Researchers Submit Patent Application, “Evidence Oracles”, for Approval (USPTO 20220180450): Patent Application

2022 JUN 23 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- From Washington, D.C., NewsRx journalists report that a patent application by the inventors Call, Shawn M. (Bloomington, IL, US); Clayton, Wendy H. (Franklin, TN, US); Flesher, Kim E. (Normal, IL, US); Graff, Douglas A. (Mountain View, MO, US); Leise, William J. (Normal, IL, US); Magerkurth, Melinda Teresa (Utica, IL, US); McCoy, Anthony (Normal, IL, US); McCullough, Stacie A. (Bloomington, IL, US); Runge, Travis Charles (Heyworth, IL, US); Skaggs, Jaime (Chenoa, IL, US), filed on February 28, 2022, was made available online on June 9, 2022.

No assignee for this patent application has been made.

News editors obtained the following quote from the background information supplied by the inventors: “The insurance claim process may involve a tremendous number of communications and interactions between parties involved in the process. Potential parties to the claim process may be insurance companies, repair shops, lawyers, arbitrators, government agencies, hospitals, drivers, and collection/collections agency. Sometimes the costs of repairs may be disputed and parties may pursue subrogation for particular charges. As an example, when an insured person suffers a covered loss, an insurer may pay costs to the insured person and pursue subrogation from another party involved in the loss. If an insured vehicle is involved in a collision and suffers a loss, the insurer may compensate the vehicle owner according to an insurance agreement. If, for example, the vehicle owner was not at fault in the collision, the insurer may pursue damages from another party, such as the insurer of the party who was at fault in the collision. An insurance agreement may include an obligation of an insured to assign the insured’s claim against a party at fault to the insurer, who may then collect on the claim on the insured’s behalf.

“Settling a subrogation payment may be a lengthy, complicated process. The various parties (e.g., parties at fault in a vehicle collision, owners of the vehicles, insurers, etc.) may need to exchange information relating to the collision to determine which party was at fault. Sources of information relevant to a fault information and/or subrogation payment may include information regarding parties involved in a loss, forensic data regarding the loss, vehicle data regarding a loss, etc. The various parties may verify and share information from a variety of sources, including information held by parties involved in a loss and their insurers, and information obtained from third parties (e.g., governmental entities, independent contractors, etc.).

“The parties to a subrogation payment (e.g., insurers) may make proposals to one another to settle the subrogation claim. A proposal may include an accounting of damages, such as the costs to a vehicle owner whose vehicle was damaged. If an insured person suffered an injury in a collision, the injured person’s health care costs may be included in the accounting of damages. One or both of the parties to a subrogation claim may rely on independent third parties to assess costs, such as a repair cost estimate by an authorized automotive repair services provider for damage incurred in a collision. To settle the subrogation claim, the parties may indicate acceptance or approval of damages calculations and a payment amount that is agreed between the parties to settle the claim. Parties may rely on a third-party intermediary to handle subrogation negotiations and resolution (e.g., validate information relating to a loss and facilitating communications between the insurers) at added expense.”

As a supplement to the background information on this patent application, NewsRx correspondents also obtained the inventors’ summary information for this patent application: “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/or 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.

“The present embodiments further relate to insurance and handling insurance claims. Sensor, image, or other data may be collected from various sources, such as mobile devices, one or more vehicles (such as smart or autonomous vehicles), smart infrastructure, satellites, drones, and/or smart or interconnected homes. The data collected may be analyzed by artificial intelligence or machine learning algorithms to identify whether a vehicle collision occurred; determine a percentage of fault (for the drivers or autonomous vehicles); determine the veracity of an insurance claim or identify potential fraud or buildup; facilitate subrogation or arbitration processes; determine and assign liability to vehicle manufacturers or drivers; create new blockchains and/or individual blocks for blockchains associated with a particular insurance claim, individual, or vehicle; provide payments or e-payments among parties; and/or facilitate other functionality discussed herein.

“In one aspect, a computer-implemented method for providing data relevant to collision s and subrogation claims by interacting with a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants may be provided. The method may include, via one or more local or remote processors, servers, sensors, and/or associated transceivers: (1) receiving, at one or more processors, recorded data from one or more connected devices at a geographic location; (2) analyzing, at the one or more processors, the recorded data, wherein analyzing the recorded data may include determining that an collision has occurred involving one or more vehicles; (3) generating, at the one or more processors, a transaction including the data indicative of the collision based upon the analysis; and/or (4) transmitting, at the one or more processors, the transaction to at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network. The method may include additional, less, or alternate actions, including those discussed elsewhere herein.

“In another aspect, a computer-implemented method for providing data relevant to collisions and subrogation claims by interacting with a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants may be provided. The method may include, via one or more local or remote processors, servers, sensors, and/or associated transceivers: (1) receiving, at one or more processors, a request for recorded data from at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network; (2) verifying, at the one or more processors, an access level for the at least one other participant; (3) analyzing, at the one or more processors, the request for recorded data, wherein analyzing may include determining data relevant to the request; (4) generating, at the one or more processors, a transaction including the data relevant to the request; and/or (5) transmitting, at the one or more processors, the transaction to the at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network. The method may include additional, less, or alternate actions, including those discussed elsewhere herein.

“In yet another aspect, a computer system configured to handle or process an insurance claim via a shared ledger may be provided. The system may include one or more processors, servers, sensors, and/or associated transceivers configured to: (1) receive recorded data from one or more connected devices at a geographic location; (2) analyze the recorded data, wherein analyzing the recorded data may include determining that an collision has occurred involving one or more vehicles; (3) generate a transaction including the data indicative of the collision based upon the analysis; and/or (4) transmit the transaction to at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network. The system may include additional, less, or alternate components and actions, including those discussed elsewhere herein.

“The methods may be implemented via computer systems, and may include additional, less, or alternate actions or functionality. Systems or computer-readable media storing instructions for implementing all or part of the method described above may also be provided in some aspects. Systems for implementing such methods may include one or more of the following: a special-purpose computing device, a personal electronic device, a mobile device, a wearable device, a processing unit of a vehicle, a remote server, one or more sensors, one or more communication modules configured to communicate wirelessly via radio links, radio frequency links, and/or wireless communication channels, and/or one or more program memories coupled to one or more processors of the personal electronic device, processing unit of the vehicle, or remote server. Such program memories may store instructions to cause the one or more processors to implement part or all of the method described above. Additional or alternative features described herein below may be included in some aspects.

“This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described in the Detailed Descriptions. This summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.

“Advantages will become more apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from the following description of the preferred aspects, which have been shown and described by way of illustration. As will be realized, the present aspects may be capable of other and different aspects, and their details are capable of modification in various respects. Accordingly, the drawings and description are to be regarded as illustrative in nature and not as restrictive.

“The Figures depict preferred embodiments for purposes of illustration only. One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following discussion that alternative embodiments of the systems and methods illustrated herein may be employed without departing from the principles of the invention described herein.”

The claims supplied by the inventors are:

“1. A computer-implemented method for interacting with a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the method comprising: determining, at one or more processors, suggested ranges for damages amounts and costs for services rendered by analyzing historical claims data; building, at the one or more processors, a baseline dataset containing the suggested ranges for damages amounts and costs for services rendered; receiving, at the one or more processors, a disputed line item transaction related to a subrogation claim from at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network, wherein the disputed line item transaction includes a disputed line items dataset generated by comparing a set of line items to the baseline dataset; analyzing, at the one or more processors, the disputed line item transaction; generating, at the one or more processors, a confirmation transaction including a consent dataset related to the disputed line items; and transmitting, at the one or more processors, the confirmation transaction to a smart contract stored on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract includes a flag indicating whether a party to the subrogation claim accepts evidence in the smart contract as representative of damages owed by a subrogation defendant.

“2. The method of claim 1, wherein the disputed line item transaction comprises a transaction ID, a subrogation contract ID, an originator, a damages dataset, and a services rendered dataset.

“3. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the disputed line item transaction, further comprises: determining, at the one or more processors, damages data and services rendered data included in the disputed line item transaction.

“4. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the confirmation transaction including the consent dataset related to the disputed line items, further comprises: generating, at the one or more processors, the consent dataset based upon the comparison of the damages data and services rendered data included in the disputed line item transaction to an acceptable consent dataset.

“5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: setting, at the one or more processors, a flag indicating an offer and an amount of the offer by the subrogation defendant in the smart contract; and in response to the setting of the flag indicating the offer and the amount of the offer by the subrogation defendant, permitting, at the one or more processors, only a subrogation claimant to set a flag indicating a counter-offer and an amount of the counter offer in the smart contract.

“6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: setting, at the one or more processors, the flag indicating the counter-offer and the amount of the counter offer in the smart contract.

“7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: setting, at the one or more processors, a flag indicating an offer and an amount of the offer by the subrogation defendant in the smart contract; and setting, at the one or more processors, a flag indicating a counter-offer and an amount of the counter offer in the smart contract.

“8. A computer-implemented method for interacting with a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the method comprising: receiving, at one or more processors, a transaction from at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network; analyzing, at the one or more processors, the transaction to determine a set of line items related to a subrogation claim; determining, at the one or more processors, suggested ranges for damages amounts and costs for services rendered by analyzing historical claims data; building, at the one or more processors, a baseline dataset containing the suggested ranges for damages amounts and costs for services rendered; comparing, at the one or more processors, the set of line items to the baseline dataset to generate a disputed line items dataset; generating, at the one or more processors, a transaction including the disputed line items dataset; and transmitting, at the one or more processors, the transaction including the disputed line items dataset to a smart contract stored on the distributed ledger.

“9. The method of claim 8, wherein the transaction comprises a transaction ID, a subrogation contract ID, an originator, a damages dataset, and a services rendered dataset.

“10. The method of claim 8, wherein receiving the transaction, further comprises: verifying, at the one or more processors, an identifier for the at least one other participant; and verifying, at the one or more processors, an identity of a hospital or doctor based on a private cryptographic key belonging to the hospital or doctor.

“11. The method of claim 8, wherein analyzing the transaction, further comprises: determining, at the one or more processors, damages data and services rendered data included in the transaction.

“12. The method of claim 8, wherein comparing the set of line items to a baseline dataset, further comprises: identifying, at the one or more processors, differences between amounts for the set of line items and amounts for the baseline dataset.

“13. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the transaction including the disputed line items dataset, further comprises: generating, at the one or more processors, the disputed line items dataset based upon the comparison of the set of line items to the baseline set.

“14. The method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, at the one or more processors, a response transaction related to the disputed line items; analyzing, at the one or more processors, the response transaction; and transmitting, at the one or more processors, an updated disputed line items transaction to at least one other participant.

“15. A computer system for interacting with a distributed ledger, the system comprising: a network interface configured to interface with a processor; a memory configured to store non-transitory computer executable instructions and configured to interface with the processor; and the processor configured to interface with the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the processor to: receive a transaction from at least one other participant in the distributed ledger network; analyze the transaction to determine a set of line items related to a subrogation claim; determine suggested ranges for damages amounts and costs for services rendered by analyzing historical claims data; build a baseline dataset containing the suggested ranges for damages amounts and costs for services rendered; compare the set of line items to a baseline dataset to generate a disputed line items dataset; generate a transaction including the disputed line items dataset based upon the comparison of the set of line items to the baseline set; and transmit the transaction including the disputed line items dataset to a smart contract stored on the distributed ledger, wherein the smart contract includes a flag indicating whether a party to the subrogation claim accepts evidence in the smart contract as representative of damages owed by a subrogation defendant.

“16. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the transaction comprises a transaction ID, a subrogation contract ID, an originator, a damages dataset, and a services rendered dataset.

“17. The computer system of claim 15, wherein to receive the transaction, the processor is further configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the processor to: verify an identifier for the at least one other participant.

“18. The computer system of claim 15, wherein to analyze the transaction, the processor is further configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the processor to: determine damages data and services rendered data included in the transaction.

“19. The computer system of claim 15, wherein to compare the set of line items to a baseline dataset, the processor is further configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the processor to: identify differences between amounts for the set of line items and amounts for the baseline dataset.

“20. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the processor to: receive a response transaction related to the disputed line items; analyze the response transaction; and transmit an updated disputed line items transaction to at least one other participant.”

For additional information on this patent application, see: Call, Shawn M.; Clayton, Wendy H.; Flesher, Kim E.; Graff, Douglas A.; Leise, William J.; Magerkurth, Melinda Teresa; McCoy, Anthony; McCullough, Stacie A.; Runge, Travis Charles; Skaggs, Jaime. Evidence Oracles. Filed February 28, 2022 and posted June 9, 2022. Patent URL: https://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220220180450%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20220180450&RS=DN/20220180450

(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)