DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024, 01/29/2025, 05/06/2025 and 09/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12094007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12094007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12094007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12094007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim 14 of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11682082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11682082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11682082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11682082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim 14 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson; Randall M. et al. US 10354230 (hereinafter Hanson) in view of Zachary Christopher L. US 20180342036 (hereinafter Zachary).
As per claim 1, Hanson teaches: A computer-implemented method for interacting with a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, sensor data indicative of a vehicle accident from:
(i) a camera mounted about a vehicle involved in the vehicle accident, and (ii) a roadside camera (Hanson: “application 222 has determined that the mobile device 220 is in a vehicle 210 that was potentially involved in an accident. As discussed above in step 301, this determination may be performed solely by the mobile device 220 or in conjunction with the vehicle 210 and/or other external devices (e.g., V2V systems in other vehicles 210, roadside cameras and traffic servers 250, etc.).”col. 15, lines 42-49);
determining, via the one or more processors, that the vehicle accident has occurred based upon the received sensor data (Hanson: col. 15, lines 42-49);
Hanson does not teach;however,
generating, via the one or more processors, a transaction including an identifier for the vehicle involved in the vehicle accident (“the vehicle 100 having a blockchain data processor system 110 is shown in accordance with exemplary embodiments. The vehicle 100 includes a plurality of sensors 120, and a blockchain processor module 140 of the blockchain data processor system 110. The sensors sense observable conditions of the vehicle 100 and can include, but are not limited to, image sensors, LIDAR sensors, and radar sensors. Generally, each sensor of the plurality of sensors is specifically is coupled to the blockchain processor module 140 of the vehicle 100 and configured to sense external surroundings of the vehicle 100. The blockchain processor module 140 receives sensors signals generated by the sensors 120, processes the sensor signals to obtain sensor data, and sends block data to the blockchain exchange (not shown) for further processing” Zachary: para. 31); and
transmitting, via the one or more processors, the transaction including the identifier for the vehicle involved in the vehicle accident to at least one other participant via the distributed ledger (Zachary: para. 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hanson with the teachings of Zachary to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to share data among participants in a group wherein the block data of the blockchain once validated is substantially unalterable.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Hanson teaches:
the sensor data is vehicle data indicative of speed, position, orientation, location, impact, or combinations thereof (“Some mobile devices may include movement sensors, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, speedometer, and/or GPS receivers, capable of detecting movement.” Hanson: col. 1, line 64 through col. 2, line 2).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Hanson teaches:
analyzing a plurality of vehicle components to assess potential damage by:
collecting, via the one or more processors, accident data from the plurality of vehicle components (Hanson: col. 12, lines 41-56).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Hanson teaches:
generating a damages dataset based upon an analysis of a plurality of vehicle components, the analysis including:
determining, via the one or more processors, a component status for each member of the plurality of vehicle components (“In some cases, the mobile device 220 may receive the list of vehicle repairs 401c from an internal diagnostic system of the vehicle 210. As discussed above, the vehicle sensors 211 and other vehicle-based systems may collect the vehicle damage information after an accident and transmit the data to the user's mobile device 220.” Hanson: col. 20, lines 50-67).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Hanson teaches:
generating a damages dataset based upon an analysis of a plurality of vehicle components, wherein the damages dataset includes an insurance provider for the vehicle involved in the vehicle accident (Hanson: col. 21, lines 14-35).
As per claim 8, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 9, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 10, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 11, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 12, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 14, Hanson teaches: A computer system for interacting with a distributed ledger, the system
comprising:
a network interface configured to interface with one or more processors (Hanson: fig. 1, interface123);
a memory configured to store non-transitory computer executable instructions and configured to interface with the one or more processors (Hanson: fig. 1, memory 121); and
the one or more processors configured to interface with the memory (Hanson: fig. 1, processors 103), wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the one or more processors to:
receive sensor data indicative of a vehicle accident from: (i) a camera mounted
about a vehicle involved in the vehicle accident, and (ii) a roadside camera (“application 222 has determined that the mobile device 220 is in a vehicle 210 that was potentially involved in an accident. As discussed above in step 301, this determination may be performed solely by the mobile device 220 or in conjunction with the vehicle 210 and/or other external devices (e.g., V2V systems in other vehicles 210, roadside cameras and traffic servers 250, etc.).” Hanson: col. 15, lines 42-49);
determine that the vehicle accident has occurred based upon the received sensor data (Hanson: col. 15, lines 42-49);
Hanson does not teach;however, Zachary discloses: generate a transaction including an identifier for the vehicle involved in the vehicle accident (“the vehicle 100 having a blockchain data processor system 110 is shown in accordance with exemplary embodiments. The vehicle 100 includes a plurality of sensors 120, and a blockchain processor module 140 of the blockchain data processor system 110. The sensors sense observable conditions of the vehicle 100 and can include, but are not limited to, image sensors, LIDAR sensors, and radar sensors. Generally, each sensor of the plurality of sensors is specifically is coupled to the blockchain processor module 140 of the vehicle 100 and configured to sense external surroundings of the vehicle 100. The blockchain processor module 140 receives sensors signals generated by the sensors 120, processes the sensor signals to obtain sensor data, and sends block data to the blockchain exchange (not shown) for further processing” Zachary: para. 31);
and
transmit the transaction including the identifier for the vehicle involved in the vehicle accident to at least one other participant via the distributed ledger (Zachary: para. 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hanson with the teachings of Zachary to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to share data among participants in a group wherein the block data of the blockchain once validated is substantially unalterable.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to method of claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 16, this claim defines a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 17, this claim defines a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 18, this claim defines a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Zachary and further in view of Nagla; Gaurav et al. US 20180018723 (hereinafter Nagla).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hanson and Zachary does not teach; however, Nagla discloses: generating the transaction, further comprises:
augmenting, via the one or more processors, the transaction with identity data for the vehicle (Nagla: para. 6);
generating, via the one or more processors, a cryptographic signature based upon the transaction (Nagla: para. 6); and
augmenting, via the one or more processors, the transaction with the cryptographic signature (Nagla: para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hanson and Zachary with the teachings of Nagla to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to share data among participants in a group wherein the block data of the blockchain once validated is substantially unalterable.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hanson and Zachary does not teach; however, Nagla discloses: transmitting the
transaction to at least one other participant further comprises: transmitting, via the one or more processors, the transaction to a smart contract stored on the distributed ledger (Nagla: para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hanson and Zachary with the teachings of Nagla to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to share data among participants to facilitate automatic execution of terms and conditions of a contract.
As per claim 13, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 19, this claim defines a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to method of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to method of claim 7 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493