DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 8, 10-14 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process), claims 1, 3-7 are directed to a computer device (i.e., machine), and claims 15, 17-20 are directed at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… … tracking usage of the vehicle by modifying a blockchain structure, … associated with a plurality of insurers, … : prior to starting a trip to be taken by a user of the vehicle… , generate a trip request message including trip information associated with the trip: receive, … , a plurality of digital bids in response to transmitting the trip request message …, each received digital bid associated with an insurer of the plurality of insurers and including information requested in the trip request message; transmit an approval of one of the plurality of digital … receive, …, a smart contract associated with the approved digital bid; store the smart contract in a first block in the blockchain structure, the blockchain structure; generate telematics data based upon sensor data collected … of the vehicle; … to periodically update the blockchain structure and the smart contract using telematics data; and initiate creation of a new block in the blockchain structure based upon at least a portion of the telematics data, the new block linked to the first block and created using the smart contract.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) and/or commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts) for generating and managing usage-based insurance contracts that allow a driver to pay for insurance as they need it. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor in communication with the blockchain structure” “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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, the additional elements of “a computer device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor in communication with the blockchain structure” “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 8:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 8 recites the at least following limitations of “… … tracking usage of the vehicle by modifying a blockchain structure, … prior to starting a trip to be taken by a user of the vehicle, generating a trip request message including trip information associated with the trip; receiving, …, a plurality of digital bids in response to transmitting the trip request message …, each received digital bid associated with an insurer of the plurality of insurers and including information requested in the trip request message; transmitting an approval of one of the plurality of digital bids …; receiving, …, a smart contract associated with the approved digital bid; storing the smart contract in a first block in the blockchain structureThese recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) and/or commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts) for generating and managing usage-based insurance contracts that allow a driver to pay for insurance as they need it. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 8 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer device associated with a vehicle”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor in communication with the blockchain structure” “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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, the additional elements of “a computer device associated with a vehicle”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor in communication with the blockchain structure” “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 15:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 15 recites the at least following limitations of “… … tracking usage of the vehicle by modifying a blockchain structure, … :prior to starting a trip to be taken by a user of the vehicle, generate a trip request message including trip information associated with the trip; receive, …, a plurality of digital bids in response to transmitting the trip request message … , each received digital bid associated with an insurer of the plurality of insurers and including information requested in the trip request message; transmit an approval of one of the plurality of digital bids … ; receive, …, a smart contract associated with digital bid ; store the smart contract in a first block in the blockchain structure, generate telematics data based upon sensor data collected by one or more sensors; … to periodically update the blockchain structure and the smart contract using the telematics data; and initiate creation of a new block in the blockchain structure based upon at least a portion of the telematics data, the new block linked with the first block and created using the smart contract.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) and/or commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts) for generating and managing usage-based insurance contracts that allow a driver to pay for insurance as they need it. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 15 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “at least one processor of a computer device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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, the additional elements of “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “at least one processor of a computer device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17: simply provide further definition to “the trip request message” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the trip request message requests one or more bids for coverage of the trip do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18: simply provide further definition to “the at least one processor” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the trip request message to the auction computer network amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the at least one processor, the auction computer network).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 12: simply provide further definition to “the at least one processor” recited in independent claims 1 and 8. Simply stating that wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive, via a user interface of the computer device, the approved digital bid amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the at least one processor, an user interface of the computer device).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 19: simply provide further definition to “the blockchain structure” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the blockchain structure includes a plurality of blockchain nodes configured to store copies of the smart contract in the blockchain structure amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the blockchain structure).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20: simply provide further definition to “the at least one processor” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the sensor data associated with the trip, and wherein the sensor data includes data related to operation of the vehicle during the trip amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the at least one processor, one or more sensors associated with the vehicle).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Double Patenting
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,106,377.
Although claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,106,377 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,106,377.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,106,377 recite a computer device, a computer-implemented method, and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for generating and managing a usage-based insurance contract in a blockchain structure.
For independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of Patent No. 12,106,377 is a narrower version of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application with additional allowed claim limitations of “the trip request message for requesting one or more bids for coverage of the trip; transmit the trip request message to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer devices associated with a plurality of insurers; receive, from a user based auto insurance management (UBAIM) server associated with the auction computer network, a smart contract associated with the bid; updated information received from the UBAIM server.” Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 of Patent No. 12,106,377 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 8, and 15. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 of the instant application: Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 of Patent No. 12,106,377 are the same version of dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 of the instant application.
For dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 of the instant application: Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 of Patent No. 12,106,377 are the same version of dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 of the instant application.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
9. Double Patenting: Applicant submits that the rejection of Claims 1-20 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,106,377 is respectfully traversed. Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection when it is the last remaining rejection in the Application and the presently pending claims have been indicated as allowable, but for the rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Page 1).
Examiner hereby maintains the Double Patenting Rejections of amended claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 because the amended claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 did not overcome the Double Patenting Rejections. See details of Double Patenting Rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 in the section above.
10. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: A. Applicant's Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea, from Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. The MPEP requires a two-prong inquiry. In the first prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If so, in the second prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is "directed to" a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). In the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and in particular an abstract idea, … First, the claimed computer device integrates generated vehicle telematics data directly into blockchain operation, requiring periodic updates to both the blockchain structure and the stored smart contract. Clearly, this is a technical enhancement over conventional blockchains, which typically record fixed transactions rather than continuously updated, real-world data streams … In summary, the claimed computer device improves blockchain functionality by enabling real-time, sensor-driven updates and contract-linked block generation, resulting in a blockchain structure that actively reflects and verifies vehicle usage during operation. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are patent-eligible under the first prong of Step 2A (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that the present claims for example independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) and/or commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts) for generating and managing usage-based insurance contracts that allow a driver to pay for insurance as they need it. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: from Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that even assuming arguendo that the pending claims recite a judicial exception (which Applicant does not concede), the present claims are subject-matter eligible under the second prong. In the second prong, the Office evaluates whether a claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application … The claimed system addresses the technical problems identified in Applicant's by implementing a computer device associated with a vehicle that tracks usage of the vehicle by modifying a blockchain structure. In particular, the pending claims recite improvements to blockchain technology by transforming a conventional static ledger into a dynamic, sensor- integrated blockchain structure specifically adapted for vehicle usage tracking … In summary, the claimed computer device improves blockchain functionality by enabling real-time, sensor-driven updates and contract-linked block generation, resulting in a blockchain structure that actively reflects and verifies vehicle usage during operation. By doing so, the claimed system provides the following technical improvements: "improving speed and accuracy of issuing an insurance policy (usage-based policy) for an individual trip; … Accordingly, in this case, "the specification sets forth an improvement in technology ... [and] the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. See MPEP § 2104.04(d)(1). Accordingly, the present claims are eligible under the second prong of Step 2A. In summary, the claims at issue here are not "directed to" a judicial exception. Accordingly, the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that the present claims for example independent claims 1, 8, and 15 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor in communication with the blockchain structure” “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
3. Applicant’s Argument: B. Applicant's Claims Are Directed to "Significantly More" Than the Abstract Idea, from Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that with that said, even assuming for the sake of argument that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims are directed to something "significantly more" than the idea itself. One path to show that a claim recites "significantly more" is to identify "a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or ... unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application." See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)(v). Moreover, at this second step of the analysis, the elements of each claim must be examined both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) … In the instant Application, the pending claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional activities at least with respect to modifying blockchain structures to track real-time vehicle usage. In particular, the pending claims recite improvements to blockchain technology by transforming a conventional static ledger into a dynamic, sensor-integrated blockchain structure specifically adapted for vehicle usage tracking. First, the claimed computer device integrates generated vehicle telematics data directly into blockchain operation, requiring periodic updates to both the blockchain structure and the stored smart contract … In summary, the claimed computer device improves blockchain functionality by enabling real-time, sensor-driven updates and contract-linked block generation, resulting in a blockchain structure that actively reflects and verifies vehicle usage during operation. Notably, the claimed combination of processor-implemented operations, distributed network communications, and blockchain structures operates in a non-conventional and non- generic manner to perform real-time tracking of vehicle usage. (Emphasis added.) The fact that there is no prior art cited for the pending claims strengthens the conclusion that these steps are not well understood, routine, and/or conventional. In summary, at a minimum, Applicant respectfully submits that the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because the claimed invention recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Section 101 rejection of the pending claims be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 4-6).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that the present claims for example independent claims 1, 8, and 15 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, the additional elements of “a computer device”, “at least one memory device”, “at least one processor in communication with the blockchain structure” “at least one remote server belonging to an auction computer network including a plurality of computer nodes”, and “one or more sensors of the vehicle” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
12. The best prior art of record, NAGLA et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0018723), hereinafter, “NAGLA”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the at least instant application amended claim limitations of: "receive, from the at least one remote server, a plurality of digital bids in response to transmitting the trip request message to the at least one remote server, each received digital bid associated with an insurer of the plurality of insurers and including information requested in the trip request message; transmit an approval of one of the plurality of digital bids to the at least one remote server; receive, from the at least one remote server, a smart contract associated with the approved digital bid; store the smart contract in a first block in the blockchain structure, generate telematics data based upon sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the vehicle; periodically update the blockchain structure and the smart contract using the telematics data; and initiate creation of a new block in the blockchain structure based upon at least a portion of the telematics data, the new block linked to the first block and created using the smart contract.” 2DOCKET No. 2012.07.038.MC0 (SAMS12-00554) APPLICATION NO. 13/758,303 PATENT
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights