DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed May 11, 2026 in which claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 20 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 1.
The claims 1-15 are directed to a method and claims 16-20 are directed to a system which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 16 recites : a device; memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more computer processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to: determine a first alphanumeric code via an input device disposed at an energy dispensing station, wherein the first alphanumeric code is input at the energy dispensing station configured to dispense energy; determine that a first portion of the first alphanumeric code matches a dynamic authentication code; determine that a second portion of the first alphanumeric code matches a user-specific passcode; determine a user identifier associated with the first alphanumeric code, wherein the user identifier is associated with a user account; determine an allocation amount associated with the user identifier; cause the energy dispensing station to authorize a transfer of energy corresponding to the allocation amount; cause a fuel controller to activate the energy dispensing station for an amount of energy corresponding to the allocation amount; determine, at the energy dispensing station, that the amount of energy has been dispensed; and cease, at the energy dispensing station, dispensing of energy. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Commercial or legal interaction. Managing commercial fuel sales by selling fuel is a commercial interaction. The claim also recites a device, memory comprising computer-executable instructions, computer processors, an input device, an energy dispensing station and a fuel controller which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a device, memory comprising computer-executable instructions, computer processors, an input device, an energy dispensing station and a fuel controller, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 16 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a device, memory comprising computer-executable instructions, computer processors, an input device, an energy dispensing station and a fuel controller result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a device, memory comprising computer-executable instructions, computer processors, an input device, an energy dispensing station and a fuel controller to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 3, Fig. 7). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a device, memory comprising computer-executable instructions, computer processors, an input device, an energy dispensing station and a fuel controller are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar analysis can he extended to other independent claim 1 and hence the claims 1 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 16. In addition, claim 1 also recites a fuel controller and a fuel dispensing pump which amounts to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1 and claim 16 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 3 and 17 recite the additional element of a point of sale device. A point of sale device is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of a user device. A user device is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 6 and 19 recite the additional element of a remote server. A remote server is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 10 recite the additional element of an electronic device and an antenna. Both an electronic device and an antenna are recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 11 recite the additional element of an electric vehicle charging station. An electric vehicle charging station is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 14 recite the additional element of a mobile device. A mobile device is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 15 recite the additional element of a point of sale terminal. A point of sale terminal is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
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 a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible.
No Prior art
4. The prior art rejection was withdrawn in the office action dated June 05, 2025 based on the applicants’ arguments regarding the prior art of record. An updated search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed dated 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained above in the 101 analysis and in view of the board decision on March 16, 2026.
Examiner Request
6. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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 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 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.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights