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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17 are pending. Claims 2, 5, and 9 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 17 have been amended.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15 are a system and claim 17 is a method claim. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1 and 17, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A gas station information-provision system comprising:
a knocking sensor provided on an engine of the vehicle and configured to detect knocking occurring during operation of the engine;
a display device provided in a vehicle at least one processor and at least one memory having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive detection result of the knocking sensor provided on an engine of the vehicle to detect knocking occurring during operation of the engine,
determine a fueling history of the vehicle using a first fuel type, among a plurality of fuel types, based on a number of knocking detections according to the detection result of the knocking sensor;
analyze a fueling pattern with the first fuel type based on the determined fueling history of the vehicle using the first fuel type,
determine an optimal fueling time for the first fuel type based on the fueling pattern with the first fuel type,
And based on determining that a preset fueling condition according to the fueling history with the first fuel type is satisfied based on the optimal fueling time, control the display device to output gas station information associated with a gas station available for fueling with the first fuel type on a map screen of the display device within a certain range based on a current location of the vehicle displayed on the map screen of the display device,
wherein the first fuel type has a higher octane number than a second fuel type among the plurality of fuel types, wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for determining a fueling history of a vehicle in order to output additional information such as gas station information, location, brand, pricing, and discount information (and see [0002] of the specification). The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under marketing and sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Further the claims recite a mental process. That is the determining of the fueling history, analyzing the fueling pattern, determining an optimal fueling time, and then presenting a list of gas station information based on the analysis could be done by pen and paper. Further the criteria of the fuel types based on the octane levels and fuel frequency could be tracked by pen and paper.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A gas station information-provision system comprising: a display device provided in a vehicle at least one processor and at least one memory having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (claim 1)
at least one processor (claim 17)
A gas station information-provision system comprising:
a knocking sensor provided on an engine of the vehicle and configured to detect knocking occurring during operation of the engine;
a display device provided in a vehicle at least one processor and at least one memory having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive detection result of the knocking sensor provided on an engine of the vehicle to detect knocking occurring during operation of the engine,
determine a fueling history of the vehicle using a first fuel type, among a plurality of fuel types, based on a number of knocking detections according to the detection result of the knocking sensor;
analyze a fueling pattern with the first fuel type based on the determined fueling history of the vehicle using the first fuel type,
determine an optimal fueling time for the first fuel type based on the fueling pattern with the first fuel type,
And based on determining that a preset fueling condition according to the fueling history with the first fuel type is satisfied based on the optimal fueling time, control the display device to output gas station information associated with a gas station available for fueling with the first fuel type on a map screen of the display device within a certain range based on a current location of the vehicle displayed on the map screen of the display device,
wherein the first fuel type has a higher octane number than a second fuel type among the plurality of fuel types, wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor.
The additional elements of emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1 and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1 and 17 without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to receive a payment history of a payment system associated with the vehicle to provide a fueling payment service, wherein the payment system is configured such that at least some components of the payment system are mounted in the vehicle. The payment system is merely an additional element collecting payment information and recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to, based on determining that the fueling history using the first fuel type is not obtained from the payment history of the payment system, determines the fueling history using the first fuel type based on the detection result of the knocking sensor. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes at least one of a fueling cycle with the first fuel type, a fueling location with the first fuel type, a fueling history using a second fuel type among the plurality fuel types, or any combination thereof. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to analyze the fueling pattern with the first fuel type further based on a detection result of a fuel sensor provided in the vehicle. The fuel sensor is merely an additional element collecting information and recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determines at least one of a fueling location, a fueling time, or a combination thereof of the vehicle depending on a change in fuel volume according to the detection result of the fuel sensor to analyze the fueling pattern with the first fuel type. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites wherein the gas station information includes at least one of brand information, location information, price information, discount information, or any combination thereof of the gas station. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to control the display device to output, among gas station information associated with gas stations available for fueling with the first fuel type, gas station information associated with gas stations located around the current location of the vehicle. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites wherein the execution part outputs the gas station information such that the gas station information is recognized within the vehicle via at least one of visual sense, auditory sense, or a combination thereof. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons, claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 17 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of:
based on determining that a preset fueling condition according to the fueling history with the first fuel type is satisfied based on the optimal fueling time, control the display device to output gas station information associated with a gas station available for fueling with the first fuel type on a map screen of the display device within a certain range based on a current location of the vehicle displayed on the map screen of the display device,
wherein the first fuel type has a higher octane number than a second fuel type among the plurality of fuel types,
wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and
wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor.
The closest are of record was found to be:
Zarakas (previously cited) which discloses monitoring the user history to include the purchases of fuel and the grade of fuel. Further, the reference provides particular fuel stations ranked based on location and prices with respect to the purchase history data. However, the reference does not disclose wherein the first fuel type has a higher octane number than a second fuel type among the plurality of fuel types, wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor, as required by the claimed invention.
Reyhani (previously cited) discloses determining the optimal fuel timing base on providing the optimal routing of the vehicle for the vehicle’s particular trip. This optimizes fuel management. However, the reference does not disclose wherein the first fuel type has a higher octane number than a second fuel type among the plurality of fuel types, wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor, as required by the claimed invention.
Koike (US 4960095) discloses [Col. 17 lines 50-55] in FIG. 16, the frequency of occurrence of knocking used for determining the octane number of fuel (the octane number of fuel used is determined based on the knocking frequency, and the retarding amount of the ignition timing is set depending on the octane number). However, the reference does not disclose wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor as required by the claimed invention.
NPL: “Engine knock detection for a multifuel engine using engine block vibration with statistical approach” discloses using a knock index to quantify knock intensity for each engine cycle (pages 4-5 and shown in Figure 8). The operation is performed only for diesel engine over time. However, the reference does not disclose wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor as required by the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claim 17) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
based on determining that a preset fueling condition according to the fueling history with the first fuel type is satisfied based on the optimal fueling time, control the display device to output gas station information associated with a gas station available for fueling with the first fuel type on a map screen of the display device within a certain range based on a current location of the vehicle displayed on the map screen of the display device,
wherein the first fuel type has a higher octane number than a second fuel type among the plurality of fuel types,
wherein the fueling pattern of the first fuel type includes a fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type, and
wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the fueling frequency with the first fuel type relative to the second fuel type based on a change in a number of knocking detections determined based on the detection result of the knocking sensor.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Relevant Art Not Cited
US 20170363432 discloses determining the optimal fueling schedule and location for a vehicle
Response to Arguments
With respect to the remarks filed 7/14/2026 directed to 35 USC 103, the remarks are determined to be moot in light of the withdraw of the prior art rejections as set forth under “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art”.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments directed to prong 1, based on the claim amendments, the rejection has been updated. The examiner still maintains that the output of the gas station information available to the user base on the collected fueling data is a form of marketing and advertising. That is the output of the gas stations is advertising where to stop for fuel (i.e. a recommendation to the end user). However, as amended the claims now also fall into the category of mental process. While the claims recite the additional elements of the knocking sensor and processor to aid in the collection of data, the steps of determining fuel history, analyzing fuel patterns, determining optimal fueling time, identifying gas stations available, and processing fueling frequency data could all be done by pen and paper. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), the mental process can be recited in the claims even when the mental process is being performed by a computer and/or computer environment.
With respect to the arguments directed to prong 2, the knocking sensor as amended has been considered as an additional element. As shown in the updated rejection, the claims additionally fall into a mental process and like the consideration under method of organizing human activity, the knocking sensor is used as a sensor (generic computer data collection element) for collecting information that is used in the abstract idea. The knocking sensor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not improve the vehicle engine itself or the technology to monitor the engine. At most, the improvement lies the abstract idea (what is collected and how it is analyze) and not the technology itself.
As to the remarks directed to step 2B, for the same reasons set forth above, the claim limitations directed to an abstract idea and alone or in combination with the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights