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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on November 20, 2025.
Claims 37-41 have been examined in this application. All other claims are cancelled.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on February 26, 2026 has been Considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 5/23/2025 pages 5-6, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims comprise “considerable structure and active steps resulting in the achievement of significantly more than an abstract idea.” Applicant also argues that the claims are similar to those of DDR Holdings as the instant claims “address a business challenge, namely, to overcome the drawback of the background art, by devising a method for controlling the dispensing of fuel by a vending apparatus… [allowing] the user to obtain effectiveness and efficiency levels in the refueling of vehicles that are greater than those obtainable with known solutions and/or similar effectiveness and efficiency levels at a lower cost.” Id., 5. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the claim transform any abstract idea into a practical application because the claims are directed to elements “rooted in computer technology and provides a technical improvement specific to… refueling technology for vehicles;” id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 37 captures an abstract idea directed to provisioning dispensing of fuel to a designated user in response to manipulation of data without significantly more. The abstract idea is categorized under mental processes including judgement, opinion, and evaluation and simply using pen and paper. The claims basically capture a concept that can be carried out in a human mind and using pen and paper. Users can communicate with one another via verbal or written methods, analyze data, and determine an outcome. The claims are broad and recite generic computer functions that can be carried out using a human mind, including the identified functions above and including manipulating data, analyzing data, and determining an outcome. For example, claim 37 can be carried out using multiple humans, the first being the human having in their possession fuel stored in a container. The second human being a the claimed central device and the dispensing assembly is the assemble making up the container in which the fuel is stored. The mobile device is nothing more than a third human that can connect/communicate with the first and second humans. The claim does not actually carry out any functions and instead lists structure of each of the claimed entities and what said entity can potentially do but does not in fact actually perform anything until the last two limitations. Continuing with the example in relation to the claims, the third human can then establish connection/communication with the first user having the dispensing assembly storing the fuel. Finally, the third user is “enabled” to obtain the fuel if (conditional) the user is determined to be the user authorized to obtain the fuel, which can be carried out by the first user using their mind/pen/paper and determining whether or not to allow the third user to get the fuel. The claims are so high level that they amount to merely establishing a connection and enabling fuel dispensing based on a condition. Enabling is a term that is open ended. There is no algorithm or clear function(s) that have to be carried out positively to result in the dispensing of fuel.
Per Applicant’s arguments directed to the case law relied upon. The Examiner notes that the relied upon case law was not the basis of the rejection and is no where close to the instant claims for it to be deemed even relevant. Therefore, said argument is moot. No technical solution is found that would amount to a technical solution rooted in computer technology/field. As a result, and based on the additional elements recited in the claims, no practical application is found. The Claims, at best, apply the additional elements to the exception. The claimed additional elements are also deemed as amounting to merely extra solution activity. Finally, the additional elements seem to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology / field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 37-41 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 37-41 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of provisioning dispensing of fuel to a designated user in response to manipulation of data without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims amount to merely communicating data between two devices to determine whether to allow the dispensing of fuel or not. The claims capture said interpretation at a very high level of generality and as will be discussed later, the additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. The abstract idea is categorized under mental processes including judgement, opinion, and evaluation and simply using pen and paper. The claims basically capture a concept that can be carried out in a human mind and using pen and paper. Users can communicate with one another via verbal or written methods, analyze data, and determine an outcome. The claims are broad and recite generic computer functions that can be carried out using a human mind, including the identified functions above and including manipulating data, analyzing data, and determining an outcome.
Claim 37, in pertinent part, recites:
A method for controlling fuel dispensing of fuel by… [a first entity] comprising:
[a second entity]… comprising a remote storage means and a local storage means in communication with the remote storage means…
at least one… [third entity], said at least… [third entity] having an identification code, at least one operating parameter… configured to calculate and interface with said identification code and said at least one operating parameter of said… [third entity] and configured to command, control and coordinate the operation of said identification code and said at least one operating parameter of said… [third entity] and perform the operations of processing data and requests originating from said identification code and said at least one operating parameter of the… [third entity] to dispense fuel inside a tank of a motor vehicle;
at least one… [fourth entity] operated by a driver user comprising an authorization verification… configured to connect to said at least … [third entity] and … [second entity];
establishing… communication between… [fourth entity and the third entity]; and
enabling the dispensing of fuel if said driver user is included in a list of driver users registered and authorized at said… [third entity] by means of said an authorization verification…, said list of driver users registered and authorized at said [third entity] being stored in said [fourth entity].
The claims recite the following additional elements: a vending apparatus, at least one dispensing assembly, aid at least one dispensing assembly, a central remote device, remote storage means, computer-readable medium, second computer-readable medium, remote storage means of said central remote device, electronic control unit, mobile device, authorization verification module, short-range wireless communication, wireless network. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as establishing a connection, sending and receiving data, analyzing data, and outputting a result such as the ability to dispense fuel. The claim(s) also include conditional language which does not have to be carried out, resulting in the claimed scope being even broader. Looking up a database (pen and paper table) to determine if a user is a register user is also highly abstract and carried out by a human mind. Even in combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic devices/computers. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art
At least U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0220934 to Bretthauer (Bret), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0083988 to Butsch et al. (Butsch) teach the claimed scope of what the Applicant deems as their invention. Furthermore, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0019359 to Abrams et al. (Abrams) also teaches other aspects of what the Applicant claims as their invention.
The claims contain multiple indefiniteness issues, and scope issues, which make it difficult to determine what the actual claimed clear scope is and how to apply references to the scope claimed. The cited references including Bret in view of Butsch teach the claimed scope. Other references, attached, teach what seems the Applicant’s claimed scope. Once the claims at least overcome the clarity and ambiguous issues and capture each entity properly along with what functions each entity carries out, then a clear search/interpretation of the claims could be carried out in order to appropriately apply prior art to the claims.
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner to determine how to best expedite prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in form PTO-892.
Examiner notes NPL attached and previously attached, which teaches the use of a mobile device, telematic communication techniques, and a fuel pump to allow the dispensing of fuel.
Examiner also directs Applicant’s attention to all cited references that further teach the claimed scope as a whole in its entirety. The Specification of the instant Application was reviewed and the references relied upon and those cited teach the scope of what the Applicant deems as their invention. In efforts to advance prosecution, a review of the references is requested by Applicant.
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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699