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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 9/16/25, the following is a final office action. Claims 11, 14, 19, 35, and 42 are amended. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 18, 20-34, 40 and 43 are cancelled. Claims 11, 14-17, 19, 35-39, 41-42 and 44-47 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
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,
Claims 11,14-17, 19, 35-39, 4 1-42 and 44-47are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of “Mental Processes”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, storage, analysis, update and communication of electronic pricing records, which is a process performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network such as first computational equipment, database, electronic signs, ad remote computing equipment does not take the claim out of the “Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, storing, analyzing, updating and communicating electronic pricing records in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing pricing records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, storing, analyzing, updating and communicating electronic pricing records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, applicant argues that claim 11 as amended addresses a specific technical problem that motor fuel retailers face in real-world implementations, and that the amended claims implement a concrete technical solution to this regulatory timing problem through “automatically controlling, with the computational equipment, timing of transmission of the updated fuel price to the one or more electronic signs based on regulatory timing constraints that limit fuel price changes to not more frequently than once in a 24-hour period”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation still does not overcome the 101 rejection since it still recites a business rule/policy enforced by a generic computer, and not a technological improvement. With regard to the 24 hour rule, the enforcement of this rule is something that a human can perform manually or by using a pen and paper, and the computer used merely serves as a tool to apply the rule. Furthermore, “automatically controlling” does not overcome the 101 since automation of a known manual process using generic computing technology does not amount of an inventive process.
In addition, Applicant argues that the claims further address technical challenges in processing competitor pricing data, and leads to a technical improvement by “determining with the computational equipment whether differences between current and last reported competitor fuel prices equal competitor fuel discounts, and when equal, storing such prices as anomalous pricing data separate from a price survey used in the economic model”, as recited in claim 11. However, this limitation merely discloses the comparison or two prices, applying a business rule, label data as anomalous, and exclude it from an economic model, which are all classic examples of abstract mental processes and economic analysis, even if done by a computer.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite specific hardware implementations including electronic signs and computing devices that are controlled in a particular way through specialized communication. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claiming specific hardware alone is not enough to overcome the 101 rejection. The claims also must recite a non-conventional way the hardware is operated or communicates that produces a technical improvement.
Applicant also argues that the claims do not perform a mental process since they disclose “automatically controlling...”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claiming “automatically controlling” does not take the claim out of the mental-processes group since the steps of determining pricing differences, applying regulatory timing constraints, and deciding when to transmit pricing information are all mental processes that can be performed by a human using pen and paper.
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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
December 15, 2025
/Akiba K Robinson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit