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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/406,770 filed on 1/8/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 12/5/2025.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12-14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vreeland (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0152108 A1) in view of Nishizaka (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0308647 A1), in further view of Boling (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0185193 A1), in further view of Masri (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0071895 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Vreeland teaches a method for routing vehicles to fueling sources with lower carbon content, the method comprising:
Identifying, in response to an indication, a group of fueling stations within a first driving range of the vehicle from its current location, the group of fueling stations including a first fueling station and a second fueling station (see Paragraph 19 line 4-Paragraph 20 line 9, Paragraph 20 lines 20-28, Paragraph 33 lines 1-6 teaching a vehicle emissions-optimized route system that displays one or more charging stations within the vehicle’s range in response to carbon emissions data for a plurality of charging stations);
Calculating, based on a first location of the first fueling station, a first carbon content associated with fuel provided by the first fueling station (see Figure 2, Abstract lines 7-11, Paragraph 22 lines 7-12 teaching that the system distinguishes between charging stations based on carbon emissions data associated with each station, which varies depending on the geographic location of each station);
Calculating, based on a second location of the second fueling station, a second carbon content associated with fuel provided by the second fueling station that is higher than the first carbon content (see Figure 2, Abstract lines 7-11, Paragraph 22 lines 7-12 teaching that the system distinguishes between charging stations based on carbon emissions data associated with each station, which varies depending on the geographic location of each station, wherein the carbon emissions of stations in grid location 210 are higher that of the stations in grid location 220); and
Transmitting to the vehicle, for presentation by a navigation system for the vehicle, a first route from the current location to the first fueling station (see Figure 3, Figure 5 item 508, Paragraph 2 lines 3-8, Paragraph 12, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 6 lines 9-10 teaching that a route from the vehicle’s current location to a charging station is provided, from a server, to a display for a user).
Vreeland fails to teach receiving, at a server, first telemetry data from a vehicle including a current location of the vehicle, and an indication that a current fuel level of the vehicle has fallen below a first threshold.
However, Nishizaka teaches receiving, at a server, first telemetry data from a vehicle including a current location of the vehicle, and an indication that a current fuel level of the vehicle has fallen below a first threshold (see Paragraph 160 lines 1-16 teaching a battery electric vehicle system wherein a server receives data indicating the vehicle’s position, as well as whether the vehicle’s charge has become less than a registered threshold).
Vreeland and Nishizaka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a server that receives data indicating the vehicle’s position, as well as whether the vehicle’s charge has become less than a registered threshold as taught by Nishizaka. Doing so could improve a vehicle’s energy resupply planning component by using virtually unlimited computing power at a server to access vehicle fuel state and position information, and determine an optimal range or location at which the vehicle should obtain more fuel or charge.
Vreeland further fails to teach receiving second telemetry data from the vehicle verifying that a fuel transaction involving the vehicle and the first fueling station has occurred in which a first fuel amount was obtained by the vehicle.
However, Boling teaches receiving second telemetry data from the vehicle verifying that a fuel transaction involving the vehicle and the first fueling station has occurred in which a first fuel amount was obtained by the vehicle (see Paragraph 36 teaching a transaction fraud minimization method wherein telemetry data and card data are used to indicate that a fuel purchase has been made).
Vreeland and Boling are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that ascertain data pertinent to fuel purchases for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a fuel purchase at a specific location could be validated via telemetry data as taught by Boling. Doing so could improve a fuel tracking system, ensuring the accuracy of data related to specific locations of fuel purchases.
Vreeland further fails to teach adding, in response to the verification, to an account associated with the vehicle, a first reward that is based on the fuel transaction, thereby incentivizing vehicle fueling events that are associated with smaller carbon footprints.
However, Masri teaches adding, in response to the verification, to an account associated with the vehicle, a first reward that is based on the fuel transaction, thereby incentivizing vehicle fueling events that are associated with smaller carbon footprints (see Paragraph 20 lines 17-20 teaching a digitized loyalty program wherein a member receives a gasoline credit when spending $100 worth of gasoline).
Vreeland and Masri are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that ascertain data pertinent to fuel purchases for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein points or a credit is given to a user upon completing a fuel purchase as taught by Masri. Doing so could improve a fuel recommendation system by recommending users to purchase fuel where they can obtain a credit, lowering overall fuel costs.
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
Here, the phrase “thereby incentivizing vehicle fueling events that are associated with smaller carbon footprints” is considered “intended use” language. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize Vreeland’s invention for the purpose described in Claim 1.
Here, the Examiner is interpreting route calculation to include determining the current location of the vehicle (see Vreeland Paragraph 2 lines 3-8).
In regard to Claim 2, Vreeland further teaches defining the first driving range based on the current fuel level of the vehicle and its mileage (see Paragraph 20 lines 2028 teaching that the system analyzes the vehicle’s state of charge, projected power consumption, and range).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the word “mileage,” as referring to fuel economy, not the odometer reading of the vehicle.
In regard to Claim 3, Vreeland further teaches estimating a time of day the vehicle would arrive at the first fueling station from its current location (see Claim 18 teaching that the system predicts the time of day that the vehicle will arrive at each charging station); and
Further calculating the first carbon content based on the time of day the vehicle would arrive at the first fueling station (see Paragraph 4 lines 6-11, Claim 18 teaching that trip routes are optimized for minimizing carbon emissions, based on time of day, including the time of day that the vehicle would arrive at the station).
In regard to Claim 6, Vreeland fails to teach wherein the first reward includes one or more of a credit, points, or token that can be exchanged or converted for a tangible reward.
However, Masri teaches wherein the first reward includes one or more of a credit, points, or token that can be exchanged or converted for a tangible reward (see Paragraph 20 lines 17-20 teaching a digitized loyalty program wherein a member receives a gasoline credit when spending $100 worth of gasoline).
Vreeland and Masri are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that ascertain data pertinent to fuel purchases for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein points or a credit is given to a user upon completing a fuel purchase as taught by Masri. Doing so could improve a fuel recommendation system by recommending users to purchase fuel where they can obtain a credit, lowering overall fuel costs.
In regard to Claim 8, Vreeland fails to teach wherein the first telemetry data further includes a type classification for the vehicle, the type classification being one of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, electric vehicle (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), and hydrogen vehicle.
However, Nishizaka teaches wherein the first telemetry data further includes a type classification for the vehicle, the type classification being one of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, electric vehicle (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), and hydrogen vehicle (see Paragraph 68 lines 1-8 teaching that the server can determine the vehicle type).
Vreeland and Nishizaka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the server can determine the vehicle type as taught by Nishizaka. Doing so could improve a vehicle’s energy resupply planning component by using virtually unlimited computing power at a server to access vehicle fuel type information, and use that information to determine what type of energy resupply station is required for that vehicle.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 2 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 2 above for analysis.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 3 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 3 above for analysis.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 6 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 6 above for analysis.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 8 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 8 above for analysis.
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vreeland (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0152108 A1) in view of Nishizaka (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0308647 A1), in further view of Boling (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0185193 A1), in further view of Masri (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0071895 A1), in further view of Whikehart (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0083017 A1).
In regard to Claim 4, Vreeland further teaches receiving second telemetry data from the vehicle including the first fuel amount obtained by the vehicle at the first fueling station; and
Updating a carbon emissions record for the vehicle based on the first carbon content and the first fuel amount (see Paragraph 33 lines 12-19 teaching that if a trip requires stopping at a first charging station and a second charging station and the first charging station has a higher emissions score than the second charging station, carbon emissions are optimized by limiting the charging of the battery to an amount needed for the vehicle to reach the second charging station and then performing a full charge of the battery at the second charging station).
Vreeland fails to teach wherein the carbon emissions record tracks carbon emission-related decisions made by a driver of the vehicle.
However, Whikehart teaches wherein the carbon emissions record tracks carbon emission-related decisions made by a driver of the vehicle (see Paragraph 12 lines 55-59 teaching an alternative energy integration system that keeps a record of selected fuel options and their carbon footprints).
Vreeland and Whikehart are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that focus on fuel selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a record of fuel selection choices as taught by Whikehart. Doing so could improve a fuel selection or routing system by enabling the user to ascertain their carbon footprint during a specific duration or event.
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the determination to limit the charging or refueling of a vehicle’s energy stores at a first station to an amount needed for the vehicle to reach a second station, in order to optimize carbon emissions, as sufficient to satisfy receiving data, including a fuel amount obtained, and updating a record based on a carbon content and a fuel amount. Determining optimum fuel or charge levels to obtain at specific stations would necessarily include the use or transfer of some type of data, and the performance of calculations, which suggests updating some type of record, calculation, formula, or algorithm.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 4 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 4 above for analysis.
Claims 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vreeland (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0152108 A1) in view of Nishizaka (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0308647 A1), in further view of Boling (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0185193 A1), in further view of Masri (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0071895 A1), in further view of Whikehart (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0083017 A1), in further view of Harms (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0318365 A1).
In regard to Claim 5, Vreeland further teaches presenting, via an application accessed on a mobile computing device associated with a driver of the vehicle, personalized informational messaging based on the carbon emissions record (see Paragraph 31 lines 1-6, Paragraph 41 lines 12-14, Paragraph 46 lines 3-6 teaching that the system outputs information to devices, such as a user’s smartphone or tablet, that demarks charging stations based on carbon emissions optimization).
Vreeland fails to teach wherein the record includes a tally of the carbon emission reduction over a given time period.
However, Harms teaches wherein the record includes a tally of the carbon emission reduction over a given time period (see Paragraph 15, Paragraph 28 lines 8-11 teaching a carbon credits generation system that reports energy savings and carbon reduction over a given time).
Vreeland and Harms are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel emissions optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vreeland’s invention to incorporate a feature that calculates carbon emission reduction over time as taught by Harms. Doing so could improve an emissions-focused system by allowing users to ascertain how their actions or implemented systems are reducing emissions, making the system’s effectiveness easier to validate.
In regard to Claim 16, Vreeland further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to present information (see Paragraph 6 lines 9-10, Paragraph 41 lines 1-2 teaching that the system presents information to the user, via a processor executing software instructions).
The rest of Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 5 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 5 above for analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowable. Claims 7, 18, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Boling (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0185193 A1) teaches a transaction fraud minimization method wherein telemetry data and card data are used to indicate that a fuel purchase has been made (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
Masri (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0071895 A1) teaches a digitized loyalty program wherein a member receives a gasoline credit when spending $100 worth of gasoline (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
Vreeland (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0152108 A1) teaches a vehicle emissions-optimized route system that displays one or more charging stations within the vehicle’s range in response to carbon emissions data for a plurality of charging stations (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
However, these references, and all other references included in the rejections above fail to teach the limitations of Claims 7, 18 (automatically initiating, at the server, on behalf of an original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle, a first payment to an account associated with the vehicle based on a difference in cost per unit of fuel between the first fueling station and the second fueling station), Claim 9 (updating a carbon emissions record for the vehicle based on a first carbon content associated with the first fuel amount, wherein the carbon emissions record maintains a history of the vehicle's carbon emissions based on where fuel is obtained and how much fuel is obtained), Claim 10 (adding, to an account associated with the vehicle, a first reward that is based on how many times the driver has agreed to be rerouted to a fueling station offering cleaner fuel in a given time period), Claim 11 (adding, to an account associated with the vehicle, a first reward that is based on an amount of carbon reduction that resulted from rerouting to a fueling station offering cleaner fuel in a given time period), and Claim 20 (congratulating the driver when they reach a carbon emission reduction milestone).
As a result of this feature, the invention produces the advantageous effects of implementing a monetary reward via vehicle manufacturer equipment to a user based on the user’s carbon footprint-conscious refueling decisions, maintaining a record of where the user obtains fuel, and notifying the user when they have reached a carbon emissions reduction goal or threshold. This could improve systems focused on emissions reductions, simplifying them by incorporating them within manufacture equipment, enabling them to interact with user financial accounts, and by enabling users to objectively monitor their emissions impact due to their refueling decisions, further increasing the user’s motivation to reduce their emissions.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 5th, 2025 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1, 12 have been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
All 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claims 2-6, 8, 13-17, 19 remain rejected under the rationale provided in the previous office action, or by means of a newly incorporated reference (in light of the amendments).
Claims 7, 9-11, 18, 20 have been indicated as allowed or allowable if integrated into an independent claim.
Conclusion
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights