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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 2-19 depend from claim 1. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 16-19 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.
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 recites the limitations: the group consisting of a mobile telephone, a smart-phone,……; the group consisting of unleaded gasoline, diesel, bio-diesel, ethanol, synthetic fuel, e-fuel, carbon-captured fuel,……; the group consisting of “octane, acetone, ether, nitrous oxide, a fuel stabilizer, ………; and “ the group consisting of an oil change, a vehicle inspection, an appraisal, an insurance adjustment, a car wash,…..’ respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “ the group” in each of the 16, 17, 18, and 19 claims.
Note: Examiner suggests changing the language “the group” to ---a group—in each of the 16-19 claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-19 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and claim 20 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
providing access to a software application stored at an offsite storage location to one or more processing devices, the software comprising architecture, wherein the architecture configured to.
(i) display a home overlay, one or more additional overlays, a graphical user interface (GU), and data from a database wherein the GUI comprises a plurality of user interface buttons associated with a plurality of vehicle services;
(ii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices;
(iii) receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services,
(iv) wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, and wherein the user interaction is indicative of selection of the vehicle service by the user;
(v) fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of vehicle fuel to a fuel recipient at an identified location;
(vi) generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof;
(vii) generating, via the software application, instructions for providing the additional service based on the probability:
(viii) in response to determining the need for the additional service , causing, via the software application, at least one processing device of the one or more processing devices to automatically display the instructions for viewing by the one or more couriers, wherein the at least one processing device is associated with the one or more couriers: and
(ix) providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, additional vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the displayed instructions.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in claim 1 comprising , “ receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services, fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery at a first point in time of vehicle fuel to a fuel recipient at an identified location; generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof, and providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, additional vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the instructions. ”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to a commercial activity of requesting vehicle services and fulfilling the vehicle services by delivering the combustible fuel and other services on the location of the vehicle as ordered, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof; “ and “determining the need for the additional service ”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human can use statistical formulas based on historical data of the target vehicle and the user of the target vehicle to determine additional services such as oil change, car-wash, replacement of wiper blades, battery replacement. Mere use of a generic computer cannot take away these steps from mental processes.
Since claim 1 recites limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Since the other independent claim 20 recites similar limitations as discussed for claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis reciting a judicial exception. Since all dependent claims 2-19 include limitations of the base claim 1, all pending claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic computer components comprising a software application stored in one or more processing devices, executing the steps:
(i) display a home overlay, one or more additional overlays, a graphical user interface (GU), and data from a database wherein the GUI comprises a plurality of user interface buttons associated with a plurality of vehicle services;
(ii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices;
(iii) receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services,
(iv) wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, and wherein the user interaction is indicative of selection of the vehicle service by the user;
(v) fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of vehicle fuel to a fuel recipient at an identified location;
(vi) generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof;
(vii) generating, via the software application, instructions for providing the additional service based on the probability:
(viii) in response to determining the need for the additional service , causing, via the software application, at least one processing device of the one or more processing devices to automatically display the instructions for viewing by the one or more couriers, wherein the at least one processing device is associated with the one or more couriers: and
(ix) providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, additional vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the displayed instructions.
The displaying functions in steps “(i) display a home overlay, one or more additional overlays, a graphical user interface (GU), and data from a database wherein the GUI comprises a plurality of user interface buttons associated with a plurality of vehicle services”, and “ (viii) causing, via the software application, at least one processing device of the one or more processing devices to automatically display the instructions for viewing by the one or more couriers, wherein the at least one processing device is associated with the one or more couriers:” by a processor executing a software application are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere pre-solution displaying a user interface with plurality of buttons to carry out instructions, and post-solution displaying instructions to be viewed by couriers, which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Also, the limitations in step “ (iii) receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering a request for a vehicle service for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality in these limitations and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In the limitations of steps “(vi) generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof;; and (viii) determining the need for the additional service, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in steps “(ii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices; (iii) wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, and wherein the user interaction is indicative of selection of the vehicle service by the user; (vi) generating, via the software application, instructions for providing the additional service based on the probability” are generic computer functions which are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement in another technology.
The limitations in steps (ix) providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, the vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the displayed instructions. (v) fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of vehicle fuel to a fuel recipient at an identified location;” as recited , under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to manually delivering the vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient at the determined time at the identified location and thereby fulfilling the requested vehicle service. These limitations, as recited , do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually and in combination do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or are indicative of any of the following meaningful limits, see “ MPEP 2106.04 (d): • An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a); an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b); an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c); and an additional element 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because the additional elements do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Since the limitations and the additional elements of the other independent claim 20 are similar to those of claim 1, they are analyzed and interpreted as directed to the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 2 recites the steps of logging in to a web page including home screen to request an order, select and customize an order for fuel to be delivered to an identified location, enabling the order to make payment and receive a payment receipt, an order confirmation and inform the arrival of the order, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-6 are mere extension of the limitations of claim 1 of displaying a home screen with several options to perform different functions including displaying home overlays on a GUI, including logging in by entering user login and password, displaying user buttons which will enable displaying more overlays, and these steps are generic computer functions which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7-9 recite sending an order verification along with a payment billing confirmation to the user, after fuel delivery to the user, providing with an estimated time of arrival notification and a notification of arrival when a courier has arrived at the identified location, which do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these commercial steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of performing commercial functions. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 10-12 recite limitations directed to allowing the users to return to the home overlay from any of the one or more additional overlays, cancel the request/order before fulfilment, letting the user/buyer to communicate with the courier of the fuel, which are generic computer functions and part of commercial activity of placing orders, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Dependent claims 13-15, recite storing and maintaining the files, employing a security feature just as using a password , and describing that the system includes communication between one or mor servers with the one or more processing devices which are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Dependent claim 16 recites non-functional descriptive subject matter as what the processing device can be, limitations in dependent claims 17-18 are mere extension of the limitations of claim 1 as providing a plurality of fuel type delivery options, fuel additive type delivery options for selecting a type of fuel, fuel additive type delivery options, and claim 19 relates to presenting several options for selecting a type of vehicle service, which are generic computer functions and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements of displaying data/information, receiving request data, storing and maintaining files and sending data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
In view of foregoing, all pending claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4.1. Claims 1, 3-6, 12, 16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. [US 2019000779a A1], hereinafter Thakur in view of Singh et al. [US 2022/0207121 A1], hereinafter Singh in view of WO 00/05889, hereinafter WO’889
Regarding claim 1, Thakur teaches a method comprising providing access to a software application stored at an offsite storage location to one or more processing devices, the software comprising architecture, wherein the architecture is configured to display a home overlay, one or more additional overlays, a graphical user interface (GUI), and data from a database wherein the GUI comprises a plurality of user buttons associated with the plurality of vehicle services; allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices; receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services, wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, and wherein the user interaction is indicative of selection of the vehicle service by the user; fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of vehicle fuel to a fuel recipient at an identified location [See Thakur paras:0004-0005, 00017, 0020, 0022, 0037, 0039 and 0040; “[0004] …… a method for providing an on-demand service to a vehicle. The method comprises determining information associated with the vehicle, wherein the information includes a location of the vehicle. …… [0005] …… The system comprises a processor and a memory including instructions executed by the processor to: determine information associated with the vehicle, wherein the information includes a location of the vehicle; generate a request for the on-demand service using the information; ….[0017] Vehicles are equipped with additional technology (both hardware and software) to provide features that enhance the overall user (or driver) experience. ……..[0020] A method and system in accordance with the present disclosure provides a disclosed technology that enables on-demand services associated with enhancing vehicle experiences (i.e., on-demand services designed around the vehicle) to be provided seamlessly to the user thereby enhancing convenience. …..The on-demand services can include but are not limited to refueling the vehicle, cleaning or washing the vehicle, providing maintenance (e.g., oil changes) to the vehicle, and delivering packages within the vehicle…..[0022]…….The service provider can receive the request that includes precise vehicle location details and information to ensure efficient performance of the on-demand service. …… [0024] The method and system for providing on-demand services to vehicles can include dispatching service providers for performance of the on-demand services. The service providers can receive real-time vehicle location information to plan performance of the requested service. …..[0037……. The system 100 can comprise a cloud platform that includes an application for storing, displaying, and processing information and communication links for communicating with both a delivery vehicle 102 and a target vehicle 104. The application of the cloud platform can include a web interface and a plurality of cloud services…..[0039] FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of an example of an environment 200 for providing on-demand services in accordance with implementations of this disclosure. The environment 200 includes a cloud platform 202, a target vehicle 204, a delivery vehicle 206, a smartphone 208, and a service provider cloud app 210. The smartphone 208 can comprise the cloud-based computing device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.) that is associated with the delivery vehicle 206 (similar to the cloud-based computing device comprising a smartphone with an embedded application that is associated with the delivery vehicle 102 in FIG. 1). ……[0040] The cloud platform 202 can include a web interface and a plurality of cloud services. The web interface can include both a fleet dashboard (e.g., displaying a plurality of delivery vehicles providing service or a plurality of target vehicles in need of service) and a user dashboard (e.g., a dashboard that can be controlled by an administrator or target vehicle owners/users). These excerpts disclose a method and system for providing a plurality of vehicle services to a target vehicle at its location based on a request generated and received from the target vehicle. These vehicle services are fulfilled via a web interface [includes a GUI] which provides a dashboard displaying the various services and the user of the target vehicle interacts to select one or more services as per the needs so that the system can provide it via a provider of the delivery vehicle [corresponds to claimed courier]. The Web interface displaying the vehicle services cover the limitations of displaying buttons for interaction because by clicking on the displayed services [ corresponds to interacting with the buttons] those services can be fulfilled. The system includes cloud services providing the application and software for downloads on the user devices [both the delivery vehicle and the target vehicle]. Though Thakur teaches using a web interface [see para 0040], as discussed above, which includes a GUI displaying recommended service providers [couriers for delivering fuel and other vehicle services], providing vehicle services in response to a request from the user of the target vehicle, it does not explicitly teach to display a home overlay, one or more additional overlays, on the (GUI), and wherein the GUI comprises a plurality of user buttons associated with the plurality of vehicle services; wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, and wherein the user interaction is indicative of selection of the vehicle service by the user. Here, in line with the description in the Applicant’s Specification, see paras 0033-0034 and Fig.3, the home overlays includes providing web pages on a web interface/GUI for log in process and entering user name and password. Singh, in the similar field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention [see claim 2] for providing protection when accessing web browsers/interfaces for online services, teaches displaying home overlays on a GUI for log in with fields for username and password , see para 0028, “ [0028] …….an overlay of the webpage's login elements (e.g., username and password fields) is generated and presented to the user. The overlay is controlled by the browser …..”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Singh it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thakur’s method and system to incorporate to provide overlay for enabling log including presenting the fields for username and password for authentication to access the vehicle services, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combined teachings of Thakur and Singh do not teach displaying additional overlays and the GUI comprises a plurality of user buttons associated with the plurality of vehicle services; wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons. WO’ 889, in the same field of providing a shopping application on a computer, teaches providing plurality of home shopping overlays with purchase screens overlays in sequence [See WO’889: Figs.11 and 12a, , page 9, line 2s 29-32, and page 27, line 23-page 28, line 30, “ FIG. 11 is a diagram showing how a user may invoke a non-program-guide application by responding to an on-screen prompt in accordance with the present invention. FIG. 12a is a diagram illustrating how the user may obtain additional information on a given program by pressing an information key while tuned to the given program and how the user may launch a non- program-guide application (e.g., a web browser) by pressing a launch button once the information has been displayed in accordance with the present invention………In the example of FIG. 11, the user tunes to the shopping channel 164, which causes the program guide to display text box 166 instructing the user to press launch to invoke the home shopping application. If the user presses launch, the program guide launches the home shopping application. As shown on the lower display screen in FIG. 11, the home shopping application may display a home shopping overlay 168 on top of the current channel 164. Overlay 168 may contain a description of a product that is being promoted on shopping channel 164 and a highlight 170 that may be positioned by the user to select from various options. The illustrative options shown in overlay 168 include purchase option 172, which allows the user to initiate a sequence of purchase screens, and information option 174, which allows the user to request additional information (either electronic or printed) for merchandise such as the product currently being promoted on shopping channel 164. ….. The program guide also provides an on-screen option to launch an interactive component that is associated with the current program such as on-screen option 140. In the example of FIG. 12a, the interactive content associated with the current channel is provided by a web browser application. When the user presses launch, the program guide launches the web browser application and directs the web browser to retrieve a web page 142. The web page may be associated with the current program (i.e., the program that was being displayed on channel 7 when the user pressed the info key.). These excerpts describe using interactive buttons on the GUI to have plurality of additional overlays, see Fig.11 and 12a which show interactive buttons , such as “Press launch…”, :Purchase”, “information”, :Press Launch to view web site”…..’]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of WO’889, it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined teachings of Thakur and Singh, as applied to claim 1, to incorporate to provide displaying additional overlays and the GUI comprises a plurality of user buttons associated with the plurality of vehicle services; wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, because, as shown in WO’889, it would enable the user of the target vehicle see the available vehicle services, select vehicle services and their information by providing overlays as in WO’889, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Thakur further teaches generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof ; generating, via the software application, instructions for providing the additional service based on the probability ;[These limitations , under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover calculating future requirements based on historical data of that item , which can be done by humans or by computer programs. Thakur teaches such prediction of an additional service as oil change next week based on the past activity data of the target vehicle along with the fuel delivery. Besides the oil change any other additional services like car wash, tier pressure flat, wiper change can be suggested based on the past activity data of the vehicle [See Thakur para 0043, “ [0043] The cloud platform 202 can utilize CAN sensor data (i.e., sensor data) to determine what services (including on-demand services) target vehicles should be recommended (e.g., car washing, changing wiper blade, etc.) or what services (including on-demand services) might be required (e.g., low fuel level, tire pressure flat, etc.). The determinations can include suggested service times (e.g., change oil within the next week). ……..’];
in response to determining the need for the additional service , causing, via the software application, at least one processing device of the one or more processing devices to automatically display the instructions for viewing by the one or more couriers, wherein the at least one processing device is associated with the one or more couriers: and providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, additional vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the displayed instructions [See Thakur, paras 0024, 0045—0046, 0056 [“0024] The method and system for providing on-demand services to vehicles can include dispatching service providers for performance of the on-demand services. The service providers can receive real-time vehicle location information to plan performance of the requested service. ….. Notifications can be sent to the vehicle's user (either by the method and system directly or via the service provider) via smartphone applications or in-vehicle infotainment systems about the service scheduling and fulfillment (post-completion). ….[0045] …… the cloud platform 202 can receive data communications from the target vehicle 204 regarding vehicle status indications that the target vehicle 204 (or an onboard device such as a TCU) has detected (e.g., fuel level low) and the cloud platform 202 can send additional information or determinations made based on the received data communications to the delivery vehicle 206 (e.g., a refueling on-demand service need alert or a location of the target vehicle 204 so that the delivery vehicle 206 automatically navigates to the location if available). ……..[0046] The cloud platform 202 can also communicate directly with the smartphone 208 (e.g., if the smartphone 208 being utilized is registered as an authorized user via the cloud platform 202) or indirectly with the smartphone 208 via the service provider cloud app 210. For example, the cloud platform 202 can receive availability information from the service provider via the smartphone 208 and/or the service provider cloud app 210 so that the cloud platform 202 can properly schedule an on-demand service that the target vehicle 204 requires. As another example, the cloud platform 202 can send out alerts to a plurality of service providers (and their associated smartphones) via the service provider cloud app 210 to gauge availability after an on-demand service need is determined…..[0056] FIG. 5 illustrates a flowchart of an example of a method 500 for determining target vehicle locations and dispatching service providers in accordance with implementations of this disclosure. The method 500 is performed within an environment that includes a delivery vehicle (e.g., the delivery vehicle 102 of FIG. 1) that is associated with a service provider, a cloud platform (e.g., the cloud platform 100 of FIG. 1), and a target vehicle (e.g., the target vehicle 104 of FIG. 1) that is associated with a vehicle owner/user. The delivery vehicle can be controlled by the service provider (i.e., delivery agent) via a cloud-based computing device (e.g., a smartphone with an app, a built-in tablet with dashboard, etc.) that is in communication with the cloud platform. “. These excerpts describe that in response to a determination that when a target vehicle needs vehicle services [which can include refueling or any other additional service] the cloud system interacts with the app on the smart phone of the service provider [corresponding to the claimed courier] to cause alerts/instructions to the service provider to deliver the services.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to display, on the one or more processing devices, the graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least the home overlay and the one or more additional overlays”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations, “ The method of claim 3, wherein the home overlay comprises one or more data entry fields for inputting a username and password, and a registration option for new users”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 , as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889, except extra field for a registration option for new users. Since Thakur teaches getting the smart phones registered of the users such as service provider/couriers it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art to have included a field just like for username and password for a registration option, because, by registering the smartphone of users including service providers/drivers/couriers it would help the system in receiving receive availability information from the service provider via the smartphone 208 so that the cloud platform 202 can properly schedule an on-demand service that the target vehicle 204 requires [See Thakur para 0046].
Regarding claim 5, the limitations, “The method of claim 4, wherein the display of information comprises the plurality of user interface buttons”, are already discussed and covered in the analysis of claim 1 to have included plurality of buttons to be able to select and create overlays for different vehicle services as taught and rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations, “The method of claim 5, wherein the software application, when one or more of the interface buttons are selected, is configured to direct the user to the one or more additional overlays, wherein the one or more additional overlays comprise a favorites overlay, a fuel delivery application overlay, an additional services overlay, a vendors overlay, a view map overlay, and an overlay displaying one or more customizable settings.”, are already discussed and covered in the analysis of claim 1 to have included plurality of buttons to be able to select and create overlays for different vehicle services which can include fuel delivery, car wash, wiper blasé, oil change, etc. as taught and rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889.
Regarding claim 12, Thakur teaches wherein the software application is configured to allow the user to communicate with a courier driver via messaging, as already analyzed in claim 1 by use of registered smart phones of the service providers/drivers/couriers. .
Regarding claim 16, the limitations, “ The claim 1, wherein the one or more processing devices comprise at least one device selected from the group consisting of a mobile telephone, a smart-phone, one or more devices built into an automobile, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a handheld computer, a personal digital assistant device, a media play device”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations, “The method of claim 1, wherein the home overlay and/or at least one of the one or more additional overlays are configured to present to the user a plurality of vehicle service options, wherein the plurality comprises at least one vehicle service type selected from the group consisting of an oil change, a vehicle inspection, an appraisal, an insurance adjustment, a car wash, a car maintenance service, a filter change, a wiper change, a fluid change, and any combination thereof.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Thakur/Singh/WO’889.
Regarding claim 20, its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 1, and therefore it is analyzed and rejected on the same basis.
4.2. Claims 2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Singh in view of WO’889 in view of WO 0111523 A1, hereinafter WO’523 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/06/2025.
Regarding claim 2, The combined teachings of Thakur, Singh and WO’889 teach and render obvious all the limitations, as analyzed above, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, regarding providing vehicle services to a target vehicle including fulfilling a user’s demand for combustible fuel, such as refueling the vehicle at the location of the vehicle, allowing the user to log in to a personalized account with a username and password; directing the user to a home screen, wherein the home screen is configured to allow the user to request an order of the one or more combustible fuels, directing the user to a fuel delivery page, wherein the user is prompted to customize the order of fuel [See para 0037, 40, “ [0037] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a system 100 for providing on-demand services in accordance with implementations of this disclosure. The system 100 can comprise a cloud platform that includes an application for storing, displaying, and processing information and communication links for communicating with both a delivery vehicle 102 and a target vehicle 104. The application of the cloud platform can include a web interface and a plurality of cloud services. The application of the cloud platform can be a vehicle OEM cloud application. The system 100 can receive and process data and information associated with the target vehicle 104 to determine on-demand service needs of the target vehicle 104. The determination of on-demand service needs can be based on any of user preferences, vehicle history, and machine learning techniques utilizing a database of information associated with other vehicles….[0040]…… The web interface can include both a fleet dashboard (e.g., displaying a plurality of delivery vehicles providing service or a plurality of target vehicles in need of service) and a user dashboard (e.g., a dashboard that can be controlled by an administrator or target vehicle owners/users).. These excerpts describe that user of the target vehicle needing vehicle services can access a web interface including a dashboard providing list of services and providers for selection of vehicle services, which can in include refueling service. Thakur fails to teach directing the user to a delivery location selection page, wherein the user is prompted to select the identified location, and directing the user to a payment billing page, based at least in part on the order of the one or more combustible fuel, wherein the user is provided with a receipt of payment, an order confirmation, and/or an arrival notification. WO’523, in the similar field of endeavor or executing orders for items and their fuel deliveries to identified locations, teaches the missing limitations . [See page 9 and lines 5-21, “ provided is a system and method of a customer ordering an item for delivery to a selected one of a plurality of delivery locations, each delivery location located within at least one of several predefined delivery zones, by providing an identifier web page from an order server computer to a client computer associated with the customer, the identifier web page comprising a field for entry of a geographic identifier associated with the desired delivery location. The customer enters the geographic identifier associated with desired delivery location for submittal to the order server computer. The order server computer determines, as a function of the geographic identifier received from the customer, a group of available items for delivery to the desired delivery location, the group of available items being located in a distribution center associated with the desired delivery location. The geographic identifier may be a zip code or a street address.”; and Fig.2 A. , page 17, lines 16-21, “ An example of a manifest 40 is shown in Figure 2A. The manifest includes an order number…. the name of the customer, the address for delivery, the time required for the delivery, and any special instructions indicated by the customer at the time of placing the order such as "leave with doorman" . Fig.2A shows the delivery manifest including showing the selected location and the arrival time. The customer is further guided to a payment billing page, based at least in part on the order of the one or more combustible fuel, wherein the user is provided with a receipt of payment, an order confirmation [ See page 3, lines 10-19, “ a system that can efficiently implement a real-time network-based order and delivery system where the items ordered are rapidly compiled and prepared for delivery. It is an object of the present invention to provide such an order and delivery system that implements a readily-available, customer-friendly user interface such as an Internet web site in order to allow customers to find items of interest in a timely and easy manner, place an order of the desired goods, and pay for the goods and services with a checkout methodology.”. The payment on a web site will be done based via a web p[age of the web site for the order amount and the checkout methodology would include providing a receipt for the payment and the checkout includes order confirmation. Therefore, in view of the teachings of WO’ 523 it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889, as applied to claim 1, to have modified to incorporate the steps of prompting the user to customize the order of fuel; directing the user to a delivery location selection page, wherein the user is prompted to select the identified location, and directing the user to a payment billing page, based at least in part on the order of the one or more combustible fuel, wherein the user is provided with a receipt of payment, an order confirmation, and/or an arrival notification, because as shown in WO’523 and as well-known that for placing orders with delivery service the delivery locations has to be selected and identified and then payment to be made with checkout so that the checkout provides the payment receipt and order confirmation for fulfilment, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 7-8, the limitations “The method of claim 2, wherein upon making the fuel delivery order, an order verification is sent to the user along with a payment billing confirmation, and wherein the user is provided with an estimated time of arrival notification after receiving the order verification and/or the payment billing confirmation,”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 2 in view of the combined teachings of Thakur in view of Singh in view of WO’889 in view of WO’523..
4.3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Singh in view of WO’889 in view of WO’523 further in view of JP 2020127177A , hereinafter JP’ 177 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/06/2025.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Thakur in view of Singh in view of WO’889 in view of WO’523 teach and render obvious the limitations of claims 7-8, as analyzed above, but fail to teach that method of claim 8, wherein the user is further provided with a notification of arrival when a courier has arrived at the identified location. JP’177 teaches the limitations for a courier delivery service of sending a notification of arrival when a courier has arrived at the identified destination [See JP’177, “A home delivery notification control unit for notifying the home base unit that a home delivery company has arrived, When the authentication unit authenticates that the person who operates the collective entrance machine is a courier, the delivery notification control unit displays a delivery destination input screen that enables collective input of a plurality of delivery destination housing units on the collective entrance machine. An intercom system for housing a housing, which is displayed on a display unit and notifies the parent unit of the dwelling unit input from the delivery destination input screen that a courier has come.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of JP’ 177 it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889/WO’523 as applied to claim 8 to incorporate the concept that the user is further provided with a notification of arrival when a courier has arrived at the identified location, as shown in JP’177, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
4.4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur/Singh/WO’889 in view of McCalla et al. [US 2004/0025190 A1], hereinafter McCalla cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/06/2025.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 1 including display a home overlay [web page on a web browser], one or more additional overlays [web browsers], fulfilling a service request based on a service selection made by the user, wherein the service request comprises at least delivery of one or more combustible fuels to a fuel recipient at an identified location, but fails to teach that the method of claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to allow the user to return to the home overlay from any of the one or more additional overlays. McCalla teaches that software application is configured to allow the user to return to the home overlay from any of the one or more additional overlays [See para 0054, “ Content browser interface 54 has similar functions as the web browser, like INTERNET EXPLORER or NAVIGATOR. It comprises a text field 56 to type in the URL of the site to visit. It comprises a "Back" button 58 to return to a previously visited site and a "home" page button to return to the viewer's default web page. There is a display area 60 for the advanced movie content. The content browser can be built to match the user interface that the operator wishes to have.”]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of McCalla it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889 as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the well-known concept of configuring the software application to allow the user to return to the home overlay [home page] from any of the one or more additional overlays [other web pages], as shown in McCalla because this web browsers include this function, and secondly since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
4.5 Claims 11, 13-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur/Singh/WO’889 over Official Notice.
Regarding claims 11, 13-15, the limitations comprising that the method of claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to allow the user to cancel, at any point in time until after fulfillment of the service request, the order for fuel, wherein one or more servers maintain all files for an application, program code, data, and documentation during running of the software application on the one or more processing devices, wherein the one or more servers employ at least one security feature, and a network provides a communication infrastructure between the one or more processing devices and the one or more servers; are very well-known features of a server network in communication with client devices forming client-server architecture known at the time of the claimed invention to communicate , to conduct transactions, wherein the purchase transactions and orders can be canceled before the ordered item is delivered and that the servers have a security features such as encryption or firewall, etc. In view of the fact that these features are so well -known, Examiner takes Official Notice . Therefore, in view of the Official Notice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889 as applied to claim 1 to have incorporated these well-known concepts to allow the user to cancel, at any point in time until after fulfillment of the service request, the order for fuel, wherein one or more servers maintain all files for an application, program code, data, and documentation during running of the software application on the one or more processing devices, wherein the one or more servers employ at least one security feature, and a network provides a communication infrastructure between the one or more processing devices and the one or more servers, because they are relevant in the field of client-server architecture conducting transactions.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889 teach and render all the limitations of claim 1 including providing vehicle fuel delivery to a vehicle at the location to a target vehicle in response to a request. These references do not teach that fuel is selected from a group consisting of unleaded gasoline, diesel, bio-diesel, ethanol, synthetic fuel, e-fuel, carbon-captured fuel, race gas, treated gas, natural gas, high octane rated fuel, low octane rated fuel, zero-ethanol rated fuel, hydrogen, and any combination thereof. Since all these types of fuel are well-known to be used by different vehicles all over the world before the claimed invention [Note the applicant has not discovered or invented any of these fuel] , Examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known fact about using one of the fuels for the vehicles from a group consisting unleaded gasoline, diesel, bio-diesel, ethanol, synthetic fuel, e-fuel, carbon-captured fuel, race gas, treated gas, natural gas, high octane rated fuel, low octane rated fuel, zero-ethanol rated fuel, hydrogen, and any combination thereof before the claimed invention of the Applicant and the Applicant does not claim to have discovered this group, except for naming all possible known vehicle fuels and using them for a selection. The system and architecture discussed in view of the combined teachings can be used to select a fuel oil a group of any member of fuel types and can be used to select a fuel from any number of fuels available. Therefore, in view of the Official Notice about the known vehicle fuels it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to have used the system and architecture of the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889 to make a selection from a group consisting unleaded gasoline, diesel, bio-diesel, ethanol, synthetic fuel, e-fuel, carbon-captured fuel, race gas, treated gas, natural gas, high octane rated fuel, low octane rated fuel, zero-ethanol rated fuel, hydrogen, and any combination thereof .
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889 teach and render all the limitations of claim 1 including providing vehicle fuel delivery to a vehicle at the location to a target vehicle in response to a request. These references do not teach presenting to the user a plurality of fuel additive type delivery options, wherein the plurality comprises at least one fuel additive type selected from the group consisting of octane, acetone, ether, nitrous oxide, a fuel stabilizer, a fuel injector cleaner, diesel exhaust fluid, nitromethane, a detergent, a catalyst, a ring sealer, butyl rubber, oxyhydrogen, ferrous picrate, tetranitromethane, an anti-foaming agent, an antioxidant, an oxygenate, an antiknock agent, a lead scavenger, a metal deactivator, a corrosion inhibitor, and any combination thereof. Examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known fact about using an additive for the vehicles from a group consisting of octane, acetone, ether, nitrous oxide, a fuel stabilizer, a fuel injector cleaner, diesel exhaust fluid, nitromethane, a detergent, a catalyst, a ring sealer, butyl rubber, oxyhydrogen, ferrous picrate, tetranitromethane, an anti-foaming agent, an antioxidant, an oxygenate, an antiknock agent, a lead scavenger, a metal deactivator, a corrosion inhibitor, and any combination thereof before the claimed invention of the Applicant. These items are not part of the Applicant’s discovery or invention but, as per the claim merely a selection is made by a user putting all of together. The system and architecture discussed in view of the combined teachings can be used to present and enable a selection of an additive . Therefore, in view of the Official Notice about the known fuel additives, it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to have used the system and architecture of the combined teachings of Thakur/Singh/WO’889 to make a selection from a group consisting known fuel additives including octane, acetone, ether, nitrous oxide, a fuel stabilizer, a fuel injector cleaner, diesel exhaust fluid, nitromethane, a detergent, a catalyst, a ring sealer, butyl rubber, oxyhydrogen, ferrous picrate, tetranitromethane, an anti-foaming agent, an antioxidant, an oxygenate, an antiknock agent, a lead scavenger, a metal deactivator, a corrosion inhibitor, and any combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
5.1. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112 (a):
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025, see pages 7-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments to the independent claims 1 and 20. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
5.2. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025, see pages 10-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons:
Step 2A, Prong one:
Examiner has reviewed and considered the Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 and respectfully disagrees with the Applicant because the claims [see independent claims 1 and 20] do recite an abstract idea, because as required by the Step 2A, Prong One analysis eligibility analysis evaluates whether the abstract idea is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Claims 1 and 20 recite limitations, “ “ receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services, fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , ….. generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , ….. and providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, additional vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient in accordance with the instructions. ”, do relate to a commercial activity of requesting vehicle services and fulfilling the vehicle services by delivering the combustible fuel and other services on the location of the vehicle as ordered, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, the limitations comprising, “generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof; “ and “determining the need for the additional service ”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, because a human can use statistical formulas based on historical data of the target vehicle and the user of the target vehicle to determine additional services such as oil change, car-wash, replacement of wiper blades, battery replacement. Mere use of a generic computer cannot take away these steps from mental processes. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 do describe and set forth an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner has reviewed and considered the Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 and respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Step 2A, Prong Two eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic computer components comprising a software application stored in one or more processing devices, executing the steps (i) through (ix).
The additional elements of displaying functions in steps “(i) and (viii) as analyzed above in paragraph 3 amount to mere pre-solution displaying a user interface with plurality of buttons to carry out instructions, and post-solution displaying instructions to be viewed by couriers, which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Also, the limitations in step “ (iii) receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering a request for a vehicle service for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality in these limitations and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements in steps “(ii) allowing a user to download the software ……; (iii) wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, ……, and (vi) generating, via the software application, instructions for providing the additional service based on the probability” are generic computer functions which are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement in another technology.
The additional elements in steps (ix) providing the additional service, comprising delivering via the one or more couriers, ……. (v) fulfilling the request for the vehicle service , …..;” as recited , under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to manually delivering the vehicle fuel to the fuel recipient at the determined time at the identified location and thereby fulfilling the requested vehicle service. These limitations, as recited , do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer.
The additional elements in steps “(vi) generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, wherein the probability is at least partially based on the delivery of the vehicle fuel , activity data associated with the fuel recipient, vehicle data associated with a vehicle of the fuel recipient, or any combination thereof”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation relates to a human operator using mathematical models/statistical formulas and the historical data of the target vehicle and the recipient of the fuel to suggest what more services might be needed along with delivering the fuel falling within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, additional services could be predicted such as a car wash, replacement of wiper based, oil change if applicable on the historical data of these services. The computer is used to perform these manual processes being performed by human mind using a pen and paper. , as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the foregoing, the additional elements in claim 1 and also claim 20 [as the limitations of claim 20 are similar to claim 1] , individually and in combination do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or are indicative of any of the following meaningful limits, see “ MPEP 2106.04 (d): • An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a); an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b); an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c); and an additional element 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo . Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because the additional elements do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B”
Examiner has reviewed and considered the Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 “
Under Step 2B of the test outlined in the MPEP, if additional elements recited by the claims amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception, then the claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.05……..Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 20 recite limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. In particular, independent claims 1 and 20 generally recite generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability of a need for additional fuel/fuel additive based on when a first order for the same was delivered, purchaser information, and/or vehicle information; generating delivery instructions based on the probability; in response to determining the need, causing a device to automatically display the instructions to deliver the additional fuel/fuel additive; and delivering the additional fuel/fuel additive in accordance with the displayed instructions. Such elements, and the combination thereof, are not well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and are, therefore, not insignificant but rather amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP § 2106.05. …….This is true even if the Examiner considers the individual elements to be recited at a high level of generality because the combination of the elements, and the claim as a whole, amount to an inventive concept. Indeed, "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." See MPEP § 2106.05, citing BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). ……. …… it. As such, Applicant submits that each element, even if recited at a high level of generality, goes beyond the alleged exception and is integral to the inventive concept by bringing about the inventive result. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 20 recite an inventive concept under Step 2B and are directed to patentable subject matter. For at least these reasons, among others, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. “. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations being argued, “ generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability of a need for additional fuel/fuel additive based on when a first order for the same was delivered, purchaser information, and/or vehicle information; and determining the need” , as already discussed and analyzed above under Step 2A “, recite an abstract idea . The computer used to perform these steps is recited at a high level of generality and is used is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). “2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).”. The additional elements of , ‘ generating delivery instructions based on the probability and causing a device to automatically display the instructions to deliver the additional fuel/fuel additive; and delivering the additional fuel/fuel additive in accordance with the displayed instructions.” , under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general purpose computer. For example, on knowing that additional services are required, a courier can be informed by displaying instructions on a paper or by telephone for delivering services. Such additional elements , when considered individually and in combination, represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Applicant’s arguments that the claims 1 and 20 are similar to the claims of BASCOM are not persuasive. In Bascom, although the claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, the inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. In Bascom the court held that claims contained ‘significantly more” than an abstract idea of ‘filtering content because they recited a separate point of novelty that is : installation of filtering tool at a specific location on Internet of the content, remote from end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Bascom does not apply in this case. In contrast the claims in the instant application do not provide an unconventional functionality on Internet of the content remote from end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user but merely implement a commercial activity of providing vehicle services to a target vehicle in response to a request and considering additional services based on past/historical data. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions and performing recognized judicial exception.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of the independent claims 1 and 20 under USC 101 is sustainable and maintained. Applicant ha snot filed separate arguments for any of the dependent claims.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Murakami [US2018/0374166 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/06/2025, see paras 0123-0124 teaches notifying a user/recipient about his need for replacing gas cylinder [combustible fuel] and in response the user/recipient sends the request to the provider for delivery of gas cylinders to the recipient’s home an already the identified location. Murakami fails to teach the step of allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices.
(ii) Ke et al. [US 2019/0108601 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/06/2025, see paras 0032, and 0089, in the same field of endeavor of ordering items on a web site, teaches allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices to order items and the application and this application allows to display a home overlay [a home screen with different web pages], one or more additional overlays [web pages], and data from a database.
(iii) Oesterling et al. [US 20180057347 A1 cited in the Final Rejection mailed 10/02/2025; see para 0038] describes a customer sending his fuel service requirement to a server, wherein the remote server 140 provides the information required for the fuel delivery directly to the fuel delivery service 120 helps ensure that the proper vehicle information is conveyed to the fuel delivery service 120.
(iv) Ovick et al. [US 20140222533 A1 cited in the Final Rejection mailed 10/02/2025; see para 0130] describes using prior transactions by the predictive models to predict future transactions or spending patterns based on events that occurred recently or are happening in real time.
(v) Anand et al. [US 20230394389 A1 cited in the Final Rejection mailed 10/02/2025; see para 0014] describes a server receiving a vehicle service request and determine, based on the service request, a location (e.g., a charging station or a vehicle refueling station) where a primary task (such as a charging an electric vehicle) of the service request may be executable. If the service request is associated with an operational requirement of the vehicle, then the server identifies a pool of workers available for fulfilment of the service request, based on the determined location and assigns a worker from the pool of workers to move the vehicle from an initial location (such as premises of an owner of the vehicle) to the determined location.
NPL references:
(vi) Chi, S. Xu, S. Guo, P. Yu and X. Qiu, "Federated Learning Empowered Edge Collaborative Content Caching Mechanism for Internet of Vehicles," NOMS 2022-2022 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, 2022, pp. 1-5, retrieved from IP. Com on 01122026 describes for timely responding to the vehicle service users using an edge collaborative caching domain (ECCD) fully utilizing the edge network resource among multiple edge nodes, which provide contents and deliver services for the vehicle.
(vii) H. S. Gambhir, D. Sawant and A. Basu, "IoT Based Automation In Doorstep Fuel Delivery System," 2022 10th International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology - Signal and Information Processing (ICETET-SIP-22), Nagpur, India, 2022, pp. 1-6, retrieved from IP. Com on 06/03/2025, cited in the Final Rejection mailed 10/02/2025 describes that in India fuel companies are exploring the viability of delivery service of fuel at the client’s doorstep by creating supply chain. The Remote fuel Delivery Automation System developed by Irison Technology and tested along with some clients, addresses these concerns and makes the business of remote fuel delivery safe, efficient, reliable and profitable with a Customer First approach in mind using Industrial Internet Of Things, which refers to the use of IoT(an integration of Information Technology and Operational Technology in Industrial applications).
(viii) A. Konstantin, B. Eugene and A. Olga, "Petrol delivery management with BPsim.DSS," Proceedings of the 33rd Chinese Control Conference, Nanjing, China, 2014, pp. 7628-7632, retrieved from IP. Com on 09302025, cited in the Final Rejection mailed 10/02/2025 describes planning and deployment for fuel supplies within a network of gas stations, which is based on simulation, multi-agent and expert modeling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688