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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/13/2015 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and” is missing before the receiving step. Appropriate correction is required.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,400,225. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination anticipated by patent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0006188 to Grigg et al.
With regard to claim 1, Grigg discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, by a beacon associated with a point-of-sale system, a beacon identifier receivable by a mobile device (¶0032: The computing system may determine when the vehicle enters the fuel station and may automatically download from the external server (which may or may not be located at the fuel station) via one or more short-range or long-range wireless mechanisms and initiate presentation of readable indicia associated with the fuel station (e.g., readable indicia for purchasing fuel) on the display. 2: The computing system may determine when the vehicle enters the fuel station and may automatically download from the external server (which may or may not be located at the fuel station) via one or more short-range or long-range wireless mechanisms and initiate presentation of readable indicia associated with the fuel station (e.g., readable indicia for purchasing fuel) on the display);
receiving, by the point-of-sale system and without interaction by a user of the mobile device, payment information associated with the user, the payment information authorizing payment for a product (¶0010: In some embodiments, the external server determines at least one of a pre-selected payment card, a pre-selected payment amount, or a discount eligibility for the purchase authorization request, processes the purchase authorization request based on one or more authorization rules, and transmits an electronic receipt to the apparatus; ¶0043: Checking in at the fuel station enables the mobile device and an external server to determine the location of the mobile device. When the user checks in at the fuel station, the mobile device may automatically initiate the payment application user interface; in view of ¶0046: Additionally, the mobile device may present a second option to fill up the fuel tank to 70% capacity (or some other predetermined percentage) and the accompanying cost of the fuel purchase based on a user-selected type of fuel purchase (e.g., regular, supreme, diesel, or the like and ¶0046: The mobile device may present a first option to fill up the fuel tank to 100% capacity and the accompanying cost of the fuel purchase based on a previously selected type of fuel purchase (e.g., regular, supreme, diesel or the like). The mobile device (or the external server) determines the cost of the fuel purchase based on determining the fuel station associated with the mobile device's location, and the prices of various fuel types associated with the fuel station. Based on the information received form the vehicle, the mobile device may determine how much fuel is needed to fill up the tank to 70% capacity, 50% capacity, or any other percentage capacity. Additionally, the mobile device may present a second option to fill up the fuel tank to 70% capacity (or some other predetermined percentage) and the accompanying cost of the fuel purchase based on a user-selected type of fuel purchase (e.g., regular, supreme, diesel, or the like).), a feature that effectively teaches an embodiment that authorizing a purchase without specifying a dollar amount authorized for the payment).
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
