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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the Preliminary Amendments filed on 1/13/2025.
Claims 2-17 are newly added.
Claim 1 was canceled.
Therefore, claims 2-17 are pending and addressed below.
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 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-17 are directed to a method, a system, and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…first data to be transmitted, wherein the first data comprises data that uniquely identifies the product dispenser, after causing the first data to be transmitted, receiving a secure key, after receiving second data indicating authorized customer payment for the product, allowing the product to be dispensed, wherein the second data is received wirelessly over the secure connection and is encrypted using the secure key”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, e.g., receiving payment for a product and dispensing the product to the customer) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions 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 recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of a product dispenser, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a memory, a wireless network and a mobile device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “… transmitted… first data; receiving …a secure key; establishing… a secure connection … to communicate … securely; receiving … second data…, allowing the product to be dispensed …from the product dispenser”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or a general link to the particular technological environment of a wireless network. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the product dispenser, the wireless transceiver, the processor, the memory, the wireless network and the mobile device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “… transmitted… first data; receiving …a secure key; establishing… a secure connection … to communicate … securely; receiving … second data…, allowing the product to be dispensed …from the product dispenser”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception generic computer components and/or a general link to the particular technological environment of a wireless network. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is rejected based on the same reasoning in claim 2. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 11-17 are dependent on claims 2 and 10. Therefore, claims 3-9 and 11-17 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 2 and 10. Claims 3-9 and 11-17 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the product dispenser and the mobile device included in the dependent claims 6, 7, 14, 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…transmitted the first data…in response receiving an unsecure request…” (claim 6 and claim 14); and “transmitted …the third data…” (claim 7 and claim 15), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or a general link to the particular technological environment of a wireless network. 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 3-9 and 11-17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the product dispenser and the mobile device included in the dependent claims 6, 7, 14, 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…transmitted the first data…in response receiving an unsecure request…” (claim 6 and claim 14); and “transmitted …the third data…” (claim 7 and claim 15), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or a general link to the particular technological environment of a wireless network. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 3-9 and 11-17 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (2017/0109722) and Carapelli (2013/0246171), and further in view of Harrell (2015/0120476).
As per claims 2 and 10, Morris teaches a dispensing system and a method (via a fueling environment 100 in which one or more of the systems and methods, see paragraph 36 and Fig.1) comprising:
a product dispenser configured to dispense a product including at least one of (via a fuel dispenser 102, see paragraphs 8-9, 30, 36-37 and Fig.1-Fig.2):
fuel dispensable to a vehicle through a nozzle (see paragraphs 8-9, 30, 36-37 and Fig.1-Fig.2),
drinking liquid,
electricity,
air,
lottery tickets, and
food;
wherein the product dispenser comprises (via the fuel dispenser 102 can also include a computer system, see paragraphs 36-37, 43-50 and Fig.1-Fig.2):
a wireless transceiver (see paragraph 43-51, Fig.1-Fig.2),
a processor (see paragraph 44 and Fig.1-Fig.2), and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (see paragraphs 44-45 and Fig.1-Fig.2):
causing first data to be transmitted wirelessly to a mobile device, wherein the first data comprises data that uniquely identifies the product dispenser (via FIG. 3B illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) 320 that can be presented to the user at a point of the process of interaction between the mobile device 304 and the fuel dispenser 102. The fuel dispenser 102 is identified as a pump number “7”, see icon 322, paragraphs 54-57, Fig.3A-Fig.3B),
after causing the first data to be transmitted wirelessly to the mobile device, establishing a secure connection with the mobile device that allows the product dispenser to communicate securely with the mobile device (via after a user input is received specifying a selection and/or confirmation of the selection of a particular fuel dispenser, a BLE connection can be established between that fuel dispenser (in this example, fuel dispenser 102) and the mobile device 304, see paragraph 62).
Morris does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein wirelessly receiving a secure key from the mobile device, after receiving second data from the mobile device indicating authorized customer payment for the product, allowing the product to be dispensed from the product dispenser, wherein the second data is received wirelessly over the secure connection.
Carapelli teaches this limitation wherein wirelessly receiving a secure key from the mobile device (via the customer may be prompted by the app to enter a PIN code into the phone. The PIN code is then transmitted to the central server for confirmation, as indicated at 48, see paragraphs 42, 45, 48 and 63), after receiving second data from the mobile device indicating authorized customer payment for the product, allowing the product to be dispensed from the product dispenser, wherein the second data is received wirelessly over the secure connection (via the app may prompt the user to select a desired method of payment (second data), the fueling transaction is then authorized based on the customer's selected method of payment, and the fuel is allowed to be dispensed, see paragraphs 3, 48-50 and Fig.2-Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Morris and Carapelli in order to provide a PIN code of Carapelli in Morris so that the data would be transmitted more securely.
The combination of Morris and Carapelli does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the data is encrypted using the secure key.
Harrell teaches this limitation wherein the data is encrypted using the secure key (via encrypting the data portion by any appropriate scheme (e.g., a public key or a private key scheme), see paragraphs 166-168 and Fig.15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell in order to provide a dispense manager 210 of Harrell so that the second data would be encrypted more securely.
As per claims 3 and 11, Morris teaches the limitation wherein the product dispenser includes a fuel dispenser and the product includes at least the fuel (see paragraphs 8-9, 36-37 and Fig.1-Fig.2).
As per claim 8 and 16, Morris teaches the limitation wherein the mobile device comprises one of a phone, a tablet, a laptop, and a smartwatch (see paragraph 38).
As per claims 9 and 17, Morris teaches the limitation wherein the mobile device comprises a device integrated into a vehicle (via the user device 104 can be located within a vehicle, see paragraph 38).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (2017/0109722), Carapelli (2013/0246171) and Harrell (2015/0120476), and further in view of SZETO (2018/0096326).
As per claims 4 and 12, the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the product includes at least the electricity.
SZETO teach the limitation wherein the product includes at least the electricity (paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Morris, Carapelli, Harrell and SZETO in order to provide a product supplier system 152 of SZETO so that the fuel dispenser in the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell would be displayed with more products and more coupons to the users conveniently.
Claims 5, 7, 13 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (2017/0109722), Carapelli (2013/0246171) and Harrell (2015/0120476), and further in view of Chittenden, JR. et al. (2014/0100692).
As per claims 5 and 13, the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell teach the limitation wherein the product includes at least one of the air (via data regarding services at the fueling facility (e.g., air pump), see in Harrell paragraph 183) and the food (see in Harrell paragraphs 177 and 183).
However, the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the product includes the lottery tickets.
Chittenden, JR. teaches the limitations wherein the product includes the lottery tickets (see paragraph 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell in order to provide a system 100 of Chittenden, JR. so that the fuel dispenser in the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell would be displayed with more products and more coupons to the users conveniently.
As per claims 7 and 15, the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein causing third data to be transmitted wirelessly to the mobile device during the dispensing of the product from the product dispenser; and the third data indicates a status of the dispensing of the product from the product dispenser.
Chittenden, JR. teaches the limitations wherein causing third data to be transmitted wirelessly to the mobile device during the dispensing of the product from the product dispenser; and the third data indicates a status of the dispensing of the product from the product dispenser (see paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell in order to provide the transaction gateway component 110 of Chittenden, JR. so that the fuel dispenser transactions in the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell would be processed more efficiently.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (2017/0109722), Carapelli (2013/0246171) and Harrell (2015/0120476), and further in view of COUNTERMAN (2017/0295494).
As per claims 6 and 14, the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell teach the limitation wherein the first data is caused to be transmitted wirelessly to the mobile device to establish the secure connection (via FIG. 3B illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) 320 that can be presented to the user at a point of the process of interaction between the mobile device 304 and the fuel dispenser 102. The fuel dispenser 102 is identified as a pump number “7”. After a user input is received specifying a selection and/or confirmation of the selection of a particular fuel dispenser, a BLE connection can be established between that fuel dispenser (in this example, fuel dispenser 102) and the mobile device 304, see in Morris icon 322, paragraphs 54-57, 62, and Fig.3A-Fig.3B).
However, the combination of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the product dispenser receiving an unsecure request from the mobile device.
COUNTERMAN teaches this limitation wherein the product dispenser receiving an unsecure request from the mobile device (via the mobile device 205 sent the authorization request using an unsecured transmission protocol (e.g., HTTP), and service enforcement device 230 receives the authorization request at, a different port (e.g., a second port), see paragraphs 43-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Morris, Carapelli and Harrell in order to provide a service enforcement device 230 of COUNTERMAN so that the mobile device would be provided a secure connection with the fuel dispenser.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 10 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,902,422 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 15/888,663). Both claim 10 of the instant application and claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,902,422 recites the limitations of establishing the secure connection between the fuel dispenser and the mobile device using the secure key and the authorized of payment is encrypted using the secure key. However, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,902,422 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 10 of the instant application, such as receiving at a fuel dispenser via a wireless communication link a request from a mobile device to establish a secure connection between the fuel dispenser and the mobile device; after the request to establish the secure connection is received, receiving from the mobile device, via the wireless communication link, a secure key for secure communication between the fuel dispenser and the mobile device. Accordingly, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,902,422 are directed to a species of claim 10 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,902,422 so that the mobile and the fuel dispenser in claim 10 of the instant application would be connected more securely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
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 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights