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 Amendment
The amendments filed 06/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 14, & 18 have been amended.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 6-7, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to "Claim Objections" of claims 5 & 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The "Claim Objections" of claims 5 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 8-12, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1, 8, & 14 and "determining a quantity of fuel dispensed into a fuel truck located at a fueling station" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection due to "quantity of fuel dispensed at a fueling station" of claims 1, 8, & 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 25 to page 10 line 7, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 2-13, and 15-20 and "insufficient antecedent basis" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection due to "insufficient antecedent basis" of claims 2-7, 9-13, & 15-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 12 line 16 to page 15 line 10, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to "Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection(s) of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 13-17, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 7 & 20 and "determine a fuel type" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9 lines 13-17):
“Regarding claims 7 and 20, Applicant respectfully asserts that “determine a fuel type” is clear to a person of skill in the art. The Examiner has given two possibilities of items that might be covered by the claim scope. But “breadth is not indefiniteness.” In re Gardner, 427 F .2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970), MPEP 2173.04. A person of skill in the art would understand what is meant by “a fuel type,” i.e., a type of fuel.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2173.02(I): “Examiners, however, are cautioned against confusing claim breadth with claim indefiniteness. A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. Instead, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim)”
Analysis:
The phrase “determine a fuel type” is clear, but not how it is to be done; one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to implement this intended goal.
It is not clear which species are intended to be included in the claims or what the scope of the claim(s) is ; there would be structural differences between different potential species (such as whether an excitation means such as a speaker would be required or where the microphone(s) is located)
Claims were not rejected due to what is meant by “a fuel type,”; this would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion:
The claim(s) recite limitations which would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art and so it would be unclear as to whether a particular use of a microphone at fuel station is an instance of the claimed invention or something else.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 18-24, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 6 & 19 and "executing the machine learning model on the image data" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9 lines 20-22):
“The same exact machine learning model that is executed on the audio data can also be used on the image data … or two different models can be used.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Prior to recitation of “executing the machine learning model on the image data” there is no recitation of a machine learning model which acts upon image data. A machine learning model which acts upon audio data (without disclosure of additional details pertaining to training on image data) would not be able to operate on image data to produce any useful result. A “machine learning model” can’t be a black box which solves all intended functionality within a claim (see MPEP 2181(I)(A): “The Federal Circuit concluded that "the 'distributed learning control module' limitation fails to recite sufficiently definite structure and that the presumption against means-plus function claiming is rebutted." Id. at 1351, 115 USPQ2d at 1113. In support, the Federal Circuit determined that "the word 'module' does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used." Id. at 1350–51, 115 USPQ2d at 1112.”).
Regarding “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 lines 8-16, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 7 & 20 and "determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10 lines 11-12):
“As an initial matter, claims 7 and 20 were presented as originally filed claims and are therefore part of the application disclosure as filed.”
& (page 10 lines 13-14):
“The Office bears the initial burden of presenting evidence or technical reasoning explaining why persons of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the originally filed disclosure as describing the claimed invention.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2161(I): “(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.”
Analysis:
1)
The claim was rejected under 112(a) because the originally filed specification does not disclose how to “determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data”. Stating “determine a type of fuel dispensed” is an objective without a means and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the claimed invention.
2)
The non final office action filed 03/24/2026 stated as evidence or technical reasoning: “The initially filed specifications does not disclose a means for “determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data”.”. and provided a couple distinct example inventions which would achieve the claimed objective.
Regarding “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 lines 26 to page 11 line 11, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 11 lines 1-6):
“As amended, independent claim 1 is not directed to collecting audio data and applying generic mathematical or mental steps. Rather, claim 1 recites a concrete audio-based refueling-station implementation in which a multi-channel microphone array installed at or near the location where a fuel truck is refueled generates audio data associated with stages of a physical refueling operation; acoustic feature data, including a spectrogram generated using STFT or MFCCs, is generated from that audio data”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At least the limitations of “executing a machine learning model on the audio data, wherein the machine learning model is configured to …” and “a spectrogram generated using STFT or MDCCs is generated from that audio data” is a judicial exception. Machine learning models are code (not one of the four statutory categories) which apply calculations (judicial exception abstract idea of mathematical concepts) to create determinations or further calculations (judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mental processes or of mathematical concepts). Fourier transforms (STFT) and Mel- Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs) are within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
The claim(s) would then have to recite additional element(s) to incorporate any judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A Prong Two of the 101 analysis. However, “generating audio data” is not significantly more than extra solution activity which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception and so not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “generating audio data from a multi-channel microphone array” is extra solution activity of data gathering and the element of “a multi-channel microphone array” is a conventional element (as evidenced by at least US 9875410 B2 (Oh) & WO 2022226214 A1(Remle) & US 20260011046 A1(Ukai)) well known in the art and so not able to incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional amended limitations of “and is labeled as one of a plurality of refueling-event labels…” & “by multiplying the length of time of the first segment by a fuel flow rate …” are directed towards additional calculations within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
The last amended limitation of “causing an alert to be issued…” is not significantly more than necessary extra solution activity (post solution), since the judicial exception would have no purpose if it did not output the results of its calculations.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 line 12 to page 12 line 15, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 11 lines 22-24):
“The claim therefore uses the alleged exception, if any, in a concrete technological process that produces a tangible refueling-station audit action, namely causing an alert to be issued when a discrepancy is detected.”
& (page 12 lines 3-5):
“The claim is therefore directed to a particular training architecture for an acoustic refueling-event classifier, not merely to the result of “training a model” in the abstract.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106(I): “Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it.”
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … , an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “directed towards a particular training architecture” indicates that the claim is directed towards computations and determinations with physical elements such as “multi-channel microphone array” being determined to be extra solution activity of data gathering at step 2A Prong Two and determined to be conventional at step 2B. The “causing an alert” would be evaluated to be necessary extra solution activity at step 2A Prong Two.
Judicial exceptions are established as being unpatentable specifically because they are useful and their patenting would “impede innovation rather than promote it”. Judicial exceptions for a particular purpose are still judicial exceptions and under the 101 analysis at step 2A Prong Two would require additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) for direction as to amendments which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion:
Therefore, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim(s) are determined to be directed towards judicial exceptions without significantly more.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
claim 7 & 20 limitation of "determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data."
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1 in lines 3-4 recites the limitation “a multi-channel microphone array comprising one or more microphones…”. It is not clear how a microphone array can have just one microphone. An array of microphones likely provides the functionality of determining directionality of sound but a single microphone would not be able to do so.
Claims 8, & 14 in line 4, & line 3 (respectively) recites the limitation “a multi-channel microphone array comprising a microphone…”. It is not clear how a microphone array can have just one microphone. An array of microphones likely provides the functionality of determining directionality of sound but a single microphone would not be able to do so.
Claims 7 & 20 in line 3 (both claims) recites the limitation "wherein the machine learning model is configured to, upon execution: determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data.". It is not clear what means is applied to “determine a fuel type”, nor what physical elements such as sensors would be used to make such determinations. One possible means could be ‘use a speaker to determine whether a tank for a particular type of fuel is less full by measuring the depth of the fuel’. A second possibility would be ‘use a speaker to excite oscillations in the fuel then wavelength with amplitude data could provide density and therefore type of fuel’. Another distinct possibility would be that the speaker could over hear a spoken request for a fuel type and then a large language model could be applied to the audio to make a determination of fuel type. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know which means was intended to be the inventive concept of the application.
Claims 6 & 19 in line 4 (both claims) recites the limitation "execut[ing] the machine learning model on the image data". However, there was no previous claim limitation directed towards having trained the machine learning model on image data. Until this point in the claims (all parent claims) the machine learning model is directed towards recognizing audio signals and not video signals and as such the machine learning model would not be able to correctly interpret video signals.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 & 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 & 20 in line 3 (both claims) recites the limitation "wherein the machine learning model is configured to, upon execution: determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data.". The initially filed specifications does not disclose a means for “determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data”. One possible means could be ‘use a speaker to determine whether a tank for a particular type of fuel is less full by measuring the depth of the fuel using time of an echo’. A second possibility would be ‘use a speaker to excite oscillations in the fuel, then wavelength with amplitude data could provide density and therefore type of fuel’.
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.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a method of determining a quantity of fuel dispensed into a fuel truck located at a fueling station based on audio” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“generating from the audio data, acoustic feature data comprising at least one of a spectrogram generated using a short-Timer Fourier Transform (STFT) or Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs);”
“and executing a machine learning model on the acoustic feature data, wherein the machine learning model is configured to, upon execution:”
“segment the audio data into segments, wherein each segment is associated with a respective one of the stages of the refueling operation and is labeled as one of a plurality of refueling-event labels including a least (i) a truck-approaching label, (ii) a pumping label, and (iii) a truck-leaving label;”
“determine that a first segment of the segments includes audio associated with a fuel flow stage of the refueling operation in which fuel is dispensed;”
“determine a length of time of the first segment;”
“determine a quantity of fuel dispensed based on the length of time of the first segment by multiplying the length of time of the first segment by a fuel flow rate for fuel flowing from a fuel tank to the fuel truck via a fuel pump;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
Analysis:
These limitations (at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation) are directed towards operations (either mathematical or mental) applied to data. As such, these limitations are directed towards the abstract idea groupings of either ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of:
“generating audio data from a multi-channel microphone array comprising one or more microphones installed at or near a location where the fuel truck is refueled, wherein the audio data is associated with stages of a refueling operation at a fueling station;”
And causing an alert to be issued based on a discrepancy between the determined quantity of fuel dispensed and a logged quantity of fuel dispensed.”
Are extra-solution activity.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g):
“The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
&
“(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
The judicial exception(s) directed towards “executing a machine learning model on the audio data” necessarily require the “generating audio data from one or more microphones”. Therefore, this limitation is not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
The judicial exception directed towards “causing an alert to be issued” is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation necessary insignificant extra solution (post solution) activity. It is necessary to get the results of the judicial exception to a user for the judicial exception to have had a purpose and therefore the judicial exception necessarily implies ‘an alert’.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it is not the case that the claim recites “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The additional element(s)/limitation(s) as listed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two are well known conventional subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I):
“2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
&
“(c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);”
Analysis:
1)
US 20020157469 A1 “Device For Checking The Quantity Of Gasolines, Diesel Fuels, Fuels Or Liquids In General During Introduction In A Tank” (Cilia) see Fig. 1-4: “ultrasound emission source”
2)
US 6629457 B1 “Device For Measuring A Fill Level Of A Liquid In A Container” (Keller) see Fig. 1-8: “ultrasonic sensor”
3)
US 12327571 B2 “Systems And Methods For Diagnosing Equipment” (Ramaiah) see Fig. 4-420: “Extract Features From The Audio File” & Fig. 4-430: “Input the Extracted Features Into a Machine Learning Model”
Regarding the “multi-channel microphone array” the following references establish conventionality:
US 9875410 B2 “Camera System For Transmitting And Receiving An Audio Signal And Operating Method Of The Same” (Oh) see Fig. 1-13: “Microphone array”
US 20260011046 A1 “Display Method, Display Processing Device, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium Storing Display Processing Program” (Ukai) See Fig. 1-18A & para 0023: “The number of microphones in the present embodiment is six, which constitute a microphone array. The processor 12 executes beamforming processing on sound signals acquired with the microphones 18A-18F.”
US 12288566 B1 “Beamforming Using Multiple Sensor Data” (Ganguly) See Fig. 4A-310: “Microphone Array”
Conclusion:
Therefore the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method of claim 1” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim additionally recites:
“wherein the machine learning model is further configured to upon execution:”
“determine that a second segment of the segments includes audio associated with the fuel truck approaching the fueling station;”
“determine that a third segment of the segments includes audio associated with a grounding of the fuel truck;”
“and determine that a fourth segment of the segments includes audio associated with the fuel truck leaving the fueling station.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards computations or reasoning done by a machine learning model. These limitations are at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations which could be done by the human mind and are “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those listed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those listed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method of claim 1” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim additionally recites:
“wherein the machine learning model is further configured to, upon execution,”
“determine that the first segment of the segments includes audio associated with the fuel flow stage based upon (1) the determination that the second segment of the segments includes audio associated with a fuel truck approaching the fueling station, and (2) the determination that third segment of the segments includes audio associated with a grounding of the fuel truck.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards computations or reasoning done by a machine learning model. These limitations are at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations which could be done by the human mind and are “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those listed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those listed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method of claim 1” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim additionally recites:
“wherein the machine learning model is further configured to, upon execution:”
“compare the quantity of fuel dispensed to a logged amount of fuel dispensed;”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards computations or reasoning done by a machine learning model. These limitations are at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations which could be done by the human mind and are “merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim additionally recites:
“and output an alert if a difference between the quantity of fuel dispensed and a logged amount of fuel dispensed exceeds a threshold.”
Explanation:
This limitation is necessary outputting of data from the judicial exception(s), and is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). This limitation is insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “Insignificant application”).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong Two.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method of claim 1” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim additionally recites:
“and training the machine learning model based on the training audio data and the annotations to determine audio events associated with the fuel flow stage of the refueling operation in which fuel is dispensed.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards computations or reasoning done by a machine learning model. Training a machine learning model is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; supplying data and creating a mathematical model which fits that data is math.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim additionally recites:
“receiving training audio data, wherein the training audio data is associated with stages of a refueling operation at a fueling station;”
“receiving annotations on the training audio data, wherein the annotations include labeling of audio events in the audio data corresponding to the stages of a refueling operation;”
Explanation:
These limitations are necessary data gathering for the judicial exception(s), and are necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). This limitation is insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong Two.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method of claim 1” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim additionally recites:
“and executing the machine learning model on the image data, wherein the machine learning model is configured to, upon execution:”
“identify a fuel truck in the image data,”
“and verify that the first segment of the segments includes audio associated with a fuel flow stage of the refueling operation based on the fuel truck identified in the image data.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards computations or reasoning done by a machine learning model. These are mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment”).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim additionally recites:
“generating image data from one or more cameras, wherein the image data is associated with the refueling operation at the fueling station;”
Explanation:
These limitations are necessary data gathering for the judicial exception(s), and are necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). This limitation is insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong Two.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method of claim 1” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim additionally recites:
“wherein the machine learning model is configured to, upon execution:”
“determine a type of fuel dispensed based on the audio data.”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards computations or reasoning done by a machine learning model. These are mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment”).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 8-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10173885 B2 "Fuel Dispenser Having Acoustic Waves Coriolis Flow Meter" (Carapelli) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4 & Fig. 5.
US 6510416 B1 "Method And Apparatus For Performing Refueling Transactions Using Customer-issued Speech Commands" (Lad) is relevant to the Applicant's dislosure, see Fig. 1-16: "Audio Receiver".
US 20010034567 A1 "Remote Management Of Retail Petroleum Equipment" (Allen) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 6A-134: "USB microphone".
US 20210255020 A1 "Tanker Truck Fluid Level Measurement Systems and Methods" (Grose) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 4.
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 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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights