vehicles and accident event is verified through correlations to generate an assessment). Additionally Dutta’s ability to obtain data/metadata is further modified with Doisaki et al’s ability to obtain additional data/metadata that includes rideshare and event metadata (paragraphs 0038 and 0039, 0160, Fig. 7 and Fig. 10: the ride share company’s data associated with the user’s driving events are referenced (which can include pickup/boarding events) and the data includes phases/events associated with time stamps). The new combination of Dutta and Doisaki et al thus addresses the newly amended claim limitation ‘… obtaining , … in response to the indication of an accident …’.
The applicant further argues with respect to claim 1, that Dutta does not teach verifying “… based upon the corresponding identified phase identified by the rideshare data, a controlling party …”. As explained above, the applicant’s amendments necessitated a new grounds of rejection and Dutta’s ability to perform verification is further modified by Doisaki et al’s ability to perform verification to determine verification based upon ridesharing data the user (private) or commercial (the rideshare company(ies) (See Abstract, paragraph 0033, 0034 of Doisaki et al: based on phase/state data, it can be verified the specific controlling party as private (the user) or commercial party (i.e. service such as rideshare company)).The new combination of Dutta and Doisaki et al thus addresses the newly amended claim limitation for ‘… based upon the corresponding identified phase … , a controlling party …’.
The applicant argues claim 12 is allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1; however, this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
The applicant argues the claims that depend directly or indirectly upon claims 1 or 12 as allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claims 1 or 12, is not persuasive since claims 1 and 12 have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights