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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 03/16/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-2, 9-12, 16-17, and 19-20 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 03/16/2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment has been entered and considered, but is not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant's arguments (Remarks at pgs. 9-12) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant argues that “amended claim 1….is not properly characterized as directed to either ‘managing personal behavior or relationships’ … or to a mental process” (Remarks at pg. 9).
In response, applicant’s attention is directed to the Step 2A Prong One analysis of the §101 rejection below, which provides step-by-step analysis explaining why each step, but for the generic computing elements, set forth activities falling under the “certain methods of organizing human activity,” “mental processes” abstract idea groupings. Applicant has not effectively rebutted these findings. Notably, applicant’s argument fails to discuss or specifically point out any supposed errors in the findings set forth in the Step 2A Prong One analysis that provides reasons why each of the specifically addressed limitations is interpreted as setting forth or describing activity falling under one or more of the abstract idea groupings
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant argues that “claims 1, 11, and 20 may integrate any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application” and suggests that the claimed invention “reflects an improvement in vehicle telematics, namely, improved generation of fueling history information from real-time vehicle-terminal data” (Remarks at pg. 10).
In response, it is first noted that the alleged result noted, for example, in par. [0005] of the Specification for “developing and marketing customized products and services by card companies, oil companies, or the like” is not an improvement to any technology, but instead relates to activity considered sales/marketing activity, which falls squarely under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping in addition to activity that could, but for the generic computer implementation, be performed mentally (as discussed in the §101 rejection). Notably, the claims are implemented with a generic processor executing program instructions to perform the receiving, generating, determining, obtaining and generating, however the claims do not recite or require any additional elements considered as vehicle telematics or any other technology for that matter, and therefore applicant’s argument lacks merit because it relies on limitations not required by the claims and it would be improper to import such limitations from the Specification. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Under Step 2B, Applicant argues that “the above additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself” and that “claims 1, 11, and 20 show a technical improvement in existing technology” (Remarks at pg. 12). However, these are conclusory statements lacking merit because the statements fail to identify the alleged technical improvement or provide reasons why/how the additional elements amount to an inventive concept by adding significantly more to the claims such as, for example:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth in the updated §101 rejection below, the amendments and supporting arguments are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed apparatus (claims 1-2 and 4-10), method (claims 11-12 and 14-19), and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations for managing personal behavior or relationships (managing customer refueling behavior – Spec. at pars. [0005] – [0006], e.g., “collect accurate customer data” and “analyzing a customer refueling pattern”) and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation (executed by a processing apparatus), could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are indicated by plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon at least one program configured to be executable by the processor, wherein the at least one program includes instructions for executing operations (These are additional elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below) of:
receiving a starting state of an engine, global positioning system (GPS) information, and a remaining amount of fuel transmitted in real time from a vehicle terminal (The “receiving” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or relationships because the received data may be directly tied to evaluation of customer behavior related to refueling, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “receiving” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)),
generating refueling pattern information for the vehicle based on the starting state of the engine, the GPS information, and the remaining amount of fuel (The “generating” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or relationships because the generated information directly pertains to customer behavior, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as with the aid of pen and paper to write down the refueling information pattern),
wherein the at least one program further comprises instructions for executing operations of:
determining whether an amount of change in the remaining amount of the fuel is equal to or greater than a predetermined change amount within a unit driving section, wherein the unit driving section is a section between a current point in time at which the starting state of the engine is ON and a point in time immediately before the starting state of the engine is ON (The “determining” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or relationships because it directly pertains to customer behavior (customer refueling pattern), and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion),
based on a determination that the amount of change in the remaining amount of the fuel is equal to or greater than the predetermined change amount, determining that refueling is indicated within the unit driving section, based on determining that the refueling is indicated within the unit driving section, obtaining refueling history information associated with the unit driving section, the refueling history information including gas station information, a refueling amount, a refueling time period, a refueling cost, and a number of times of refueling (This step describes activity for managing personal behavior or relationships because it directly pertains to customer behavior (customer refueling pattern), and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion), and
generating the refueling pattern information for the vehicle based on the refueling history information for a predetermined period of time (The “generating” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or relationships because the generated information directly pertains to customer/driver behavior (customer refueling pattern), and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as with the aid of pen and paper to write down the refueling information pattern).
Independent claims 11 and 20 recite limitations similar to the limitations discussed above and have been determined to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1/11/20 include additional elements directed to a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon at least one program configured to be executable by the processor, wherein the at least one program includes instructions for executing operations, and receiving…from a vehicle terminal. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Next, the “receiving…from a vehicle terminal” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1/11/20 include additional elements directed to a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon at least one program configured to be executable by the processor, wherein the at least one program includes instructions for executing operations, and receiving…from a vehicle terminal. The additional computing elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Next, the “receiving…from a vehicle terminal” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, and such extra-solution activities have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted by the CAFC with respect to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). It is further noted that the “vehicle terminal” requires nothing more than a generic computer, as shown in Fig. 6 and referred to in par. [0015] of the Specification is nothing more than “a computing device” (i.e., any computer device under the sun).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further steps/details that, with the exception of the additional elements in claims 6-8 and 16-18 (which are addressed below), fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that describe managing personal behavior or relationships, and which recite activities falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
With respect to the first/second database recited in claims 6-7 and 16-17, the databases are recited at a high level of generality and amount to using a generic computer or computer network to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), which in insufficient to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Next, with respect to the API recited in claims 8/18, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two, the API is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field or otherwise add a practical application. Under Step 2B, it is noted that APIs are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See, e.g., Hendrick et al., US 2013/0346234 at par. 16, noting that “ Web service application program interface (API) 118, the details of which will be known to those skilled in the art.” See also, Walsham, US 2014/0040248 at par. 31, noting that “an application programming interface (hereinafter, API), APIs are known known in the art as a means for allowing content to be shared by different applications.” Therefore, the use of an API is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art reference of record, Park et al. (US 2020/0126057), is directed to a vehicle terminal, system and method for processing payments using a vehicle terminal. Park et al. teaches several limitations of independent claims 1/11/20, including, for example: receiving a starting state of an engine, global positioning system (GPS) information, and a remaining amount of fuel transmitted in real time from a vehicle terminal of a vehicle (pars. 14, 44, 60, 69-73, 96, 101) and generating refueling pattern information for the vehicle based on the…remaining amount of fuel (pars. 70-72, 96, 102, and 103). However, Park et al. and the other prior art references of record do not teach or render obvious the claim limitations directed to determining whether an amount of change in the remaining amount of the fuel is equal to or greater than a predetermined change amount within a unit driving section, wherein the unit driving section is a section between a current point in time at which the starting state of the engine is ON and a point in time immediately before the starting state of the engine is ON, based on a determination that the amount of change in the remaining amount of the fuel is equal to or greater than the predetermined change amount, determining that refueling is indicated within the unit driving section, based on determining that the refueling is indicated within the unit driving section, obtaining refueling history information associated with the unit driving section, the refueling history information including gas station information, a refueling amount, a refueling time period, a refueling cost, and a number of times of refueling, and generating the refueling pattern information for the vehicle based on the refueling history information for a predetermined period of time, as recited by independent claim 1 and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 11/20, as recited and arranged in combination with the other limitations recited in these claims, thereby rendering claims 1/11/20 and their dependent claims as similarly allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are not allowable, however, because these claims stand rejected under 35 USC §101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johnson, Jr. (US 2014/0108155): discloses techniques for evaluating a driver’s pattern associated with refueling a vehicle (at least pars. 23, 61, and 68).
Shou et al. (US 2022/0058495): discloses a rest stop recommendation system, including features for determining refueling pattern preferences (at least pars. 4-6, 27, 31, 40, 49, and 57).
Pancheri (US Patent No. 11,263,672): discloses a fueling station network management system, including features for analyzing user furling patterns and location information (col. 4 lines 47-65).
H. Pang, P. Liu, S. Wang, Z. Wang and Z. Zhang, "Usage Pattern Analytics of Fuel Cell Vehicle Based on Big Data Analysis," 2020 10th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems (ICPES), Chengdu, China, 2020, pp. 373-378: discloses techniques for analyzing driving and refueling patterns in relation to fuel cell vehicles.
Z. Tian et al., "Real-Time Charging Station Recommendation System for Electric-Vehicle Taxis," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3098-3109, Nov. 2016: discloses charging recommendation scheduling strategies for electric vehicles, including analyzing recharging behavior patterns in pursuit of providing real-time recommendations to minimize cost/time at a charging station.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
07/02/2026
Prosecution Insights