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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “eVehicles” should be corrected to cnVehicles”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an cnVehicle” should be corrected to – the cnVehicle --. Appropriate correction is required. All of the claims in general are objected to because the article “an” should not be used in front of a consonant sound. For example , all proper instances of “an cnVehicle” should be corrected to – a cnVehicle --. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 10, 13-17 are 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. In claim 10, the claim while clear on its face, is at odds with the specification which discloses the opposite of that which is claimed. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear due to the mismatch between the claim and the specification. Figure 4f shows the opposite of what is claimed. The data link plug of the cnVehicle should match the data link plug of the cnFuel outlet, not the petFuel outlet. In claim 11, the claim while clear on its face, is at odds with the specification which discloses the opposite of that which is claimed. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear due to the mismatch between the claim and the specification. The whole invention is directed to preventing mismatch of fueling between petfuel and cnfuel. Yet the claim recites the key of the cnvehicle is the same as the petfuel. This is not supported in the specification which recites the opposite. I.e. that the keyed shape of the cnoutlet and the cnvehicle are the same. Claims 13-17 lack antecedent basis for the terms the first and second cross section. The claims should actually depend from claim 12 which properly introduces the terms. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braden (2016/0023886) in view of Gedeon (DE 102019213712 A1). In re claim 1 , Braden discloses a method of enforcing the use of Fuels in regulated Vehicles, wherein the method comprises the step of preventing a Vehicle from being fueled with petFuel through providing physical and electronic, or electronic incompatibilities between a first element that delivers petFuel from a petFuel source and a second element in the Vehicle that receives Fuel (paras.73, 93, 107-109, 114) . Additionally, Braden discloses the misfuelling prevention/enforcing system can be used with the “increasing number of fuel types … in today’s market”. However, Braden does not explicitly mention the “cnFuel”. Gedeon teaches cnFuels are known alternative fuels for operating motor vehicles and teaches monitoring and controlling operation of vehicles via onboard sensors configured to detect the cnFuel to ensure user compliance with government rules, regulations, and incentives (see English translation of the description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the misfuelling prevention techniques of Braden to the cnFuel vehicle as taught by Gedeon. Braden expressly teaches that its physical incompatibility systems may be used with all the available fuel types , establishing that the disclosed techniques are not limited to diesel and gasoline. Gedeon establishes that cnFuel was a known alternative fuel and that vehicles using cnFuel were equipped with sensors for detecting fuel type to monitor and control vehicle operation, indicating a recognized need to ensure correct fueling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that misfuelling a cnFuel vehicle with regular gasoline presents the same type of problem addressed by Braden , namely vehicle damage, improper operation, and safety risks. Applying Braden ’s known misfuelling prevention mechanism to cnFuel vehicles would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. In re claim 3 , Braden discloses t he method of claim 1, wherein the step of preventing an cnVehicle from being fueled with petFuel comprises electronic incompatibilities between the first element and the second element (para.73) In re claim 5 , Braden discloses t he method of claim 3, wherein ele ctronic incompatibilities between the first element and the second element consist of one or more of the following electronic incompatibilities: an incompatible petFuel pump; an incompatible petFuel pump nozzle; an incompatible petFuel station; an incompatible petFuel supplier data system; an incompatible cnFuel pump; an incompatible enFuel pump nozzle; an incompatible cnFuel station; an incompatible cnFuel supplier data system; an incompatible electronic communication identifying an cnVehicle; an incompatible electronic communication identifying an cnVehicle operator; an incompatible electronic communication identifying an cnFuel user (paras.73, 93, 107-109, 114). In re claim 6 , Braden discloses t he method of claim 3, wherein the electronic compatibilities between the first element and the second element comprise at least one electronic communication between the first element and the second element (paras.73, 93, 107-109, 114). In re claim 7 , Braden discloses t he method of claim 6, wherein the at least one electronic communication between the first element and the second element comprises one of the following electronic communications: close proximity electronic communication; internet or ranged electronic communication; passcard or RFID electronic communication; barcode or Qcode electronic communication (paras.71-75). Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ainsworth (GB 2456343) in view of Gedeon (DE 102019213712 A1). In re claim 1, Ainsworth discloses a method of enforcing the use of fuel in regulated v ehicles, wherein the method comprises the step of preventing an v ehicle from being fueled with petFuel through providing physical incompatibilities between a first element that delivers petFuel from a petFuel source and a second element in the v ehicle that receives f uel (last paragraph on page 6 of the specification and the first 4 full paragraphs on page 7 of the specification, additionally, see figs.1-6 [nozzle and vehicle inlet for one type of fuel] and figs.7-14 [nozzle and fuel inlet for another fuel type]) . Additionally, Ainsworth discloses the misfuel ling prevention/enforcing system can be used with alternative fuels . However, Ainsworth does not explicitly mention the “cnFuel”. Gedeon teaches cnFuels are known alternative fuels for operating motor vehicles and teaches monitoring and controlling operation of vehicles via onboard sensors configured to detect the cnFuel to ensure user compliance with government rules, regulations, and incentives (see English translation of the description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the misfuelling prevention techniques of Ainsworth to the cnFuel vehicle as taught by Gedeon. Ainsworth expressly teaches that its physical incompatibility systems may be used with alternative fuels, establishing that the disclosed techniques are not limited to diesel and gasoline. Gedeon establishes that cnFuel was a known alternative fuel and that vehicles using cnFuel were equipped with sensors for detecting fuel type to monitor and control vehicle operation, indicating a recognized need to ensure correct fueling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that misfuelling a cnFuel vehicle with regular gasoline presents the same type of problem addressed by Ainsworth, namely vehicle damage, improper operation, and safety risks. Applying Ainsworth’s known misfuelling prevention mechanism to cnFuel vehicles would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. In re claim 2 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 1, wherein the step of preventing an cnVehicle from being fueled with petFuel comprises providing physical incompatibilities between the first element and the second element (last paragraph on page 6 of the specification and the first 4 full paragraphs on page 7 of the specification, additionally, see figs.1-6 [nozzle and vehicle inlet for one type of fuel] and figs.7-14 [nozzle and fuel inlet for another fuel type]). In re claim 4 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 2, wherein physical incompatibilities between the first element and the second element consist of one or more of the following physical incompatibilities: incompatible shapes; incompatible sizes; incompatible tapers; incompatible curvatures; incompatible plugs; incompatible locks (last paragraph on page 6 of the specification and the first 4 full paragraphs on page 7 of the specification, additionally, see figs.1-6 [nozzle and vehicle inlet for one type of fuel] and figs.7-14 [nozzle and fuel inlet for another fuel type]) . In re claim 8 , Ainsworth discloses a method of physically enforcing use of Fuels in regulated Vehicles, wherein the method comprises providing an Fuel pump fuel outlet that is compatible with an cnVehicle fuel inlet, and wherein the cnVehicle fuel inlet is incompatible with petFuel fuel outlets (last paragraph on page 6 of the specification and the first 4 full paragraphs on page 7 of the specification, additionally, see figs.1-6 [nozzle and vehicle inlet for one type of fuel] and figs.7-14 [nozzle and fuel inlet for another fuel type]) . Additionally, Ainsworth discloses the misfuel ling prevention/enforcing system can be used with alternative fuels, though Ainsworth does not explicitly mention the “cnFuels”. Gedeon teaches cnFuels are known alternative fuels for operating motor vehicles and teaches monitoring and controlling operation of vehicles via onboard sensors configured to detect the cnFuel to ensure user compliance with government rules, regulations, and incentives (see English translation of the description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the misfuelling prevention techniques of Ainsworth to the cnFuel vehicle as taught by Gedeon. Ainsworth expressly teaches that its physical incompatibility systems may be used with alternative fuels, establishing that the disclosed techniques are not limited to diesel and gasoline. Gedeon establishes that cnFuel was a known alternative fuel and that vehicles using cnFuel were equipped with sensors for detecting fuel type to monitor and control vehicle operation, indicating a recognized need to ensure correct fueling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that misfuelling a cnFuel vehicle with regular gasoline presents the same type of problem addressed by Ainsworth, namely vehicle damage, improper operation, and safety risks. Applying Ainsworth’s known misfuelling prevention mechanism to cnFuel vehicles would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. In re claim 9 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 8, wherein the cnVehicle fuel inlet comprises an opening shaped to prevent entry or placement of petFuel outlets (last paragraph on page 6 of the specification and the first 4 full paragraphs on page 7 of the specification, additionally, see figs.1-6 [nozzle and vehicle inlet for one type of fuel] and figs.7-14 [nozzle and fuel inlet for another fuel type]) . In re claim 12 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 9, wherein the cnVehicle fuel inlet has a first cross section, and wherein petFuel outlets have a second cross section, and wherein the first cross section is incompatibly sized or shaped in relation to the second cross section (last paragraph on page 6 of the specification and the first 4 full paragraphs on page 7 of the specification, additionally, see figs.1-6 [nozzle and vehicle inlet for one type of fuel] and figs.7-14 [nozzle and fuel inlet for another fuel type]) . In re claim 11 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 8, wherein the cnVehicle fuel inlet comprises a housing (40 or 50) , and wherein the housing comprise a first keyed shape (44 or 60) , and wherein the cn Fuel outlets comprise a second keyed shape (32, 34, 36) , and wherein the first keyed shape and the second keyed shape are compatible in that they fit together (last full paragraph on page 14 of the specification) . In re claim 18 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 11, wherein the first keyed an annular ring of teeth (two teeth shown separated and defined by the gaps 44/60) con figured to receive the second keyed shape (last full paragraph on page 14 of the specification, these keyed shapes mate to allow the nozzle to be inserted into the proper vehicle) , wherein the second keyed shape is a compatible ring of teeth (the two teeth shown (32, 34, 36, define a ring of teeth see fig.8) . Claim(s) 10, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ainsworth in view of Gedeon and further in view of Dill (6,202,710). In re claim 10 Ainsworth fails to explicitly disclose the enVehicle fuel inlet comprises a housing, and wherein the housing comprises a data link plug configured to receive a matching data link plug on the petFuel outlets. Dill teaches another system for refueling a vehicle wherein the enVehicle (once modified) fuel inlet (52) comprises a housing (whole body shown in fig.2), and wherein the housing comprises a data link plug (96) configured to receive a matching data link plug (98) on the petFuel (once modified and as best understood) outlets (66, fig.3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Dill in Ainsworth for the purpose of controlling the refueling process via the monitoring of the sensors thereby increasing refueling safety. In re claim 13 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 10, wherein the first cross section comprises a square hole (first full paragraph on page 7 of the specification) , and wherein the second cross section comprises a round outlet (third full paragraph on page 7 of the specification) . In re claim 15 , Ainsworth discloses t he method of claim 10, wherein the first cross section and second cross section are incompatibly shaped (first two lines on page 7 of the specification) , and wherein they are incompatibly shaped as the result of different curvatures (third full paragraph on page 7 of the specification) . In re claims 14, 16, and 17, while Ainsworth discloses a variety of different shapes can be used (fourth full paragraph on page 7 of the specification), Ainsworth fails to explicitly disclose the specifically recited sizes and shapes as claimed. However, t he applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) . Additionally, it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwarze (DE-102024108364-A1) discloses an invention similar to the presently claimed and disclosed invention. However, while Schwarze was first filed before the present invention, Schwarze was filed in Germany and there is no corresponding WIPO document that designates the US. Accordingly, Schwarze is not available as prior art under 102(a)(2). Nor is it available as prior art under 102(a)(1) as it was not published. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Timothy P Kelly whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7615 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8a-4p ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Craig M Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3607 . 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 P. Kelly/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753