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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continuing Data
The present application is a CON of 18/433,608 filed 2/6/2024 now US Pat. No. 12,327,290
Application 18/433,608 is a CON of 17/896,617 filed 8/26/2022 now US Pat. No. 11,922,526
Application 17/896,617 is a CON of 17/530,030 filed 11/18/2021 now US Pat. No. 11,461,861
Application 17/530,030 has PRO of 63/196,516 filed 6/3/2021
Application 17/530,030 has PRO of 63/196,544 filed 6/3/2021
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.11,922,526 in view of Maurer.
Examiner Note:
Non-italicized text comprises present application.
Italicized text comprises application 17/896,617.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a subrogation net settlement
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a subrogation net settlement
smart contract using a distributed ledger, the method comprising, via one or more processors,
smart contract using a distributed ledger, the method comprising, via one or more processors,
servers, and/or associated transceivers:
servers, and/or associated transceivers:
generating the subrogation net settlement smart contract for the distributed ledger in a
generating the subrogation net settlement smart contract for the distributed ledger in a
distributed ledger network maintained by a plurality of participants each executing code in the
distributed ledger network maintained by a plurality of participants each executing code in the
subrogation net settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the
subrogation net settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the
subrogation net settlement smart contract, the subrogation net settlement smart contract
subrogation net settlement smart contract, the subrogation net settlement smart contract
configured to:
configured to:
determine a proof of agreement regarding a net settlement including an
determine a proof of agreement regarding a net settlement including an
aggregation of a plurality of settlements between a first party and a second party to a
aggregation of a plurality of settlements between a first party and a second party to a
plurality of subrogation claims by comparing a first cryptographic hash value provided by
plurality of subrogation claims by comparing a first cryptographic hash value provided by
the first party to a second cryptographic hash value provided by the second party, and
the first party to a second cryptographic hash value provided by the second party, and
determining that there is proof of agreement in response to determining that the first and
determining that there is proof of agreement in response to determining that the first and
second cryptographic hash values match, wherein each of the first and second
second cryptographic hash values match, wherein each of the first and second
cryptographic hash values are determined based upon one or more characteristics of the
cryptographic hash values are determined based upon one or more characteristics of the
net settlement between the first and second parties; and
net settlement between the first and second parties; and
limitation 1:
record the proof of agreement regarding the net settlement in the distributed
transmit notifications to the first and second parties of the proof of agreement
limitation 2:
ledger to allow the first and second parties to verify terms of the net settlement; and
regarding the net settlement to allow the first and second parties to verify terms
limitation 3:
deploying the subrogation net settlement smart contract to the distributed ledger
of the net settlement and deploying the subrogation net settlement smart contract
limitation 4:
maintained by the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network
to the distributed ledger maintained by the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network.
Examiner Note:
A skilled artisan would recognize that although the word sequence of application 17/896,617 is different with respect to the present invention in above limitations 1-4, the essential elements of the present invention are anticipated by application 17/896,617. The double-patenting rejection is proper.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first party and the
second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash
value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first party and the
second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash
value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more
characteristics of the net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net
settlement amount, a company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net
settlement, or a plurality of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements
included in the net settlement.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more
characteristics of the net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net
settlement amount, a company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net
settlement, or a plurality of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements
included in the net settlement.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a subrogation payment smart contract configured to:
receive, from a payor party of the first or second party, payment information
indicating that the payor party paid a net settlement amount to a payee party of the first or
second party; and record an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid; and
deploying the subrogation payment smart contract to the distributed ledger maintained by
the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a subrogation payment smart contract configured to:
receive, from a payor party of the first or second party, payment information
indicating that the payor party paid a net settlement amount to a payee party of the first or
second party; and record an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid; and
deploying the subrogation payment smart contract to the distributed ledger maintained by
the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the payment information
includes at least one of: the first or second cryptographic hash value, an identifier of the payor
party, an identifier of the payee party, a transaction identifier for the payment, a transaction
amount for the payment, or a date of the payment.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the payment information
includes at least one of: the first or second cryptographic hash value, an identifier of the payor
party, an identifier of the payee party, a transaction identifier for the payment, a transaction
amount for the payment, or a date of the payment.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subrogation net
settlement smart contract is further configured to: determine that there is no agreement in response to determining that the first and second cryptographic hash values do not match; and
indicate in the subrogation net settlement smart contract that there is no agreement regarding the net settlement.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subrogation net
settlement smart contract is further configured to: determine that there is no agreement in response to determining that the first and second cryptographic hash values do not match; and
transmit notifications to the parties indicating that there is no agreement regarding the net settlement.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subrogation net
settlement smart contract is further configured to: receive, from the first or second party, an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid; and record an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subrogation net
settlement smart contract is further configured to: receive, from the first or second party, an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid; and set a flag indicating that the net settlement amount has been paid.
8. A computer-implemented method of verifying a net settlement of a plurality of
subrogation claims between a first party and a second party using a distributed ledger, the
method comprising, via one or more processors, servers, and/or associated transceivers:
determining, by the first party, a net settlement amount including an aggregation of a
plurality of settlements between the first party and the second party to the plurality of
subrogation claims;
generating a first cryptographic hash value based upon one or more characteristics of the
net settlement between the first party and the second party;
broadcasting the first cryptographic hash value to a subrogation net settlement smart
contract deployed to the distributed ledger and maintained by a plurality of participants in a
distributed ledger network as a proof of agreement of the net settlement between the first and
second party, each of the plurality of participants executing code in the subrogation net
settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the subrogation net
settlement smart contract, wherein the subrogation net settlement smart contract compares the
first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party to a second cryptographic hash value
submitted by the second party to determine if there is a match; and
obtaining an indication from the subrogation net settlement smart contract that the first
and second cryptographic hash values match indicating that there is proof of agreement between
the first party and second party.
8. A computer-implemented method of verifying a net settlement of a plurality of
subrogation claims between a first party and a second party using a distributed ledger, the
method comprising, via one or more processors, servers, and/or associated transceivers:
determining, by the first party, a net settlement amount including an aggregation of a
plurality of settlements between the first party and the second party to the plurality of
subrogation claims;
generating a first cryptographic hash value based upon one or more characteristics of the
net settlement between the first party and the second party;
broadcasting the first cryptographic hash value to a subrogation net settlement smart
contract deployed to the distributed ledger and maintained by a plurality of participants in a
distributed ledger network as a proof of agreement of the net settlement between the first and
second party, each of the plurality of participants executing code in the subrogation net
settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the subrogation net
settlement smart contract, wherein the subrogation net settlement smart contract compares the
first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party to a second cryptographic hash value
submitted by the second party to determine if there is a match; and
receiving a notification from the subrogation net settlement smart contract that the first
and second cryptographic hash values match indicating that there is proof of agreement between
the first party and second party.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the first party and the
second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash
value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the first party and the
second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash
value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more characteristics of the net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net settlement amount, a company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net settlement., or a plurality of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements included in the net settlement.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more characteristics of the net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net settlement amount, a company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net settlement., or a plurality of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements included in the net settlement.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
broadcasting payment information to a subrogation payment smart contract indicating
that the first party paid the net settlement amount to the second party.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
broadcasting payment information to a subrogation payment smart contract indicating
that the first party paid the net settlement amount to the second party.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the payment information includes at least one of: the first or second cryptographic hash value, an identifier of the first party, an identifier of the second party, a transaction identifier for the payment, a transaction amount for the payment, or a date of the payment.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the payment information includes at least one of: the first or second cryptographic hash value, an identifier of the first party, an identifier of the second party, a transaction identifier for the payment, a transaction amount for the payment, or a date of the payment.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
broadcasting to the subrogation net settlement smart contract an indication that the net
settlement amount has been paid.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
broadcasting to the subrogation net settlement smart contract an indication that the net
settlement amount has been paid.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of
subrogation claims further include at least a third party, and the subrogation net settlement smart
contract compares the first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party, the second
cryptographic hash value submitted by the second party, and at least a third cryptographic hash
value submitted by the at least third party to determine if there is a match.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of
subrogation claims further include at least a third party, and the subrogation net settlement smart
contract compares the first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party, the second
cryptographic hash value submitted by the second party, and at least a third cryptographic hash
value submitted by the at least third party to determine if there is a match.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the first cryptographic
hash value is generated by a third-party aggregator or service provider.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the first cryptographic
hash value is generated by a third-party aggregator or service provider.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
transmitting a message to a messaging smart contract deployed to the distributed ledger
and maintained by the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network, wherein the
message is viewable by the second party.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
transmitting a message to a messaging smart contract deployed to the distributed ledger
and maintained by the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network, wherein the
message is viewable by the second party.
17. A computer system for verifying a net settlement of a plurality of subrogation claims between
17. A computer system for verifying a net settlement of a plurality of subrogation claims between
a first party and a second party using a distributed ledger, the computer system comprising:
a first party and a second party using a distributed ledger, the computer system comprising:
a network interface;
a network interface;
one or more processors; and
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions thereon, that when
a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions thereon, that when
executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine, by the first party, a net settlement amount including an aggregation of a plurality of
determine, by the first party, a net settlement amount including an aggregation of a plurality of
settlements between the first party and the second party to the plurality of subrogation claims;
a plurality of settlements between the first party and the second party to the plurality of subrogation claims
generate a first cryptographic hash value based upon one or more characteristics of the net
generate a first cryptographic hash value based upon one or more characteristics of the net
settlement between the first party and the second party;
settlement between the first party and the second party;
broadcast, via the network interface, the first cryptographic hash value to a subrogation net
broadcast, via the network interface, the first cryptographic hash value to a subrogation net
settlement smart contract deployed to the distributed ledger and maintained by a plurality of
settlement smart contract deployed to the distributed ledger and maintained by a plurality of
participants in a distributed ledger network as a proof of agreement of the net settlement
participants in a distributed ledger network as a proof of agreement of the net settlement
between the first and second party, each of the plurality of participants executing code in the
between the first and second party, each of the plurality of participants executing code in the
subrogation net settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the
subrogation net settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the
subrogation net settlement smart contract, wherein the subrogation net settlement smart contract
subrogation net settlement smart contract, wherein the subrogation net settlement smart contract
compares the first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party to a second
compares the first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party to a second
cryptographic hash value submitted by the second party to determine if there is a match; and
cryptographic hash value submitted by the second party to determine if there is a match; and
Line 1
obtain an indication from the subrogation net settlement smart contract that the first and second
receive, via the network interface, a notification from the subrogation net settlement smart
Line 2
cryptographic hash values match indicating that there is proof of agreement between the first
contract that the first and second cryptographic has values match indicating there is proof of
Line 3
party and second party.
agreement between the first party and the second party.
Examiner Note:
A skilled artisan would recognize that although the word sequence of application 17/896,617 is different with respect to the present invention in above limitations 1-3, the essential elements of the present invention are anticipated by application 17/896,617. The double-patenting rejection is proper.
18. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the first party and the second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
18. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the first party and the second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
19. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the one or more characteristics of the
net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net settlement amount, a
company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net settlement., or a plurality
of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements included in the net
settlement.
19. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the one or more characteristics of the
net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net settlement amount, a
company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net settlement., or a plurality
of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements included in the net
settlement.
20. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: broadcast payment information to a subrogation payment smart contract indicating that the first party paid the net settlement amount to the second party.
20. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: broadcast payment information to a subrogation payment smart contract indicating that the first party paid the net settlement amount to the second party.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leise (US 10,891,694) in view of Anderson (US 8,301,529) in view of Leng (US 2018/0241546).
Examiner Note: Hereafter, above references will be entered as reference combination A.
generating the subrogation net settlement smart contract for the distributed ledger in a
distributed ledger network maintained by a plurality of participants each executing code in the
subrogation net settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the
subrogation net settlement smart contract, the subrogation net settlement smart contract
configured to:
Leise column 2 lines 15-25, Systems and methods are disclosed for utilizing a distributed ledger, or blockchain, to manage an insurance claim process, in particular, a subrogation claim process. The systems and methods disclose using evidence oracles for inputting information into the blockchain, utilizing machine learning to suggest amounts for the subrogation process, a line item dispute mechanism, and creating/managing a distributed ledger in response to a vehicle being in an collision. The methods and systems may make use of secure transactions and smart contracts stored on the blockchain.
Leise column 12 lines 40-55, A subrogation defendant, upon review of the medical evidence, may choose to either set its corresponding flag to indicate its acceptance of the medical evidence, or it may decline to do so if it disputes the veracity of the evidence. As such, the smart contract state may track the various components of the damages owed and may refine points of dispute for the parties to the subrogation claim. When all sources of evidence for the value of the subrogation claim have been approved by the subrogation claimant and defendant, the value of the claim may have been determined and agreed upon, and a subrogation defendant may mark the settlement as agreed by sending data to the smart contract.
determine a proof of agreement regarding a net settlement including an
aggregation of a plurality of settlements between a first party and a second party to a
plurality of subrogation claims by comparing a first cryptographic hash value provided by
the first party to a second cryptographic hash value provided by the second party, and
determining that there is proof of agreement in response to determining that the first and
second cryptographic hash values match, wherein each of the first and second
cryptographic hash values are determined based upon one or more characteristics of the
net settlement between the first and second parties; and
Leise discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Anderson discloses:
Anderson col 2 line 35 – col 3 line 20, In accordance with other aspects of this exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the matching log entries are used to perform a business function as agreed to in a preexisting agreement between the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the business function comprises one or more of billing the first or second partner and transferring value between the partners; each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains at least part of a message plaintext exchanged between the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the message plaintext is encrypted and each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains cryptographic hash functions to allow later verification that the message plaintext logged by the first trading partner and the second trading partner was the actual message communicated in the transaction; the message plaintext is encrypted and each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains cryptographic digital signatures to allow later verification that the message plaintext logged by the first trading partner and the second trading partner was the actual message communicated in the transaction; the first independent log and the second independent log are sent by the first trading partner and the second trading partner, respectively, to the third party interface in real time, wherein each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains time stamps; each of the request log entry and reply log entry is cryptographically signed by each of the first trading partner and the second trading partner before the first independent log and the second independent log are sent to the third party interface; the third party interface matches each log entry in real time and notifies one or more of the first trading partner and the second trading partner that a mismatch has occurred; the third party interface matches each log entry in real time and notifies one or more of the first trading partner and the second trading partner that a match has occurred; each log entry contains data describing a value of a transaction; the value of the transaction comprises an amount of money transferred in the transaction between the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the third party interface uses the value of transactions with matching log data to provide financial settlement between or among the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the first trading partner and the second trading partner regard a transaction as settled when no notification of a mismatch is received from the third party interface or when notification of a match is received from the third party interface; the first trading partner and the second trading partner redo the transaction when one or more of the first trading partner and the second trading partner detects a failure; and the first trading partner and the second trading partner redo the transaction when one or more of the first or the second trading partner is notified of a log entry mismatch by the third party interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Leise to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Anderson for the purpose of providing matching log entries to perform a business function as agreed to in a preexisting agreement between the first trading partner and the second trading partner;
Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look to Anderson’s analogous art from the same field of endeavor, i.e., implementing effective governance of transactions between trading partners in the financial industry, see column 3 lines 60-65.
record the proof of agreement regarding the net settlement in the distributed
ledger to allow the first and second parties to verify terms of the net settlement; and
deploying the subrogation net settlement smart contract to the distributed ledger
maintained by the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network.
Leise discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Leng discloses:
Leng [0034] In some embodiments, once parties have agreed on the terms of a digital agreement, the parties may use the secure split digital promise (SSDP) system to sign and record the signed digital agreement in the distributed ledger. To sign a digital agreement, the SSDP system generates a hash of the digital agreement code (which includes the terms of the digital agreement) and a party encrypts the hash with its private key. When the SSDP system receives the signed hash from each party, it uses the parties public key to verify the signatures. If the signatures of the parties are verified, the SSDP system records the signed digital agreement in the distributed ledger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Leise to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Leng for the purpose of providing a digital promise by a promisor to pay a promisee an asset when a specified condition is satisfied. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look to Leng’s analogous art from the same field of endeavor, see above.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference combination A.
wherein the first party and the
second party determine the first cryptographic hash value and the second cryptographic hash
value, respectively, using a same set of one or more characteristics of the net settlement.
Leng [0034] In some embodiments, once parties have agreed on the terms of a digital agreement, the parties may use the secure split digital promise (SSDP) system to sign and record the signed digital agreement in the distributed ledger. To sign a digital agreement, the SSDP system generates a hash of the digital agreement code (which includes the terms of the digital agreement) and a party encrypts the hash with its private key. When the SSDP system receives the signed hash from each party, it uses the parties public key to verify the signatures. If the signatures of the parties are verified, the SSDP system records the signed digital agreement in the distributed ledger.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference combination A in view of nonfunctional descriptive material.
wherein the one or more characteristics of the net settlement include at least one of: a net settlement identifier, a net settlement amount, a company code of one of the first and second parties providing the net settlement, or a plurality of cryptographic hash values representing the plurality of settlements included in the net settlement.
The above features do not provide a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the claimed method of generating a subrogation net settlement smart contract using a distributed ledger.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference combination A
generating a subrogation payment smart contract configured to:
receive, from a payor party of the first or second party, payment information
indicating that the payor party paid a net settlement amount to a payee party of the first or
second party; and record an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid; and
deploying the subrogation payment smart contract to the distributed ledger maintained by
the plurality of participants in the distributed ledger network.
Anderson col 2 line 35 – col 3 line 20, In accordance with other aspects of this exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the matching log entries are used to perform a business function as agreed to in a preexisting agreement between the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the business function comprises one or more of billing the first or second partner and transferring value between the partners; each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains at least part of a message plaintext exchanged between the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the message plaintext is encrypted and each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains cryptographic hash functions to allow later verification that the message plaintext logged by the first trading partner and the second trading partner was the actual message communicated in the transaction; the message plaintext is encrypted and each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains cryptographic digital signatures to allow later verification that the message plaintext logged by the first trading partner and the second trading partner was the actual message communicated in the transaction; the first independent log and the second independent log are sent by the first trading partner and the second trading partner, respectively, to the third party interface in real time, wherein each of the request log entry and reply log entry contains time stamps; each of the request log entry and reply log entry is cryptographically signed by each of the first trading partner and the second trading partner before the first independent log and the second independent log are sent to the third party interface; the third party interface matches each log entry in real time and notifies one or more of the first trading partner and the second trading partner that a mismatch has occurred; the third party interface matches each log entry in real time and notifies one or more of the first trading partner and the second trading partner that a match has occurred; each log entry contains data describing a value of a transaction; the value of the transaction comprises an amount of money transferred in the transaction between the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the third party interface uses the value of transactions with matching log data to provide financial settlement between or among the first trading partner and the second trading partner; the first trading partner and the second trading partner regard a transaction as settled when no notification of a mismatch is received from the third party interface or when notification of a match is received from the third party interface; the first trading partner and the second trading partner redo the transaction when one or more of the first trading partner and the second trading partner detects a failure; and the first trading partner and the second trading partner redo the transaction when one or more of the first or the second trading partner is notified of a log entry mismatch by the third party interface.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference combination A in view of nonfunctional descriptive material.
wherein the payment information includes at least one of: the first or second cryptographic hash value, an identifier of the payor party, an identifier of the payee party, a transaction identifier for the payment, a transaction amount for the payment, or a date of the payment.
The above features do not provide a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the claimed method of generating a subrogation net settlement smart contract using a distributed ledger.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference combination A in view of Fox (US 11,683,179).
Reference combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose determine that there is no agreement in response to determining that the first and second
cryptographic hash values do not match. However, Fox discloses:
Fox col 10 lines 23-30 As an additional example, when the first cryptographic hash fails to match the second cryptographic hash, the authentication server 108 may be configured to provide an indication that user 101 has not been verified to client server 110. Client server 110 may be configured to provide to user 101 an indication that user 101 has not been verified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify reference combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Fox for the purpose of authenticating the identity of a user via authentication server 108 without transferring sensitive information between servers 110 and 108 in any form that could be converted back to the original sensitive information if intercepted, see col 9 lines 25-30.
Reference combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose indicate in the subrogation net settlement smart contract that there is no agreement
regarding the net settlement. However, Leng discloses:
Leng [0034] In some embodiments, once parties have agreed on the terms of a digital agreement, the parties may use the secure split digital promise (SSDP) system to sign and record the signed digital agreement in the distributed ledger.
Leng discloses once parties have agreed on the terms of a digital agreement. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record no agreement.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference combination A.
Reference combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose receive, from the first or second party, an indication that the net settlement amount has
been paid; and record an indication that the net settlement amount has been paid.
However, Erikson discloses:
Erikson [0041] FIG. 2 illustrates an example workflow of a subrogation case management platform in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present technology. At operation 201, information is provided to the platform, by an attorney representing the member, to identify a case. The relevant information includes member information and/or date of incident. Based on eligibility of the member, the platform decides if there is a need to open a case at operation 203. Details about the case are established at operation 205 after the case is opened. For example, member history, names of attorney, insurance company and liable person(s) can be entered into the platform. In some embodiments, relevant information can be imported from a third-party system. At operation 207, the platform provides an interface to allow the attorneys to manage the case, such as tracking the status of the case and reviewing relevant documents related to the case. At operation 209, a compromise can be proposed, and the case can be settled between the parties. Once parties reach a settlement agreement, the case can be closed at operation 211 after the settlement amount is paid. In some embodiments, final reports about the case are completed and all relevant files are archived by the platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify reference combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Erikson for the purpose of subrogation case management, see title.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are potentially allowable subject to further search and consideration and resolution of the double-patenting rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
The prior art does not teach, disclose or fairly suggest the elements of independent claims 8 and 17. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose:
broadcasting the first cryptographic hash value to a subrogation net settlement smart
contract deployed to the distributed ledger and maintained by a plurality of participants in a
distributed ledger network as a proof of agreement of the net settlement between the first and
second party, each of the plurality of participants executing code in the subrogation net
settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the subrogation net
settlement smart contract, wherein the subrogation net settlement smart contract compares the
first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party to a second cryptographic hash value
submitted by the second party to determine if there is a match.
U.S. Patent No.11,922,526 in view of Maurer discloses:
broadcasting the first cryptographic hash value to a subrogation net settlement smart
contract deployed to the distributed ledger and maintained by a plurality of participants in a
distributed ledger network as a proof of agreement of the net settlement between the first and
second party, each of the plurality of participants executing code in the subrogation net
settlement smart contract to reach a distributed consensus on a state of the subrogation net
settlement smart contract, wherein the subrogation net settlement smart contract compares the
first cryptographic hash value submitted by the first party to a second cryptographic hash value
submitted by the second party to determine if there is a match;
The present claimed invention is a continuation of Maurer and thus is not prior art.
Dependent claims 9-16 and 18-20 are definite, further limitation and fully enabled by the specification are allowed.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Skaggs (US 11,556,994) discloses blockchain subrogation payments
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETIENNE PIERRE LEROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-4022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571 272 4080. 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.
/ETIENNE P LEROUX/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2161