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 Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination, filed June 17, 20926.
Claims 37-41 have been examined in this application. All other claims are cancelled.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on May 27, 2026 has been Considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 06/17/2026 pages 4-5, 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 claimed scope is directed to a method of controlling dispensing of fuel that include steps and structure to achieve significantly more than any alleged abstract idea; id., 4. 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 at the claimed central device and the dispensing assembly is the assembly 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 nowhere 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 Objections
Claim 37-41 are objected to because of the following reasons: The claims are directed to a method; however, the body of the claims seems to focus on the different devices and their components rather than limitations focusing on the method of delivering fuel. The claims are more directed to a system claim than a method claim. Applicant should consider which type of claim is best; a method or a system. Likewise, claim 37 recites “an electronic control unit configured to control an operation of said at least one pump to dispense fuel inside a tank of a motor vehicle.” The dispensing of fuel in a tank cannot be done without user intervention, and the Specification fails to disclose how said pump and electronic control unit can dispense fuel in a tank without user intervention. Authorizing the pumping of fuel into a motor vehicle is different than actual configuration of pumping fuel. Amending the claims to recite authorizing the pumping of the fuel would resolve the issue.
Appropriate correction required.
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 (BRI), the claims amount to mere communication of data between 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 carrying out these processes 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:
Providing at least one… [second entity] configured to dispense fuel, wherein said at least one… [second entity] includes:
a… [third entity] including a remote storage means;
at least one dispensing assembly, including an identification code, at least one operating parameter, a local storage means in communication with the remote storage means, at least one pump, and… [second element] configured to control an operation of said at least one pump to dispense fuel inside a tank of a motor vehicle; and
at least one… [fourth entity] operated by a driver user, said at least one… [fourth entity] comprising an authorization verification module and… storage means, said at least one… [fourth entity] configured to connect to said at least one dispensing assembly…, said at least … [fourth entity] configured to connect to said [third entity] …;
establishing… communication between said at least… [fourth entity] and at least one dispensing assembly…; and
responsive to the… [fourth entity] via the authorization verification module authenticating that said driver user is included in a list of driver users registered and authorized to use said at least one dispensing assembly, controlling by the… [second element], said at least one pump to dispense fuel for said driver user,
wherein said list of driver users registered and authorized to use said at least one dispensing assembly is stored in said… storage means.
The claims recite the following additional elements: a vending apparatus, at least one vending apparatus, a central remote device including a remote storage means, at least one dispensing assembly including a local storage means in communication with the remote storage means, at least one pump and an electronic control unit, at least one mobile device operated by a driver user, an authorization verification module and mobile storage means, short-range wireless communication network, and a 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. Looking up a database can be done using a human mind that stored data or with use of pen-and-paper looking up a table to determine if a user is a register user. The communication between entities amounts to mere communication that can be carried out between humans using verbal means or pen-and-paper. As a result, the additional elements as a whole and in combination, 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.
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
Prosecution Insights