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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 22-41 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 02/25/2026, wherein Claims 22, 37 and 41 have been amended by Applicant. Original claims 1-21 remain cancelled. Claims 22 and 37are independent claims reciting method and system claims. Claims 23-36 and 38-41 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the amended claims and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 25 FEBRUARY 2026 for its original application of 23 MARCH 2018 that is titled: “Method and Apparatus for Transmitting Transaction Data Using a Public Data Network”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 22-41 are now being rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention. Examiner notes the following rejections ---
Independent Claim 22, line 13 recites a limitation “a fuel controller” that is unclear and/or indefinite. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in line 2 as “a fuel controller” providing proper antecedent basis for the recitation of “the fuel controller” at end of line 2 also. Examiner suggests changing the limitation in line 13 to “the fuel controller” with line 2 providing proper antecedent basis.
Claims 23-36, depending from independent Claim 22 directly or indirectly, are rejected because they have at least the same deficiencies/errors as described above, due to their dependency on independent Claim 22.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-41 of the instant application (18/603086) are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of application (18/745511). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite means or steps that are substantially the same and that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 02/25/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 22 and 37 are independent method and system claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 22: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: determining that a first portion of the first alphanumeric code matches a dynamic authentication code that changes at periodic intervals; determining that a second portion of the first alphanumeric code matches a user-specific passcode that is static until changed by a user; determining a user identifier associated with the first alphanumeric code; determining a fuel allocation amount associated with the user identifier, wherein the fuel allocation amount is determined based at least in part on a trip identifier associated with the user identifier; and to authorize dispensing of fuel corresponding to the fuel allocation amount. These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: fuel controller, fuel dispensing pump, processors coupled with memory and input device that are utilized as in --- determining, by a fuel controller of a fuel dispensing pump, the fuel controller comprising one or more processors coupled to memory, a first alphanumeric code, wherein the first alphanumeric code is input at an input device coupled to the fuel pump, and causing, by the fuel controller, the fuel dispensing pump to automatically deactivate when the fuel allocation amount is reached. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The fuel controller, fuel dispensing pump, processors coupled with memory and input device in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0065]--[0072] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“ [0065] The data storage 720 may further store various types of data utilized by components of the remote server 700. Any data stored in the data storage 720 may be loaded into the memory 704 for use by the processor(s) 702 in executing computer-executable code. In addition, any data depicted as being stored in the data storage 720 may potentially be stored in one or more datastore(s) and may be accessed via the DBMS 724 and loaded in the memory 704 for use by the processor(s) 702 in executing computer-executable code. The datastore(s) may include, but are not limited to, databases (e.g., relational, object-oriented, etc.), file systems, flat files, distributed datastores in which data is stored on more than one node of a computer network, peer-to-peer network datastores, or the like. In FIG. 7, the datastore(s) may include, for example, user preference information, customer and/or user account allocation information, user profile information, and other information. ……………………………
[0066] The processor(s) 702 may be configured to access the memory 704 and execute computer-executable instructions loaded therein. For example, the processor(s) 702 may be configured to execute computer-executable instructions of the various program module(s), applications, engines, or the like of the remote server 700 to cause or facilitate various operations to be performed in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. The processor(s) 702 may include any suitable processing unit capable of accepting data as input, processing the input data in accordance with stored computer-executable instructions, and generating output data. The processor(s) 702 may include any type of suitable processing unit including, but not limited to, a central processing unit, a microprocessor, a Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) microprocessor, a Complex Instruction Set Computer (CISC) microprocessor, a microcontroller, an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a System-on-a-Chip (SoC), a digital signal processor (DSP), and so forth. Further, the processor(s) 702 may have any suitable microarchitecture design that includes any number of constituent components such as, for example, registers, multiplexers, arithmetic logic units, cache controllers for controlling read/write operations to cache memory, branch predictors, or the like. The microarchitecture design of the processor(s) 702 may be capable of supporting any of a variety of instruction sets. ………………………………………………………..
[0067] Referring now to functionality supported by the various program module(s) depicted in FIG. 7, the authorization module(s) 726 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 702 may perform functions including, but not limited to, determining whether to authorize a transaction, controlling point of sale devices, causing point of sale devices to approve transactions, determining payment credentials associated with user accounts, determining validity of alphanumeric codes, determining user accounts associated with alphanumeric codes, and the like. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0068] The communication module(s) 728 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 702 may perform functions including, but not limited to, communicating with one or more devices, for example, via wired or wireless communication, communicating with remote servers, communicating with remote datastores, sending or receiving notifications or approvals, communicating with cache memory data, and the like. ……………………………………………………………
[0069] The allocation module(s) 730 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 702 may perform functions including, but not limited to, determining fuel allocation amounts, determining user accounts, determining item purchase amounts, and the like. …………………………………………..………
[0070] The energy dispensing module(s) 732 may include computer-executable instructions, code, or the like that responsive to execution by one or more of the processor(s) 702 may perform functions including, but not limited to, controlling fuel dispensing pump operation, determining amounts of fuel dispensed, determining alphanumeric codes input at a fuel dispensing pump, and the like. …………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0071] Referring now to other illustrative components depicted as being stored in the data storage 720, the O/S 722 may be loaded from the data storage 720 into the memory 704 and may provide an interface between other application software executing on the remote server 700 and hardware resources of the remote server 700. More specifically, the O/S 722 may include a set of computer-executable instructions for managing hardware resources of the remote server 700 and for providing common services to other application programs (e.g., managing memory allocation among various application programs). The O/S 722 may include any operating system now known or which may be developed in the future including, but not limited to, any server operating system, any mainframe operating system, or any other proprietary or non-proprietary operating system. …………………………………………………………….
[0072] The DBMS 724 may be loaded into the memory 704 and may support functionality for accessing, retrieving, storing, and/or manipulating data stored in the memory 704 and/or data stored in the data storage 720. The DBMS 724 may use any of a variety of database models (e.g., relational model, object model, etc.) and may support any of a variety of query languages. The DBMS 724 may access data represented in one or more data schemas and stored in any suitable data repository including, but not limited to, databases (e.g., relational, object-oriented, etc.), file systems, flat files, distributed datastores in which data is stored on more than one node of a computer network, peer-to-peer network datastores, or the like. In those example embodiments in which the remote server 700 is a mobile device, the DBMS 724 may be any suitable light-weight DBMS optimized for performance on a mobile device. …”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 37, which performs the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 22. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 23-36, further narrow the independent method Claim 22 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the input device is a keypad disposed at the fuel dispensing pump; …… determining an item allocation amount associated with the user identifier …; …… determining a first geographic location of the fuel dispensing pump …; ……determining a value associated with the fuel dispensing; determining a payment account associated with the user identifier …; transmitting the first portion of the first alphanumeric code to a remote server …; wherein the fuel controller is configured to locally determine that the first portion of the first alphanumeric code matches the dynamic authentication code; wherein the dynamic authentication code is generated using a time-based one-time password algorithm; wherein the first portion of the first alphanumeric code is dynamic, and wherein the second portion of the first alphanumeric code is static; wherein the first portion of the first alphanumeric code is presented via a display of an electronic device having a credit card form factor with credit card dimensions, and wherein the electronic device is devoid of an antenna; wherein the fuel dispensing pump is an electric vehicle charging station; wherein the second portion of the first alphanumeric code is shorter than the first portion of the first alphanumeric code; wherein the first alphanumeric code further comprises a third portion that is static, and wherein the first alphanumeric code has a sequence of the third portion, the second portion, and the first portion; wherein the first portion of the first alphanumeric code is presented via a display of a mobile device; wherein the first alphanumeric code is input at the input device at a first time interval, and is input at a point of sale terminal that is decoupled from the fuel dispensing pump at a second time interval; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 22. Similarly, dependent system Claims 38-41 also further narrow their independent Claim 37, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's claim amendments and remarks (on pages 7/8/9) dated 25 FEBRUARY 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that all of the previous rejections under 35 USC §112, second paragraph, and all of the previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been added above based on the claim amendments of 02/25/2026. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein under 35 USC 101 and Double Patenting, with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 02/25/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 02/25/2026 traversing the 101 rejection that these claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity (on page 7), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further, Examiner notes that these claims describe a process for fuel sales (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices), wherein customer uses an alphanumeric code (i.e., commercial or legal interactions), wherein user identifier is associated with said code at point of sale (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and thus, these claims are an abstract idea falling under “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 02/25/2026 that the instant application overcomes rejection under 35 USC 101 “under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis” (see bottom of page 8), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further, Examiner notes that the instant application provides a business solution at best, and not a technological solution as described in para [0033] that recites generic computer and processor for “authorize transaction (360)” (using passcodes for purchase of motor fuel) and “process payment using payment credential (390)” (which is any credit card) --- {“FIG. 3 is a schematic illustration of a hybrid system architecture and data flow 300 for issuer-agnostic payments using dynamic alphanumeric codes in accordance with one or more example embodiments of the disclosure. Other embodiments may have different architectures and/or include additional, fewer, or different components.”}. Additionally, Examiner respectfully notes that under the 2019 PEG, 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 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea --- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Please note that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application that form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights