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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that features disclosed in Neron would render Rogers unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. However, the features of Neron cited are not relied upon as teachings for making the rejection. Neron is simply relied on to be an example of a fuel dispensing system which tracks fuel cost and fuel cost per a unit. The majority of modern fuel dispensers display the cost per a unit, the cost of the fuel dispensed and the amount of fuel dispensed simultaneously. This simple feature would not render Rogers unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant argues that the cost calculation step of Neron would slow down the real-time calculations of Rogers. However, the majority of modern fuel dispensers display the cost per a unit, the cost of the fuel dispensed and the amount of fuel dispensed simultaneously and in real-time. Rogers also only requires that monitoring is substantially real-time defined as 5-90 seconds in paragraph 13. Even if the calculation added time to the monitoring it would not add more than a fraction of a second. This simple feature would not render Rogers unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant argues that calculating price from volume and then calculating the volume from the price. However, the majority of modern fuel dispensers display the cost per a unit, the cost of the fuel dispensed and the amount of fuel dispensed simultaneously and in real-time. Recording all of this data would be obvious in view of Neron. The volume of fuel dispensed and the cost of the fuel dispensed are related by the constant price per a unit volume. A rate of change of Cost of the Volume or the Volume would be equal and would not define beyond each other as they are obvious alternatives.
Applicant argues that Rogers does not disclose determining that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameters are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter nor a given predetermined interval. However, Rogers discloses that it is determined if the flow rate data has met, not met, or exceed one or more thresholds. Not me is interpreted to mean less than the threshold flow rate. Rogers also discloses taking a plurality of sample flow rates, requiring that two of the samples are less than the threshold is a mere optimization step to try and avoid a single false positive triggering an alert. Rogers discloses a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050).
For at least the foregoing reasons claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,006,203 in view of Rogers US 2011/0040503. The claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a mere re-ordering of the same limitations, including the cost and cost per volume, except for the vehicle information limitations.
Rogers teaches the vehicle information limitations (‘record identifying information about the alleged thief or the vehicle receiving the stolen product’ para 0103).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of ‘203 to include collecting and storing vehicle information to aid in identifying and tracking potential thieves.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,673,789 in view of Neron US 2018/0265346. The claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a mere re-ordering of the same limitations, including the vehicle information, except for the cost of the volume of fuel and the cost per a unit of fuel volume. In a modern self-serve fuel pump system, the total cost of the fuel dispensed and the cost per a unit of fuel volume are obvious if not inherent to the system. Neron is an example of such and discloses both the total cost of the fuel dispensed and the cost per a unit of fuel volume (para 0011, 0018).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of ‘789 to include discloses both the total cost of the fuel dispensed and the cost per a unit of fuel volume because it allows for tracking charges and payments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. US 2011/0040503 in view of Neron US 2018/0265346.
Rogers discloses a system comprising: a memory configured to store:
(Re claim 1) “a threshold volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel to be dispensed from a fuel dispensing terminal during a fuel dispensing operation, wherein the threshold volume per unit time parameter is configurable” (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “a value indicating a threshold wait period” (‘30 seconds to about 90 seconds’ para 0017). “a processor operably coupled with the memory, and configured to” (70 figure 1). “detect a first fuel dispensing operation that indicates fuel is being dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal” (‘first set of flow rate data’ para 0017). “determine that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous, wherein determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous comprises” (‘alerts’ para 0071). “performing the following operations at at least one predetermined interval from among a plurality of predetermined intervals within the threshold wait period that is predetermined to be before the first fuel dispensing operation is completed, wherein the threshold wait period is associated with a unit time parameter: determining, for a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050), an identifier value associated with a volume of fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal” (‘volume of fluid dispensed’ abstract, para 0013). “determining, for a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050), a measured volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal by dividing the determined identifier value by a unit parameter based at least in part upon the determined identifier value, a unit parameter, and the unit time parameter” (‘volume of fluid … time interval’ para 0013). “comparing the measured volume per unit time parameter with the threshold volume per unit time parameter; and determining that … the measured volume per unit time parameter is less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (‘different events of interest … one or more thresholds (i.e., met, not met or exceeded with respect to flow rate data)’, para 0081). “determine vehicle information associated with the first fuel dispensing operation, wherein the vehicle information identifies a vehicle associated with the first fuel dispensing operation” (record identifying information about the alleged thief or the vehicle receiving the stolen product’ para 0103). “in response to determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous: communicate an electronic signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that instructs the fuel dispensing terminal to stop dispensing fuel” (‘turn off fluid flow to prevent further theft’ para 0103). “create a file for the first fuel dispensing operation; store the vehicle information in the created file” (record identifying information about the alleged thief or the vehicle receiving the stolen product’ para 0103). “store the measured volume per unit time parameter in the created file” (‘volume dispensed’ para 0137-0140). “communicate the created file so that the first fuel dispensing operation is investigated” (‘contact local law enforcement’ para 0103).
Rogers does not disclose that the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed, that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume nor that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold.
Neron teaches the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed not that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume (para 0011, 0018).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Neron to include that the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed not that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume because it allows for a dollar value to be assigned to the stolen or lost fuel.
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 2) “in response to determining … that the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter, determine that the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (‘different events of interest … one or more thresholds” (i.e., met, not met or exceeded with respect to flow rate data)’, para 0081).
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 3) “in response to determining … that the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter: determine a timestamp window associated with the first fuel dispensing operation; retrieve a video feed that shows the fuel dispensing terminal during the timestamp window, wherein the video feed is captured by a camera facing a space where the fuel dispensing terminal is located; store the video feed in the created file” (‘cameras’ para 0103, ‘real-time’ para 0050).
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 4) “retrieve user information associated with the first fuel dispensing operation, wherein:the user information is retrieved from a data card used in conjunction with initiating the first fuel dispensing operation; and the user information comprises at least one of a name, an address, or a number associated with a user; and store the user information in the created file” (‘identifying the user by reading a card’ para 0135).
(Re claim 5) “communicate an alert message that indicates the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (‘alert’ para 0103).
(Re claim 6) “detect a second fuel dispensing operation that indicates fuel is being dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal, wherein the second fuel dispensing operation is detected within a certain threshold period after the first fuel dispensing operation; perform the following operations at [[each]] at least one predetermined interval from among the plurality of predetermined intervals within the threshold wait period: determine a second identifier value associated with a second volume of fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal: determine a second measured volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal by dividing the determined second identifier value by the unit parameter based at least in part upon the determined second identifier value, the unit parameter, and the unit time parameter; compare the second measured volume per unit time parameter to the threshold volume per unit time parameter; determine that the second measured volume per unit time parameter is less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter; in response to determining that the second measured volume per unit time parameter is less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter: communicate a second electronic signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that instructs the fuel dispensing terminal to stop dispensing fuel: and communicate an alert message that indicates the first fuel dispensing operation and the second fuel dispensing operation are associated with an anomaly” (‘second set of flow rate data’ para 0017, 0103).
(Re claim 7) “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an average volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal in a plurality of previous fuel dispensing operations; compare the average volume per unit time parameter with the measured volume per unit time parameter; determine that the average volume per unit time parameter exceeds the measured volume per unit time parameter by at least a threshold value; and in response to determining that the average volume per unit time parameter exceeds the measured volume per unit time parameter by at least the threshold value, determine that the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (‘discrepancies between … average flow rate, actual flow rate’ para 0062).
Rogers teaches a method comprising:
(Re claim 8) “detecting a first fuel dispensing operation that indicates fuel is being dispensed from a fuel dispensing terminal” (para 0017). ‘determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous’ (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “wherein determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous comprises: performing the following operations at least one predetermined interval from among a plurality of predetermined intervals within a threshold wait period that is predetermined to be before the first fuel dispensing operation is completed” (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “wherein the threshold wait period is associated with a unit time parameter: determining, for a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050), an identifier value associated with a volume of fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal; determining, for a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050), a measured volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal by dividing the determined identifier value by a unit parameter based at least in part upon the determined identifier value, a unit parameter, and the unit time parameter” (para 0017). “comparing the measured volume per unit time parameter with a threshold volume per unit time parameter, wherein: the threshold volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel to be dispensed from a fuel dispensing terminal during a fuel dispensing operation” (‘volume of fluid … time interval’ para 0013). “the threshold volume per unit time parameter is configurable” (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “determining that the measured volume per unit time parameter is less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (i.e., met, not met or exceeded with respect to flow rate data)’, para 0081). “determining vehicle information associated with the first fuel dispensing operation, wherein the vehicle information identifies a vehicle associated with the first fuel dispensing operation” (‘identification of the user’s vehicle’ para 0136). “in response to determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous: communicating an electronic signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that instructs the fuel dispensing terminal to stop dispensing fuel” (‘stopping dispenser operation’ para 0139). “creating a file for the first fuel dispensing operation; storing the vehicle information in the created file” (‘identification of the user’s vehicle … reporting the fueling transaction’ para 0134-0140). “storing the measured volume per unit time parameter in the created file” (‘volume dispensed’ para 0138). “communicating the created file so that the first fuel dispensing operation is investigated” (‘other analysis’ para 0140).
Rogers does not disclose that the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed, that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume nor that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold.
Neron teaches the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed not that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume (para 0011, 0018).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Neron to include that the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed not that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume because it allows for a dollar value to be assigned to the stolen or lost fuel.
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 9) “in response to determining that … the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter, determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (i.e., met, not met or exceeded with respect to flow rate data)’, para 0081).
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 10) “in response to determining … that the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter: determining a timestamp window associated with the first fuel dispensing operation; retrieving a video feed that shows the fuel dispensing terminal during the timestamp window, wherein the video feed is captured by a camera facing a space where the fuel dispensing terminal is located; storing the video feed in the created file” (‘cameras’ para 0103, ‘real-time’ para 0050).
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 11) “retrieving user information associated with the first fuel dispensing operation, wherein: the user information is retrieved from a data card used in conjunction with initiating the first fuel dispensing operation; and the user information comprises at least one of a name, an address, or a number associated with a user storing the user information in the created file” (‘identifying the user by reading a card’ para 0135).
(Re claim 12) “communicating an alert message that indicates the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (‘alert’ para 0103).
(Re claim 13) “instructing the fuel dispensing terminal to stop dispensing fuel comprises at least one of the following: communicating a first signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that causes the fuel dispensing terminal to turn off; or communicating a second signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that causes a valve from which fuel is dispensed to close” (‘shutting down one or more devices at the facility or engaging certain valves or controllers to prevent fluid flow’ para 0101).
(Re claim 14) “prior to determining the measured volume per unit time parameter, waiting for a particular time period” (‘time period’ para 0050).
Rogers teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when that stores instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
(Re claim 15) “detect a first fuel dispensing operation that indicates fuel is being dispensed from a fuel dispensing terminal” (para 0017). “determine that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous, wherein determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous comprises: performing the following operations at at least one predetermined interval from among a plurality of predetermined intervals within a threshold wait period that is predetermined to be before the first fuel dispensing operation is completed” (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “wherein the threshold wait period is associated with a unit time parameter: determining, for a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050), an identifier value associated with a volume of fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal; determining, for a given predetermined interval (‘period of detecting’ para 0050), a measured volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal by dividing the determined identifier value by a unit parameter based at least in part upon the determined identifier value” (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “a unit parameter, and the unit time parameter, comparing the measured volume per unit time parameter with a threshold volume per unit time parameter, wherein: the threshold volume per unit time parameter associated with fuel to be dispensed from the fuel dispensing terminal during a fuel dispensing operation; and the threshold volume per unit time parameter is configurable” (‘reaction threshold’ para 0017). “determining that … the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter; in response to determining that the first fuel dispensing operation is anomalous” (‘alerts’ para 0071). “communicate an electronic signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that instructs the fuel dispensing terminal to stop dispensing fuel” (‘stopping dispenser operation’ para 0139). “create a file for the first fuel dispensing operation, store the vehicle information in the created file” (‘identification of the user’s vehicle … reporting the fueling transaction’ para 0134-0140). “store the measured volume per unit time parameter in the created file” (‘volume dispensed’ para 0138). “communicate the created file so that the first fuel dispensing operation is investigated” (‘other analysis’ para 0140).
Rogers does not disclose that the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed, that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume nor that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold.
Neron teaches the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed not that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume (para 0011, 0018).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Neron to include that the identifier values is a cost of the volume of fuel dispensed not that the unit time parameter is a fuel cost per a unit fuel volume because it allows for a dollar value to be assigned to the stolen or lost fuel.
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 16) “cause the one or more processors, in response to determining that … the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter, to determine that the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (i.e., met, not met or exceeded with respect to flow rate data)’, para 0081).
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 17) “in response to determining that … the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold volume per unit time parameter to: determine a timestamp window associated with the first fuel dispensing operation; retrieve a video feed that shows the fuel dispensing terminal during the timestamp window, wherein the video feed is captured by a camera facing a space where the fuel dispensing terminal is located; store the video feed in the created file” (‘cameras’ para 0103, ‘real-time’ para 0050).
Going from a single data point being below a threshold value to two or more data points being below a threshold can be considered routine optimization, as a single data point being below a threshold could be an outlier while two or more data points below the threshold would filter out outlier events.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Rogers to include that two or more of the measured volume per unit time parameter are less than the threshold because it is routine optimization and filters out outlier events indicated by a single data point.
(Re claim 18) “retrieve user information associated with the first fuel dispensing operation, wherein: the user information is retrieved from a data card used in conjunction with initiating the first fuel dispensing operation; and the user information comprises at least one of a name, an address, or a number associated with a user; and store the user information in the created file” (‘identifying the user by reading a card’ para 0135).
(Re claim 19) “communicate an alert message that indicates the first fuel dispensing operation is associated with an anomaly that indicates a discrepancy between the measured volume per unit time parameter and the threshold volume per unit time parameter” (‘alert’ para 0103).
(Re claim 20) “instructing the fuel dispensing terminal to stop dispensing fuel comprises at least one of the following: communicating a first signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that causes the fuel dispensing terminal to turn off; or communicating a second signal to the fuel dispensing terminal that causes a valve from which fuel is dispensed to close” (‘shutting down one or more devices at the facility or engaging certain valves or controllers to prevent fluid flow’ para 0101).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655