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 the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 16-July-2024. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for 17/077,364; 15/624,287; 62/457,430; 62/434,215; 62/428,223; 62/425,684 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 22-October-2020; 15-June-2017; 10-February-2017; 14-December-2016; 30-November-2016; and 23-November-2016, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07-October-2025 and 27-February-2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 (and claims 2-13 and 15-19 due to dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims also recite “wherein automatically executing the action includes transmitting, by the one or more processors, a control signal to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a control action”. The closest support from the original disclosure is from Specification:
[0040] “According to certain aspects, the electronic device 103 may also be configured to receive control signals from a command center and/or other remote computing device (not depicted) to remotely control the operation of the vehicle 105a. In some scenarios, the control signals are indicative of a remote user actively controlling the vehicle 105a (e.g., the remote user is piloting the vehicle 105a as a drone operator would pilot a drone). In other scenarios, the control signals are indicative of particular actions the autonomous systems of the vehicle 105a should undertake. For example, an ambulance may broadcast a control signal to nearby autonomous vehicles to cause the autonomous vehicles to yield to the ambulance and/or pull over to the side of the road.”
[0073] “In any event, the plurality of smart contracts in the smart contract database may transmit (352) the one or more determined actions to the enforcement server 315, which executes (356) the actions … For example, a manufacturer or insurer may provide an application that enables the enforcement server 315 to generate, file, and/or subrogate a claim with the manufacturer or insurer.”
[0087] “At block 525, the enforcement server may automatically execute the action that is to be performed to enforce the smart contract … As an example, the enforcement server may be able to generate and transmit a text message to an emergency contact without the assistance of a third party application.”
However, [0040] discloses that the “electronic device” receives the control signals to execute actions on the vehicle, and the steps associated with the control signal and control action does not seem to be related to any distributed ledgers, transactions, smart contracts, decision condition, and/or trigger condition. Specification [0073] and [0087] discloses that the “enforcement server” receives and executes the actions, and the examples of the “actions” disclosed are “to generate, file, and/or subrogate a claim” or “generate and transmit a text message to an emergency contact”, which is not causing any control actions to be executed by the autonomous vehicle. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement, and clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 (and claims 2-13 and 15-19 due to dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims also recite “wherein automatically executing the action includes transmitting, by the one or more processors, a control signal to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a control action”. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, the original disclosure does not seem to provide definitive support for the claimed steps of transmitting a control signal to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a control action. It is unclear how the control signal is being received by the autonomous vehicle, how the autonomous vehicle executes the control action, and what the control action means. Therefore, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, and clarification is required.
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 1-20 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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 14, and 20, the claims recite “a … method for maintaining a … ledger of transactions pertaining to a plurality of … contracts, the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more [people], a transaction from an autonomous vehicle, the transaction being generated by [a driver] associated with the autonomous vehicle in response to a change in the control state of the autonomous vehicle;
updating, by the one or more [people], the … ledger based upon the transaction, wherein the update occurs in response to a consensus formed by a plurality of validation entities on the update;
routing, by the one or more [people], the transaction to a … contract from the plurality of … contracts that is associated with the autonomous vehicle, wherein the … contract is configured to use the control state of the autonomous vehicle as a decision condition; and
in response to detecting a trigger condition associated with the … contract, … executing, by the one or more [people], an action the … contract directs should be performed based upon the control state of the autonomous vehicle indicated by the transaction, wherein … executing the action includes transmitting, by the one or more [people], a control [message] to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a control action.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. system, device, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. The method recited above is a process of receiving, updating, routing, and executing data, wherein the received data is a transaction associated with the control state of an autonomous vehicle (i.e. mere data), and the data manipulated are associated with ledgers and contracts.
All these steps recited by the claims can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Although the claim may recite using a computer to receive, update, route, and execute data, performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Additionally, the claims recite a process of data analysis associated with transactions, such as recording them on a ledger or using contracts, and are associated with insurance (e.g. car insurance, claims, liabilities, etc.), as disclosed by Specification:
[0005] “In one aspect, a method for updating a distributed ledger of transactions pertaining to a plurality of smart contracts may be provided”
[0059] “As an example, the smart contract 230 may cause the enforcement server to generate an insurance claim that assigns liability for damage incurred in the collision to the operator of the autonomous vehicle”
The method of transaction data analysis and the steps associated with insurance claims is fundamental economic principles or practices, which is under certain methods of organizing human activities.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea, mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “computer”, “processor”, “computer system”, “transceiver”, “non-transitory program memory”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, and “electronic device” perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, and are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data, update data, route data, and execute data, as disclosed by Specification:
[0038] “Although Figure 1A illustrates the electronic device 103 as a processing unit of the vehicle 105a interconnected to the sensors 101 via a communication bus of the vehicle 105a, in other embodiments the electronic device 103 may be a personal electronic device (e.g., a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop computer, a smart watch, smart glasses, other types of wearable electronics, an on-board diagnostic monitor, and so on) associated with an operator of the vehicle 105a”
[0089] “The enforcement server 615 may include a processor 622, as well as a memory 678. The memory 678 may store an operating system 679 capable of facilitating the functionalities as described herein”
[0092] “In general, a computer program product in accordance with an embodiment may include a computer usable storage medium (e.g., standard random access memory (RAM), an optical disc, a universal serial bus (USB) drive, or the like) having computer-readable program code embodied therein, wherein the computer-readable program code is adapted to be executed by the processor 622 (e.g., working in connection with the operating system 679) to facilitate the functions as described herein”
[00139] “For example, where the modules comprise a general-purpose processor configured using software, the general-purpose processor may be configured as respective different modules at different times”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or execute data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims also recite additional elements associated with the blockchain system, such as “distributed ledger” and “smart contract”. These components are recited at a mere “apply it” level without providing any improvement, changes, modifications, or alterations upon these elements or any of the underlying technology. The “distributed ledger” is merely used to store data (e.g. update transaction information), and the “smart contract” is merely used as an indication or agreement to provide data (e.g. transmit data based on information). As similarly discussed above, mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claims also recite “wherein automatically executing the action includes transmitting, by the one or more processors, a control signal to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a control action”. As similarly discussed above, the processor is merely sending a signal or a message to the vehicle, wherein the signal causes the vehicle to “execute a control action”. The control action is disclosed by Specification:
[0073] “In any event, the plurality of smart contracts in the smart contract database may transmit (352) the one or more determined actions to the enforcement server 315, which executes (356) the actions … For example, a manufacturer or insurer may provide an application that enables the enforcement server 315 to generate, file, and/or subrogate a claim with the manufacturer or insurer.”
[0087] “At block 525, the enforcement server may automatically execute the action that is to be performed to enforce the smart contract … As an example, the enforcement server may be able to generate and transmit a text message to an emergency contact without the assistance of a third party application.”
The “control action” as given by the examples may be “to generate, file, and/or subrogate a claim” or “generate and transmit a text message to an emergency contact”, which are all executed by the enforcement server and not the vehicle itself. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), these actions are still part of the abstract idea (i.e. subrogating a claim, sending a message, etc.), wherein mere “apply it" is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “wherein: the trigger condition for the smart contract is the autonomous vehicle incurring liability.” The claim provides further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 17 recite “wherein: the control state indicates whether the autonomous vehicle was being autonomously, remotely, or manually operated.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 18 recite “wherein automatically executing the action comprises: assigning, by the one or more processors, a liability to (i) an insurer associated with an operator of the autonomous vehicle when the transaction indicates the autonomous vehicle was being manually operated, and (ii) a manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle when the transaction indicates the autonomous vehicle was being autonomously operated.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites “wherein automatically executing the action comprises: transmitting, by the one or more processors, at least one of a tow request to a towing service, a police report to a law enforcement entity, or a subrogation request to an insurer of another autonomous vehicle.” The claim provides further steps of transmitting data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein receiving the transaction comprises: receiving, at the one or more processors, the transaction via a mesh network formed of a plurality of autonomous vehicles.” The claims provide further steps of receiving data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites “further comprising: crediting, by the one or more processors, currency in a respective account associated with each validation entity of the plurality of validation entities.” The claim provides further steps of a transaction, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the plurality of validation entities includes an autonomous vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles.” The claim provides further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the plurality of validation entities includes a dedicated validation entity.” The claim provides further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites “wherein updating the distributed ledger comprises: updating, by the one or more processors, the distributed ledger based upon a plurality of transactions received prior to receiving an urgent transaction.” The claim provides further steps regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 11 and 19 recite “further comprising: analyzing, by the one or more processors, the distributed ledger to determine that a particular transaction is no longer relevant to the smart contract; and pruning, by the one or more processors, the particular transaction from the distributed ledger.” The claims provide further steps regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites “wherein determining that the particular transaction that is no longer relevant to the smart contract, comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the particular transaction is older than a threshold age or that the particular transaction includes decision condition data when a trigger condition did not occur.” The claim provides further steps regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites “further comprising: storing, by the one or more processors, the pruned transaction in an archival database.” The claim provides further steps to store the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites “wherein: the trigger condition for the smart contract is the autonomous vehicle incurring liability; and the transaction indicates that the autonomous vehicle incurred liability.” The claim provides further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,832,338 (Application 15/624,292). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application recite maintaining an autonomous vehicle-related event distributed ledger and although the U.S. Patent No. 10,832,338 receives multiples transactions and further details, it is obvious to eliminate parts or steps while retaining the function (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,626 (Application 17/077,364). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application recite maintaining an autonomous vehicle-related event distributed ledger and although the U.S. Patent No. 12,067,626 compiles the transaction into a block of transactions, it is obvious to eliminate parts or steps while retaining the function (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,832,337 (Application 15/624,287). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application recite maintaining an autonomous vehicle-related event distributed ledger and although the U.S. Patent No. 10,832,337 compiles the transaction into a block of transactions, it is obvious to eliminate parts or steps while retaining the function (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/951,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of the applications recite maintaining an autonomous vehicle-related event distributed ledger utilizing smart contract, while Application No. 18/951,615 receives data from “one or more” sources, which is still the same as receiving data from a source. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7 to 8, filed 02-January-2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection is being maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8 to 10, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, and also under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections, the claim limitation “transmitting a control signal to the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to execute a control action” does not seem to have definitive support by the original disclosure, and the “control action” in view of the examples given in [0073] and [0087] recites an abstract idea (e.g. subrogate a claim). [0040] discloses that the electronic device is capable of remotely controlling the autonomous vehicle, but does not seem to provide any steps associated with any smart contracts, transactions, or conditions that causes the signal to be transmitted to the vehicle to execute a control action. Therefore, under BRI, the claim limitation is a mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application, and are not “significantly more”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695