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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/20/2026, and is a Final Office Action.
Claims 1, 6-11 are pending in the application.
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 1, 6-11 are 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: receiving a first destination input by a user / establishing an eligibility of the user / generating an in-vehicle promotion, wherein the in-vehicle promotion comprises an alert that vehicle fuel is low and a promotion of a nearby fuel station / determines the in-vehicle promotion based on a time of day, the user’s location, the user’s route, nearby vendors, a fuel grade of the vehicle, a fuel level of the vehicle, and the user’s favorite vendors, based on the first destination / accept the received in-vehicle promotion / receiving a routing update to a second destination based on the user’s selection, wherein the second destination is the location of the vendor / the navigating to the second destination breaks a geofence at the location of the vendor/ the portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions. Applicant’s Specification further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “methods and a system for in-vehicle contextual promotions are described” , “the driver may then make a payment for the product selection using an e-wallet and picks up the selected product”, “may receive loyalty rewards for their in-vehicle purchase”, “may receive an in-vehicle promotion, wherein the promotion includes a “remind me later” link”, “may then be redirected to a vendor’s website”, “may receive an in-vehicle promotion for businesses along a driving route”, “the driver may then be taken directly to the vendor's order screen. The default view may be the driver's favorite items or the most recently ordered items from that vendor. Alternatively, if the driver is interested in a different item than their favorites or most recently ordered, the vendor's full menu may also be easily accessible”, “As the car approaches the vendor, a message, for example, "you've arrived," may be displayed with instructions on how to pick up the user's order. The message may appear once a geo-fence of the vendor is broken by the driver's car. This may also serve as an indication to the vendor that the driver has arrived to retrieve their order.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment: establishing an eligibility of the user. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment (including a vehicle frontend in communication with the connected vehicle services) and navigating to a destination do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The vehicle services including a navigation system/ rules engine / fuel offer engine represent generic computing elements. Establishing a communication connection between the vehicle and Sirius XM Connected Vehicle portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Gathering data via user voice activation does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using user voice activation to activate a fuel pump at the vendor location does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment (including a vehicle frontend in communication with the connected vehicle services) and navigating to a destination do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The vehicle services including a navigation system/ rules engine / fuel offer engine represent generic computing elements. Establishing a communication connection between the vehicle and Sirius XM Connected Vehicle portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Gathering data via user voice activation does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using user voice activation to activate a fuel pump at the vendor location does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; claim 8 does recite the same abstract idea of a commercial interaction as Claim 1: receiving a first destination input / establishing an eligibility of the user / generating at least one in-vehicle promotion with a “remind me later” link from a vendor, wherein the in-vehicle promotion is based on a time of day, the user’s favorite items, the user’s favorite vendors, the user’s radio listening behavior, the user’s past purchases, and the user’s current radio station, based on the first destination / accept the at least one in-vehicle promotion and opting to be “reminded later” / transmitting the at least one in-vehicle promotion in response to the user opting to be “reminded later” / generating for access the at least one in-vehicle promotion / processing a purchase by the user of a product sold at a vendor’s website based on at least one received in-vehicle promotion, the purchase paid by routing user payment tokens.
The claim also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment: establishing an eligibility of the user. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment (including connected vehicle services) and a vehicle front end does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The vehicle services including a navigation system / rules engine / offer engine /payment gateway, mobile phone including an application and a companion application in communication with the vehicle services, payment processor represent generic computing elements.
Establishing a communication connection between the vehicle and Sirius XM Connected Vehicle portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using voice activation to gather data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment (including connected vehicle services) and a vehicle front end does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Establishing a communication connection between the vehicle and Sirius XM Connected Vehicle portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using voice activation to gather data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 6-7, 9-11 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims do not include any other additional elements. There are no additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself – i.e. there are no additional elements that improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of Claims 1, 6-11.
Nallu et al. (9581463) in further view of Baren (20190205854) in further view of Phillips (20060270421) teach Inputting a first destination into a navigation system by a user; receiving an in-vehicle promotion from an offer engine ; wherein offer engine determines the in-vehicle promotion based on the user’s favorite vendors, the user’s favorite items , based on the first destination; based on a user’s location, the user’s route ; based on a time of day, nearby vendors ; Utilizing voice activation ; Establishing an eligibility of the user utilizing a rules and eligibility engine; selecting at least one item for purchase from a vendor; making a payment for the at least one item using an e-wallet; receiving a routing update to a second destination based on the user’s selection, wherein the second destination is the location of the vendor; driving to the second destination in response to the routing update; picking up, by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor; accepting the received in-vehicle promotion; breaking a geofence at the location of the vendor; connecting to a Sirius XM Connected Vehicle (SXM CV) portal, wherein the SXM CV portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions. However, they lack the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/8. Thus the cited prior art does not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 1, 6-11. When taken as a whole, pending claims 1, 6-11 are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant respectfully disagrees with Examiner's characterization of the claims. In particular, in determining patent eligibility, Prong One of Step 2A directs examiners to "evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim." MPEP 2106.04 II A 1. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception . . . then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis." Id. The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: (1) mathematical concepts (2) certainty
PNG
media_image1.png
105
10
media_image1.png
Greyscale
hods of organizing human activity; and (3) mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a). If the identified limitation(s) do not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas it is reasonable
PNG
media_image1.png
105
10
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to find that the claim does not recite an abstract idea.
Applicant submits that claims 1 and 8 do not fall within any of these three groupings of subject matter. The mathematical concepts grouping includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Id. Claims 1 and 8 do not claim a mathematical relationship, express a mathematical formula or equation, or recite a mathematical calculation to be performed. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 cannot properly be considered as falling under the mathematical concepts grouping. The grouping related to methods of organizing human activity includes "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." Id. Claims 1 and 8 are not directed to any of the listed economic practices or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and are not directed to determining particular promotions. Instead, claims 1 and 8 are directed to implementing, within software modules of a connected vehicle, delivery and user responses to the in-vehicle promotions. Thus, the software modules of a connected vehicle implement user interfaces, which are technical solutions, not commercial or legal interaction. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 cannot properly be considered as falling under the methods of organizing human activity grouping either. The grouping related to mental processes includes concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Id. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A. The MPEP gives examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind, including estimating the distance from a GPS receiver to a satellite, detecting suspicious activity by analyzing network packets, a several-step data manipulation method for data encryption, and a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image requiring manipulation and modification of computer data structures. Id. Similarly, claims 1 and 8 also does not recite mental processes because the claims' limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. In particular, establishing a communication connection between the vehicle and a Sirius XM Connected Vehicle (SXM CV) portal, transmitting, from the frontend of the vehicle, the at least one in-vehicle promotion to a companion application of a mobile phone app of the user in response to the user opting to be "reminded later", the companion application in communication with the connected vehicle services, and processing, in the companion application, a purchase by the user of a product sold at a vendor's website based on the at least one received in-vehicle promotion, the purchase paid by routing user payment tokens from a payment gateway portion of the connected vehicle services to a payment processor of the vendor, as recited in portions of claims 1 and 8, are not limitations the human mind is equipped to perform. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 cannot properly be considered as falling under the mental processes grouping either. Even if, arguendo, claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong Two directs examiners to evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, in which case the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and are eligible. MPEP 2106.04(d). In performing this evaluation, several considerations are indicative that an additional element has integrated the exception into a practical application. Id. One of these considerations is an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.04(d) I. Applicant submits that claims 1 and 8 meet this consideration, by implementing a frontend, companion application, offer engine, and other components of a connected vehicle to deliver and allow a user to act on an in-vehicle promotion. Therefore, as discussed, claims 1 and 8 are not directed to an abstract idea - and even if Examiner finds otherwise, under Prong Two the claims as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception. Therefore, considered as a whole, claims 1 and 8 are directed to statutory subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The remaining dependent claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least by virtue of their dependence from their respective independent claims. In view of the foregoing arguments and the previously presented arguments, the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been overcome.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The pending claims, when implemented, do not improve the functioning of the computing device or other technology/technical field. Generating/providing targeted offers represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. The claimed limitations pertaining to a vehicular environment/ connecting to a Sirius XM connected vehicle portal/ gathering data via voice activation do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use, as noted above.
See Office action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
However, the combination of the references cited by Examiner does not teach or suggest each and every element of the claimed invention. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is not established. In particular, regardless of what the references allegedly teach or suggest, the combination is deficient in teaching or suggesting the amended features of claim 1 presented herein. Specifically, the combination neither teaches nor suggests the expressly recited amended features of "generating, at a fuel offer engine portion of the connected vehicle services, an in- vehicle promotion, wherein the in-vehicle promotion comprises an alert that vehicle fuel is low and a promotion of a nearby fuel station, wherein the fuel offer engine determines the in-vehicle promotion based on a time of day, the user's location, the user's route, nearby vendors, a fuel grade of the vehicle, a fuel level of the vehicle, and the user's favorite vendors, based on the first destination;" and "utilizing, at a frontend of the vehicle in communication with the connected vehicle services, voice activation of the user to activate a fuel pump at the location of the vendor identifying a pattern of offer acceptance by the customer in the historical transaction data," (emphasis added), as in claim 1.
In rejecting claim 3, portions of which are now incorporated into independent claim 1, Examiner cites Phillips as teaching "a system that selects and sends gas related promotional content." Office Action at p. 10. However, Phillips goes only so far as to disclose "presentation of points of interest on a portable electronic facility 300, such as an interface 3904 for finding particular types of location, such as hotels, restaurants, automated teller machines, or gas stations." Phillips at para. 0186. Without more detail, the reference cannot properly be interpreted as teaching or suggesting "generating, at a fuel offer engine portion of the connected vehicle services, an in-vehicle promotion, wherein the in-vehicle promotion comprises an alert that vehicle fuel is low and a promotion of a nearby fuel station, wherein the fuel offer engine determines the in-vehicle promotion based on a time of day, the user's location, the user's route, nearby vendors, a fuel grade of the vehicle, a fuel level of the vehicle, and the user's favorite vendors, based on the first destination" (emphasis added), as claimed. Further the reference does not teach or suggest "utilizing, at a frontend of the vehicle in communication with the connected vehicle services, voice activation of the user to activate a fuel pump at the location of the vendor identifying a pattern of offer acceptance by the customer in the historical transaction data," (emphasis added), as in claim 1. Nor do the remaining references compensate for the deficiencies of Phillips.
The other claims currently under consideration in the application are dependent from their respective independent claims discussed above and therefore are believed to be allowable over the applied references for at least similar reasons to at least some of the explanations described above. Because each dependent claim is deemed to define an additional aspect of the invention, the individual consideration of each on its own merits is respectfully requested.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner agrees. The cited prior art does not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 1, 6-11. Nallu et al. (9581463) in further view of Baren (20190205854) in further view of Phillips (20060270421) teach Inputting a first destination into a navigation system by a user; receiving an in-vehicle promotion from an offer engine ; wherein offer engine determines the in-vehicle promotion based on the user’s favorite vendors, the user’s favorite items , based on the first destination; based on a user’s location, the user’s route ; based on a time of day, nearby vendors ; Utilizing voice activation ; Establishing an eligibility of the user utilizing a rules and eligibility engine; selecting at least one item for purchase from a vendor; making a payment for the at least one item using an e-wallet; receiving a routing update to a second destination based on the user’s selection, wherein the second destination is the location of the vendor; driving to the second destination in response to the routing update; picking up, by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor; accepting the received in-vehicle promotion; breaking a geofence at the location of the vendor; connecting to a Sirius XM Connected Vehicle (SXM CV) portal, wherein the SXM CV portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions. However, they lack the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/8. Thus the cited prior art does not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 1, 6-11. When taken as a whole, pending claims 1, 6-11 are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights