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 office action is in response to an argument submitted on 11/11/2025. The applicant submits an Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/11/2025. The applicant does not amend any claims. Claims 5, 12 – 17, 21, 23, 27, 29, and 32 – 84 are canceled.
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 – 4, 7 – 9, 11, 18 – 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental concept of evaluation without significantly more. Claims 6, 24, and 25 are rejected because the claims are directed to an abstract idea of organized human activity of commercial activity. The claims are evaluated with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance. Example 40 is used to evaluate the claims directed to the mental concept claims and example 42 is used to evaluate the organization of human activity claims.
Step 1
The claims recite a fuel monitoring system for a vehicle. The claims pass the first step of 2019 Guidance and MPEP the by stating one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong I
The independent claim 1 is produced below with the abstract idea in italics and the pre/post solution in bold.
Claim 1
A fuel monitoring system for a vehicle comprising:
a fuel filter sensor device configured to generate data reflecting a filter restriction value of a fuel filter;
a geolocation circuit configured to generate or receive geolocation data;
a system control circuit configured to evaluate the fuel filter sensor device data to determine changes in the filter restriction value;
receive fuel level data;
cross-reference geolocation data and fuel level data to identify refueling locations utilized;
correlate refueling locations with subsequent changes in the filter restriction value to identify an effect of specific refueling locations utilized on fuel filter loading.
The inventive concept is evaluated with respect to MPEP 2106.07 and is determined to be evaluating the operational life of a fuel filter with respect to the contaminate at fuel station locations.
With respect to the MPEP, the independent claim structural components are generic in nature. The features of a fuel filter sensor, geolocation sensor, and system control do not disclose features that are so unique that they may be used for the claimed invention. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(a or c) the operations do not require a computer as a physical device may be used to measure the quantity of the fuel and visual examination of the fuel filter is possible to identify the particulates within the filter. Therefore, visual inspection along with memorizing the location of the fuel obtained are possible to be performed in the mind.
With respect to the 2019 Guidance, example 40 is applied to claims 1 – 4, 7 – 9, 11, 18 – 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, and 31. In the example, the data collected is specific and performed by a specific device. In this case, the claims do not identify the specific data collected to may a determination of contamination or compromised fuel. Therefore, under the Guidance the claims do not state with particularity what constitutes the loading of a filter.
With respect to the 2019 Guidance, example 42 is applied to claims 6, 24, and 25. The inventive concept is directed to inventor of filters. Thus, the operations are commercial and the claims do not identify a unique structural feature to perform the operations like the example shows to overcome an organization of human activity or real time information access displayed about the state of the system and the location of the fuel for which the fuel was obtained. Therefore, querying for the part inventory, generating a part inventory recommendation, and then increasing inventory based upon determining supply are commercial.
Thus based upon the MPEP and the 2019 Guidance the claims fail Step 2A Prong I.
Step 2A Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not identify what occurs as a result of the evaluation. With respect to MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) the claims do not state whether a warning of a location is displayed to prevent future use. With respect to the 2019 Guidance, the claims do not comply with stating a new or improved manner of identifying the loading of filters. Therefore, the claims aren’t specific in what is data is collected and the specific nuance structure that collects the data.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not satisfy the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(a-h) or the 2019 Guidance. The claims do not state unique structure to determine filter loading or something other than commercial activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant does not show through argument or amendment how the claimed invention overcomes the section 101 rejection. The rejection explains the features missing that do not satisfy the requirements of the MPEP or the 2019 Guidance.
With respect to the 103 rejection, the rejection is withdrawn.
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 TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664