Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/651,053

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUSLY OPERATING A SERVICE ENVIRONMENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
HOFFMAN, BRANDON S
Art Unit
2433
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings LLC
OA Round
6 (Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1125 granted / 1238 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1269
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1238 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. Applicant’s arguments, filed November 4, 2025, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harter (U.S. Patent No. 9,117,233) in view of Nafeh et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0142412). Regarding claims 1 and 11, Harter teaches an apparatus for autonomously operating a service environment, the apparatus comprising: at least a processor (col. 2, lines 51-67); and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to (col. 2, lines 51-67): receive a service request from a user interface, wherein the service request includes a request for a car wash related service and wherein the service request further includes a pre-order service request initiated by a user prior to user’s arrival at a car wash facility (col. 3, lines 29-43 and lines 59-60); implement an intentional delay to accommodate the reception of the service request (col. 1, line 62 through col. 2, line 3); generate a digital access token as a function of the service request using a token generation module, wherein the digital access token comprises a token parameter related to at least a data structure of the plurality of data structures (col. 6, lines 6-27); and initiate a service protocol as a function of the digital access token, wherein initiating the service protocol comprises: transmitting the digital access token to an access control system (col. 4, lines 25-40); authenticating the digital access token using the access control system (col. 4, lines 45-65); and preparing the car wash facility for the car wash related service (col. 4, line 66 through col. 5, line 22). Harter does not teach process the service request by indexing data extracted from the service request using a rule-based algorithm to classify the extracted data to a plurality of data structures or using a smart contract. Nafeh et al. teaches process the service request by indexing data extracted from the service request using a rule-based algorithm to classify the extracted data to a plurality of data structures (paragraph 0618); and using a smart contract (paragraph 0618). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to using a rule-based algorithm to classify the extracted data and use a smart contract, as taught by Nafeh et al., with the method of Harter. It would have been obvious for such modifications because a smart contract allows decentralized trust between parties, which in a car wash environment, provides trust between parties for payments, membership, and history. The combination of Harter and Nafeh et al. do not teach wherein at least one of the plurality of data structures is configured to be labeled using geographical data, and wherein the at least a processor is further configured, responsive to receipt of the pre-order service request and the authenticating, to: detect a geofence associated with the car wash facility, wherein the geofence comprises a digital boundary; and trigger, responsive to a device associated with the digital access token entering the geofence, an action comprising at least one of: allocating a resource, pre-setting service equipment and transmitting a notification. Haibara et al. teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of data structures is configured to be labeled using geographical data, and wherein the at least a processor is further configured, responsive to receipt of the pre-order service request and the authenticating, to: detect a geofence associated with the car wash facility, wherein the geofence comprises a digital boundary; and trigger, responsive to a device associated with the digital access token entering the geofence, an action comprising at least one of: allocating a resource, pre-setting service equipment and transmitting a notification (fig. 6 and 7, paragraph 0076 and 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine using a geofence for pre-ordered car washes, as taught by Haibara et al., with the method of Harter/Nafeh et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because the geofence positioning ensures the car is in the proper location for an autonomous car wash experience. Regarding claims 2 and 12, Harter teaches wherein receiving the service request comprises using an optical character recognition process to parse data from digital graphics received through a user interface (col. 6, lines 6-27). Regarding claims 3 and 13, Harter as modified by Nafeh et al. teaches wherein receiving the service request comprises implementing a chatbot through a user interface (see paragraph 0621 of Nafeh et al.). Regarding claims 4 and 14, Harter as modified by Nafeh et al. teaches wherein the rule-based algorithm comprises a classification tree (see paragraph 0618 of Nafeh et al.). Regarding claims 5 and 15, Harter as modified by Nafeh et al. teaches wherein digital access token is time-sensitive (see paragraph 0261 of Nafeh et al.). Regarding claims 6 and 16, Harter teaches wherein the token generation module comprises an immutable sequential enumeration based platform to issue the digital access token to an immutable sequential enumeration (col. 6, lines 6-27). Regarding claims 7 and 17, Harter as modified by Nafeh et al. teaches wherein issuing the digital access token to the immutable sequential enumeration comprises encrypting the digital access token (see paragraph 0621 of Nafeh et al.). Regarding claims 8 and 18, Harter teaches wherein the access control system comprises a physical barrier configured as a primary point of entry to the car wash facility (col. 2, lines 22-38). Regarding claims 9 and 19, Harter as modified by Nafeh et al. teaches wherein authenticating the digital access token comprises performing a hash verification (see paragraph 0618 of Nafeh et al.). Regarding claims 10 and 20, Harter as modified by Nafeh et al. teaches wherein processing the service request further comprises using an automatic speech recognition process to extract audible verbal content (see paragraph 0619 of Nafeh et al.). Conclusion 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 BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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 Pwu can be reached on (571)272-6798. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 29, 2024
Interview Requested
Aug 05, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 05, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 27, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598185
DESCENDENT CASE ROLE ALIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597311
Access Control System for Electric Vehicle Charging
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579293
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR API GATEWAY SYNCHRONIZATION WITH CLOUD STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579295
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566878
DATA SANITIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1238 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month