DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 13, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on November 13, 2025.
• Claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, 20-22, 24-29 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 30-33 have been added.
• Claims 1-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 112 rejections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 13, that the Office Action mischaracterizes/oversimplifies the claims, and that the Office Action ignores specific claim limitations and how the steps improve the functioning of the computer itself, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that each claim was given the full and proper analysis under the test set forth by the Supreme Court and the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106).
Applicant further argues on page 13 that the claims improve computer systems and the functioning of a computer itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of managing payment instruments for vehicle fleets and provides a solution of authorizing the use of a specific payment instruments specific to a driver and vehicle (see at least [0003] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., managing payment instruments for vehicle fleets, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 13, that the claims recite solutions rooted in computer technology and overcome a problem arising in the realm of authorization logic and mechanism to verify user permissions, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. The Examiner notes that improving authorization of transactions and verifying user permissions associated with transacting with a payment device does not describe an improvement to technology; rather it describes an improvement to a business process.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14, that the claims improve speed, efficiency, and security of computers, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, it is noted, “‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.” Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“These benefits, however, are not improvements to database functionality. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database structure.”). The specification offers no explanation of how or why the claimed invention improves speed, efficiency, and security, only an unexplained and unsupported conclusion on the subject.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14, that the specific ordering and combination of claim elements are not generic but rather result in a more efficient and technically improved way of enforcing authorization, and that the claims meaningfully limit the scope to a particular implementation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a system comprising: a data processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions and a data repository maintaining an associative triad data structure; a consolidated structured data lookup; computer-executable conditions; the computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the data processor cause the data processor to perform operations; a first computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one data processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, a data repository, and computer-executable conditions; at least one data structure stored in a memory such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 13 that the claims provide an improvement to the field of asset management, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0003], describing a problem of managing payment instruments for vehicle fleets and provides a solution of authorizing the use of a specific payment instruments specific to a driver and vehicle
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10, 20, 26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 20, 26, and 31 recite the feature of a second computing device configured in the physical asset. The Specification is devoid of support for the feature of a computing device being configured in a physical asset. For example, no embodiments of the Specification describe a computer or phone configured in a vehicle. Therefore, it is new matter.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, 28, and 29 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 11), and an apparatus (claims 28 and 29). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 11, 28, and 29 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 11, 28, and 29 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 11 to illustrate, the claim recites an associative triad data structure that defines a relationship between a payment instrument, a user of the payment instrument, and a physical asset, and enables to approve authorization requests using a lookup; dynamically configurable policies defining one or more rules comprising conditions specifying authorization requirements for the payment instrument, the user of the payment instrument, and the physical asset based on the associative triad data structure; receiving data characterizing a request for authorization of a payment instrument, wherein the request includes a first identifier identifying the payment instrument and the payment instrument is unassociated with a user presenting the payment instrument with a physical asset when the data characterizing the request for authorization is received; obtaining at least one of a second identifier identifying the user of the payment instrument and a third identifier identifying the physical asset; determining an association between the first identifier, the second identifier, and the third identifier using the associative triad data structure, wherein the association is determined dynamically and causes the unassociated payment instrument to be associated with the user presenting the payment instrument with the physical asset; comparing the association against the set of dynamically configurable policies; determining, based on the comparing of the association against the one or more rules, to approve the request for authorization; and transmitting data to approve the request for authorization. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for assigning payment cards for employee users to use in association with transactions for physical assets, receiving an authorization request, obtaining authorization data, and approving the request based on a rule, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a data processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a system comprising: a data processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions and a data repository maintaining an associative triad data structure; a consolidated structured data lookup; computer-executable conditions; the computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the data processor cause the data processor to perform operations; a first computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one data processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, a data repository, and computer-executable conditions; at least one data structure stored in a memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving a request, obtaining identification data, determining an association between data, determining to approve a request, and transmitting the approval) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-10, 12-25 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 26-27, and 30-33 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-33 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8267317 B1 (“Gulli”) discloses fuel management system for use by operators of temporary and/or permanent inventories of vehicles such as vehicle dealerships. Fuel vouchers are issued by authorized issuing personnel to authorized recipients if a validation procedure is passed using a database incorporating employee and vehicle inventory information. At the time of delivery, the fueling station will verify the vehicle and individual presenting the voucher. If verification occurs, the authorized quantity of fuel is dispensed. The voucher and sales receipt are returned to the dealership for future auditing and report generation. The system stores information to enable reports to be generated concerning fuel voucher issuance, actual fuel usage and to detect fraud or misuse, allowing more effective fuel expense management. In the event a report generates a fraud alert, appropriate management personnel are immediately notified by email, text messaging or other means.
CA 2972020 C (“Ates”) discloses a point of sale (POS) terminal is programmed to execute EMV transactions by interaction with payment devices in accordance with a standard EMV transaction flow. An EMV transaction is commenced at the POS terminal with a particular payment device. The POS terminal receives a request from the payment device to interrupt the EMV transaction. The POS terminal responds to the request by interrupting the EMV transaction and taking an action indicated by the request. The action is not required for execution of the standard EMV transaction flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694