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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 04/14/2026 is entered. Claims 1020 are pending for examination. Claims 1 and 20 are independent claims and claims 2-19 depend from claim 1. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16-20 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
(i) 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:
(ii) 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 interface buttons associated with a plurality of vehicle services;
(iii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices;
(iv) receiving information associated with a vehicle of the user, wherein the information comprises at least a location of the vehicle
(v) 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 a selection of the vehicle service by the user;
(vi) based on the request and the information associated with the vehicle, generating first service instructions to provide the vehicle service, wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of a vehicle fuel to the vehicle at the location of the vehicle;
(vii) causing an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the location of the vehicle, wherein the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle comprises a fuel source and a fuel nozzle having a no-spill mechanism;
(viii) determining, via one or more hardware devices associated with the fuel source, real-time location data and a fuel status of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle;
(ix) providing, based on the real-time location data, at least real-time location information associated with the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle for display such that the real-time location information is accessible to the user via at least one user interface button of the plurality of user interface buttons of the GUI;
(x) in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the location, automatically delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle;
(xi) 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;
(xii) in response to determining, based on the probability, the need for the additional service, automatically retrieving a current location of the vehicle
(xiii) generating second service instructions regarding the additional service and the current location of the vehicle;
(xiv) causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle based at least on the generated second service instructions; and
(xv) in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, automatically providing, via the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service 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 information associated with a vehicle of the user, wherein the information comprises at least a location of the vehicle; receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services, based on the request and the information associated with the vehicle, generating first service instructions to provide the vehicle service, wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of a vehicle fuel to the vehicle at the location of the vehicle; causing fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the location of the vehicle, wherein the fuel delivery vehicle comprises a fuel source and a fuel nozzle having a no-spill mechanism; determining real-time location data and a fuel status of the fuel delivery vehicle; providing, based on the real-time location data, at least real-time location information associated with the fuel delivery vehicle such that the real-time location information is accessible to the user; in response to the fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the location, delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the fuel delivery vehicle; in response to determining, based on the probability, the need for the additional service, retrieving a current location of the vehicle; generating second service instructions regarding the additional service and the current location of the vehicle; causing the fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle based at least on the generated second service instructions; and in response to the fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, providing, via the fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service 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 limitations in italics comprising, “based on the request and the information associated with the vehicle, generating first service instructions to provide the vehicle service, wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of a vehicle fuel to the vehicle at the location of the vehicle; causing fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the location of the vehicle, wherein the fuel delivery vehicle comprises a fuel source and a fuel nozzle having a no-spill mechanism; determining real-time location data and a fuel status of the fuel delivery vehicle; 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; in response to determining, based on the probability, the need for the additional service, retrieving a current location of the vehicle generating second service instructions regarding the additional service and the current location of the vehicle; ”, 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 operator based on a received request can send instructions to a fuel delivery vehicle service to provide a vehicle service to deliver fuel to a vehicle at a given location, which can be determined by telephone and provide instructions that the fuel delivery vehicle to comprises a fuel source and a fuel nozzle having a no-spill mechanism. A human operator can also 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 and can receive the location of the vehicle to be serviced by phone. 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) 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:
(ii) 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 interface buttons associated with a plurality of vehicle services;
(iii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices;
(iv) receiving information associated with a vehicle of the user, wherein the information comprises at least a location of the vehicle
(v) 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 a selection of the vehicle service by the user;
(vi) based on the request and the information associated with the vehicle, generating first service instructions to provide the vehicle service, wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of a vehicle fuel to the vehicle at the location of the vehicle;
(vii) causing an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the location of the vehicle, wherein the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle comprises a fuel source and a fuel nozzle having a no-spill mechanism;
(viii) determining, via one or more hardware devices associated with the fuel source, real-time location data and a fuel status of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle;
(ix) providing, based on the real-time location data, at least real-time location information associated with the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle for display such that the real-time location information is accessible to the user via at least one user interface button of the plurality of user interface buttons of the GUI;
(x) in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the location, automatically delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle;
(xi) 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;
(xii) in response to determining, based on the probability, the need for the additional service, automatically retrieving a current location of the vehicle
(xiii) generating second service instructions regarding the additional service and the current location of the vehicle;
(xiv) causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle based at least on the generated second service instructions; and
(xv) in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, automatically providing, via the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service instructions.
The displaying functions in steps “(ii) 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 “ (ix) providing, based on the real-time location data, at least real-time location information associated with the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle for display such that the real-time location information is accessible to the user via at least one user interface button of the plurality of user interface buttons of the GUI”, 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 location of the vehicle to be serviced , which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Also, the limitations in steps “ (iv) receiving information associated with a vehicle of the user, wherein the information comprises at least a location of the vehicle ; (v)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 a selection of the vehicle service by the user; and (ix) providing, based on the real-time location data, at least real-time location information associated with the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle for display such that the real-time location information is accessible to the user via at least one user interface button of the plurality of user interface buttons of the GUI”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for a request for a vehicle service for use in the evaluating step and providing information for display to carry out the vehicle service), and amounts to mere data gathering/outputting/transmitting, which are 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 in these steps (ii) , ((iv), (v) and (ix) of receiving/outputting/transmitting and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In the limitations of steps “(vi) based on the request and the information associated with the vehicle, generating first service instructions to provide the vehicle service, wherein the vehicle service comprises delivery of a vehicle fuel to the vehicle at the location of the vehicle; (vii) causing an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the location of the vehicle, wherein the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle comprises a fuel source and a fuel nozzle having a no-spill mechanism; (viii) determining, via one or more hardware devices associated with the fuel source, real-time location data and a fuel status of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; (xi) 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; (xii) in response to determining, based on the probability, the need for the additional service, automatically retrieving a current location of the vehicle (xiii)generating second service instructions regarding the additional service and the current location of the vehicle; “, 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 “(i) providing access to a software application stored at an offsite storage location to one or more processing devices, the software comprising architecture, (iii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices; and (v) 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 a selection of the vehicle service by the user;”, are generic computer functions comprising providing access to a program/software or downloading a software/program, and enabling user to interact to provide a request, which are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement in another technology.
The limitations in steps x, xiv, and xv comprising, “ (x)in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the location, automatically delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; (xiv)causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle based at least on the generated second service instructions; and (xv) in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, automatically providing, via the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service instructions.”, relate to arranging and providing instructions for a delivery vehicle for delivering fuel or any other vehicle services to a vehicle at a determined locations which is done manually. Using a computer to provide instructions and an autonomous vehicle amounts to mere automating the manual process without providing any details in any technical improvement in using autonomous vehicles or providing instructions .
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 .
Thus, 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 submit a request, and customize the request 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 the autonomous vehicle has arrived at the identified location, which are mere extension of the steps discussed for claim 1 and do not amount to any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 delivery vehicle of the fuel, which are generic computer functions and mere extension of the limitations already discussed for the base claim 1 and do not add 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 , providing instructions, displaying data/instructions 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.
3. Prior art discussion:
Reference independent claims 1 and 10, the combination of best prior art 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 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/15/2026 teaches and renders some of the limitations as already discussed and presented in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/15/2026 but fails to teach and render obvious at least the newly added limitations, as a whole, comprising “ determining, via one or more hardware devices associated with the fuel source, real-time location data and a fuel status of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the location, automatically delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle based at least on the generated second service instructions; and in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, automatically providing, via the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service instructions. Claims 2-19 depend from claim 1.
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Mondello et al. [US 20190197795 A1; see para 0115] describes a method in step 406 drives the autonomous delivery vehicle to the locations identified by the coordinates and, in step 408, services the vehicle.
(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) D. Liu, Z. Deng, X. Mao, Y. Yang and E. I. Kaisar, "Two-Echelon Vehicle-Routing Problem: Optimization of Autonomous Delivery Vehicle-Assisted E-Grocery Distribution," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 108705-108719, 2020, retrieved from IP. Com on 05/21/2026 describes deployment of autonomous delivery vehicles (ADVs) to support parcel delivery as there are advantages of ADV , such as, it can operate without an expensive human driver, and reduces emissions.
(vii) 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 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/15/2026 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.
(viii) 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).
(ix) 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.
5. Note: Allowability: If the independent claims 1 and 20 are amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, the application can be placed in condition for allowance. However, all amendments would be subject to reconsideration and search.
Response to Arguments
6.1. Rejection of claims 16-19under 35 USC 112 (b):
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026, see page 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments to these claims. The rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
6.2. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026, see pages 9-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on page 10, “ Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to comprise an inventive concept as required for patent eligible subject under Step 2B of the Alice Mayo framework. …….. Such additional claim elements may be part of a particular limitation or a combination of limitations and amount to "significantly more" if they are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art. See id. Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to recite additional elements that, when read as a whole, amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. These amendments add new limitations directed to specialized equipment that recite a technology-rooted process of anticipating and optimizing automatic delivery of fuel via an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle. Thus, the new limitations, which directly bring about the inventive result (e.g. the anticipation of a need for fuel and the automatic and automated delivery of needed fuel), are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities previously known to the industry, including the recitation of specific computer-implemented software for generating automated delivery instructions based on a request and/or a model-generated probability, providing real-time information to a user in an interactive format based on real-time data from an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, and for delivering fuel to a causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to automatically deliver the fuel in response to determining that a need for the fuel exists without a user having to explicitly request it.”; because, even when considered in combination, see the details above in paragraph 2, the additional elements 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). The recitations of using an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle and providing information in real-time do not amount to “Significantly more”, The use of autonomous fuel delivery vehicle for delivering to a vehicle automatically at a given location is mere automation of manual practices of providing fuel or any other vehicle services to a vehicle at a determined location. Similarly real time information is a generic computer function. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, such as use of autonomous vehicles [unmanned vehicles] , specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The autonomous vehicle is used merely to automate manual activity of providing fuel to a vehicle at a determined location and do not include any details on technical improvements in using an autonomous vehicle. about how the “detecting” and “analyzing” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on providing technical improvements to the functions of the autonomous vehicle. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (autonomous vehicle ) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13, “ Thus, even if the Examiner determines that independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to a judicial exception and do not incorporate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 20 recite additional limitations that, as a whole, are not well-understood, routine, or 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. Applicant respectfully contends that the above-described elements amount to meaningful limitations that go beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and actually cause the inventive result-an automated and predictive means for automatically providing a vehicle fuel to a vehicle. In particular, the claim, as a whole, recites a technology-rooted process of anticipating and optimizing automated fuel delivery and further provides anticipatory automated fuel delivery, including providing real-time information regarding an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, thereby making real-time delivery information accessible and interactive based on real-time data from a fuel source of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle. This inventive result (e.g. automatically providing needed fuel through an automated process) is only made possible by the above-described limitations, including the recitation of specific computer-implemented software for generating delivery instructions based on a request and/or a model-generated probability, providing real-time information to a user in an interactive format based on real-time data from an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, and causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to automatically deliver the fuel at a retrieved location. Moreover, the additional elements recited in the above-described limitations further directly recite and/or enable automatically providing an additional service based on a model-generated probability that the user would need that service by automatically retrieving a current location of the user's vehicle and causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location in response to determining that a need for the fuel exists without a user having to explicitly request it. Such steps and elements are not "mere data
gathering/transmitting/outputting/displaying/presenting" as suggested by the Examiner. See Office Action, p. 12. 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 and are not, as a whole, well-understood, routine, or conventional activities previously known to the industry. 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. “, because when the claims are analyzed per steps 2A, Prong Two , the additional elements , even when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they 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).
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) providing access to a software application …..(ii) display a home overlay, one or more additional overlays, …….(iii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices; (iv) receiving information associated with a vehicle of the user, …….(v) receiving a request for a vehicle service of a plurality of vehicle services, …….;(vi)based on the request and the information associated with the vehicle, generating first service instructions to provide the vehicle service, …….;(vii) causing an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the location of the vehicle, ……; (viii) determining, …… real-time location data and a fuel status of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; (ix) providing, based on the real-time location data, at least real-time location information …… display such that the real-time location information is accessible to the user via at least one user interface button of the plurality of user interface buttons of the GUI; (x) ……. automatically delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; (xi)generating, via one or more predictive models, a probability indicative of a need for an additional service, …….(xii)in response to determining, ……. the need for the additional service, automatically retrieving a current location of the vehicle(xiii)generating second service instructions regarding the additional service and the current location of the vehicle; (xiv)causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle ……; and (xv)in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, automatically providing, via the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service instructions.
The displaying functions in steps (ii) and (ix) 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 location of the vehicle to be serviced , which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Also, the limitations in steps “ (iv), (v) and (ix) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for a request for a vehicle service for use in the evaluating step and providing information for display to carry out the vehicle service), and amounts to mere data gathering/outputting/transmitting, which are 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 in these steps (ii) , ((iv), (v) and (ix) of receiving/outputting/transmitting and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In the limitations of steps (vi), (vii), (viii), (xi) (xii) and (xiii) 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 “(i) providing access to a software application (iii) allowing a user to download the software to the one or more processing devices; and (v) wherein the request is generated based on a user interaction with the plurality of user interface buttons, …….;”, are generic computer functions comprising providing access to a program/software or downloading a software/program, and enabling user to interact to provide a request, which are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement in another technology.
The limitations in steps x, xiv, and xv comprising, “ (x)in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the location, automatically delivering the vehicle fuel via the fuel nozzle of the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle; (xiv)causing the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle to drive to the current location of the vehicle based at least on the generated second service instructions; and (xv) in response to the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle arriving at the current location of the vehicle, automatically providing, via the autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, the additional service; based on the generated second service instructions.”, relate to arranging and providing instructions for a delivery vehicle for delivering fuel or any other vehicle services to a vehicle at a determined locations which is done manually. Using a computer to provide instructions and an autonomous vehicle amounts to mere automating the manual process without providing any details in any technical improvement in using autonomous vehicles or providing instructions .
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 .
Thus, 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).
Further , when claim 1 is analyzed per Step 2B, 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. Only additional elements of displaying data/information, receiving request data, storing and maintaining files and sending data , providing instructions, displaying data/instructions 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).
In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, and the rejection of all pending claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
6.3. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to rejection of the independent claims 1 and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments to the independent claims 1 and 20.. The rejection of all pending claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. Claims 2-19 depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
7. Final Rejection:
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights