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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A – Applicant argues:
Bauchet describes that a party can provide approval of the opposing party's information by entering a global signature to the opposing party's copy of the consolidated accident form. The signed form is then sent to the respective insurance company. (Par. [0055]). Therefore, the global signature is sent to the insurance company and not the opposing party's device. Bauchet does not suggest or disclose that the opposing party receives "associated with a second account, an encrypted payload comprising identifying information of a second account." The Office's proposed combination of Rule and Bauchot would require a substantial, non-obvious re- architecting of the systems described in the cited references. Bauchot describes a peer-to- peer data exchange followed by two separate submission to two different insurance entities. Namely, Bauchot describes that each party sends the filled form to their respective insurance company. In contrast, the claimed invention discloses a fundamentally different, centralized model where the first party's computing device and associated server act as the hub for capturing and authenticating the second party's data.
A – The Examiner Respectfully disagrees:
It is noted that the claims do not disclose a centralized model. Bauchot teaches that each (or only one party if the other does not support the model) party signs the opposing party’s information (signing with an encrypted signature) and the information along with the signature is sent to the party’s insurance server and the server can check and validate the opposing party’s signature (see Bauchot, paragraph 56]. Therefore the claim limitations of a second account with encrypted payload (the signature) is sent to the server for authentication in association with a record of an event are met.
B – Applicant argues:
Also, the global signature is a hash value and does not include "identifying information of the second account" as recited in claim 1. (Par. [0050]).
B – The Examiner Respectfully disagrees:
A hash of the signature is an encrypted signature, and each party signs the opposing party’s form which is sent to each party’s insurance company and signatures are verified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al., (International Publication No. WO2023/101880; published June 8, 2023), hereinafter “Rule”, and further in view of Bauchot et al., (US Publication No. 2010/0161491), hereinafter “Bauchot”.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Rule discloses
receiving, by an application executing on a processor of a first computing device associated with a first account and from a contactless card [Rule, paragraphs 23-35, figures 1-2]
Rule does not specifically disclose, however Bauchot teaches
associated with a second account, an encrypted payload comprising identifying information of a second account [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6];
sending, by the application, the encrypted payload to a server for authentication of the second account [Bauchot, 11-15]; and
receiving, by the application, verification of the second account and confirmation that the identifying information of the second account has been stored in association with a record of an event [Bauchot, 11-15].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of a second party to an accident and providing the second party’s information to the insurance company in order to provide for all options a user may need and maintain security of the user’s information. It would have been obvious to combine Bauchot who provides info for both parties in an accident with Rule who provides info for the insured party. Each art is related in concept.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
wherein the server requires a confirmation message from a second computing device associated with the second account before initiating authentication of the second account [Rule, paragraphs 23-35, figures 1-2].
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
wherein the second computing device generates the confirmation message in response to tapping the contactless card to the second computing device [Rule, paragraphs 23-35, figures 1-2].
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
sending, by the application to the server, identifying information of the first account, wherein the received confirmation from the server includes confirmation that the identifying information of the first account is stored in association with the record of the event [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6].
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
wherein the first account comprises a first automobile insurance account associated with the first computing device, wherein the second account comprises a second automobile insurance account [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6] associated with the contactless card [Rule, paragraphs 23-35, figures 1-2].
Regarding claims 6, 13, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
wherein the verification of the second account comprises verification of the second automobile insurance account, wherein the event comprises an automobile collision [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6], the method further comprising receiving, by the application from the server, confirmation that the record of the automobile collision has been filed with an automobile insurance entity associated with the first account based on the identifying information of the first account and the identifying information of the second account [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6].
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
receiving, by the application from the server, verifying attributes associated with the second account including at least one of a photograph of a driver associated with the second account, a name of the driver associated with the second account, a license plate number of a vehicle associated with the second account, and a make and model of the vehicle associated with the second account [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6].
Regarding claim 19, Rule-Bauchot further discloses
wherein the first account comprises a first automobile insurance account associated with the first computing device, wherein the second account comprises a second automobile insurance account associated with the contactless card, wherein the verification of the second account comprises verification of the second automobile insurance account, wherein the event comprises an automobile collision, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive, from the server, confirmation that the record of the automobile collision has been filed with an automobile insurance entity associated with the first account based on the identifying information of the first account and the identifying information of the second account [Bauchot, 11-15, figures 1, 6].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights