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 .
Priority
The current application claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/417,766 filed 10/20/2022.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Former duplicative claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), made in view of the amendments filed 12/2/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
II. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 13 that “As amended, the claims generally include recitations of using a model to generate a probability indicative of a need for additional fuel based on delivery of the requested fuel, purchaser information, and/or vehicle information…” and that “such limitations do not render the claims as being "directed to" sales activities or behaviors as the Examiner alleges”, or, “such references amount to mere involvement of the alleged judicial exception”. The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner reminds Applicant that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
The Examiner maintains that the limitations emphasized in the rejection below clearly set forth or describe ‘certain methods of organizing human behavior’ by setting forth or describing anticipating fuel deliveries and fulfilling orders for fuel deliveries. The emphasized limitations are the majority of the claimed invention, and do not “merely involve” an abstract; rather, they are the abstract idea and form the core of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the the “model” itself is an abstract construct and, even assuming arguendo the phrase intends to invoke a software model (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), this amounts to little more than the words “apply it” on generic computing components. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly recite an abstract idea under Prong One.
Turning to Applicant’s arguments concerning Prong Two, the Examiner again disagrees. At least some of the limitations relied upon represent elements of the abstract idea – not additional elements for consideration under Prong Two. For example, the additional elements of consist of:
an integrated system comprising one or more processing devices, a network, and one or more servers, the one or more processing devices communicate via the network with the one or more servers, and computer-implemented software.
Although Applicant alleges that the claimed invention recites “specific technical operations” this is not the case. To the contrary, the claimed invention recites specific steps of the abstract idea, which are them implemented on the generic computing components noted above and in the rejection below. The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding under Prong Two is also maintained.
Lastly, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not provide an inventive concept that results in “significantly more”. As with Prong Two, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
With specific reference to Applicant’s arguments concerning Bascom, the Examiner disagrees. The focus of the court was the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. The claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components like that of Bascom. Instead, the claims at issue recite conventional computing components arranged in a conventional manner used to implement the abstract idea discussed above. The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit.
Lastly, with respect to causing the automated display, the Examiner also asserts that the claimed invention lacks any restriction or technical explanation of how this is achieved. As recited, this is little more than the mere display of the instructions to the user. Moreover, mere automation of manual processes is an explicit example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings under Step 2B are maintained and the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method for anticipatory fuel delivery comprising:
receiving a fuel delivery request, wherein
a request to order at least one type of fuel comprising purchaser information, vehicle information or both,
wherein the vehicle information is associated with a vehicle that is to receive the at least one type of fuel and comprises at least a make of the vehicle and a model of the vehicle;
an order to purchase the at least one type of requested fuel is generated, based at least in part on the request and the purchaser information,
a location of a fuel recipient is identified;
delivery instructions are generated based at least in part on the order to purchase the at least one type of fuel and the identified location,
the delivery instructions are relayed to one or more couriers, and
delivering, via one or more couriers, the at least one type of fuel to the fuel recipient at the identified location;
generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for additional fuel, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the at least one type of fuel, the purchaser information, the vehicle information, or any combination thereof;
generating, via the computer-implemented, additional delivery instructions for the additional fuel based on the probability;
in response to determining , based on the probability, the need for additional fuel:
automatically display the additional delivery instructions to deliver the additional fuel to the fuel recipient at the identified location; and,
delivering, via the one or more couriers, the additional fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the displayed additional delivery instructions.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the claims recite a method for anticipating fuel deliveries and fulfilling orders for fuel deliveries. This represents the performance of a sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including an integrated system comprising one or more processing devices, a network, and one or more servers, the one or more processing devices communicate via the network with the one or more servers, and computer-implemented software.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-16, dependent claims 2-16 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-16 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-16 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Further additional elements such as a graphical user interface (claim 2, 8), interface buttons (claim 4-5), GPS (claim 6), application program code, security features, communication infrastructure (claim 13), autonomous vehicle (claim 15), and a tank for fuel (claim 16) are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-16 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-16 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 17-19 (system) and claim 20 (method), claims 17-19 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-16, though reciting a “system” rather than a method/process. Similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art and is applied to claims 17-19 here.
Claim 20 recites a substantially similar method as recited in claim 1, albeit a method for placing and fulfilling an order for delivery of a fuel additive (whereas claim 1 is for fuel). Similar analysis as that applied to claim 20 would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill and is applied herein to claim 20.
Accordingly, claims 17-19 and claim 20 are rejected under as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Though rejected on other grounds (e.g., 35 USC 112, 35 USC 101), claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. This is because the prior art at hand does not teach or render obvious the combination of elements as claimed, most notably:
generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for additional fuel, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the at least one type of fuel, the purchaser information, the vehicle information, or any combination thereof;
generating, via the computer-implemented, additional delivery instructions for the additional fuel based on the probability;
in response to determining, based on the probability, the need for additional fuel, causing via the computer-implemented software, at least one processing device of the one or more processing devices to:
automatically display the additional delivery instructions to deliver the additional fuel to the fuel recipient at the identified location; and,
delivering, via the one or more couriers, the additional fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the displayed additional delivery instructions.
Similar to the claims previously indicated as containing subject matter allowable over the prior art, the Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ge (US 20220397407) discloses a refueling system including anticipating refueling needs relative to a service time window (see: abstract, 0006-0007, 0019, 0026, 0038, 0044, 0076).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619