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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received February 11, 2026.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
receive a plurality of alerts relating to a building, the plurality of alerts comprising alert types; identify a set of alert disposition options for the plurality of alerts based on the alert types; estimate probabilities of use for the set of alert disposition options based on selected alert disposition options for a plurality of historical alerts related to the building; calculate, for the set of alert disposition options, alert disposition risk scores using the estimated probabilities of use of the set of alert disposition options; calculate, for the plurality of alerts, alert risk scores based on a combination of the alert disposition risk scores for the set of alert disposition options of the plurality of alerts; present two or more of the plurality of alerts based on the alert risk scores; automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of the building equipment of the building associated with the alert.
Claim 11:
A method of operating a facility security system, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of alerts, wherein a first alert of the plurality of alerts comprises an alert activation signal, an alert type, and a set of alert contextual data; identifying a set of alert disposition options for the first alert based on the alert type; classifying an alert disposition option for the first alert estimates a probability of use of the alert disposition option within the set of alert disposition options initially trained using historical alert data, determining an alert risk score for the first alert, wherein the alert risk score aggregates one or more risk model outputs, further wherein the one or more risk model outputs is based on an alert disposition option classification, a level of security interest of the alert disposition option, and a cost of loss of an asset monitored by the facility security system; prioritizing the first alert based on the alert risk score; presenting, a prioritized list of the plurality of alerts, the prioritized list comprising the plurality of alerts, alert risk scores, and alert disposition options; recording the alert disposition option selected by a user for the first alert; and storing the recorded alert disposition option and estimate probability of use for the set of alert disposition options based on the alert disposition option selected by the user for the first alert; automatically executing, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of the building equipment of the building associated with the alert.
The abstract idea above, which is drawn from Applicant’s claim language, describes a mental process because the steps are observing and judgment. Receiving information is observing information and identifying classifying selecting prioritizing are judgement steps. Recording or presenting can be done with pen and paper. Automatic execution which under a broadest reasonable interpretation includes a rules based execution (if x, then do y), includes writing on pen and paper an instruction for someone to be carried out. Together these are steps that one can perform mentally and therefore the claims describe a mental process. Further, they are similar to Parker v Flook, a formula for calculating an alarm limit based on variables. See MPEP 2106.04, 2106.05(h).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements taken in combination amount instructions to apply generic computer elements such as memory, processor, and user interface to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Taken together they amount to a generic computer (bc all generic computers – mobile phones, laptops etc – have them); as well as a classifier engine where an engine is an input-output element that, like a function, takes an input and produces an output. Additionally the classifier model is trained which merely describes which kind of classifier engine is being used (a trained one), and per claim 11 the classifier engine is retrained however as described in Example 47 claim 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility training examples, see ttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility , which was found to be ineligible because the training at its broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematical calculation. Alternatively it is an apply it limitation because the retraining describes generally the kind of data used but there is no detail as to how the retraining is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) – a desired outcome or result is what is claimed). The initially trained (claim 11) and trained (claim 1) are not positively recited steps as under a broadest reasonable interpretation they describe something that occurred in the past (an out of the box solution that is applied in the claims).
Here the classifier engine takes inputs and sometimes gives outputs, where the classifier engine in claim 11 also takes an input for storage without a further step. However, as this only performs a desired function or result without detail as to how it functions, this is an apply it step. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Further, in combination this amounts to a classifier on a generic computer which is equivalent to saying that the abstract idea is run on a computer using software techniques. Therefore, as the elements are alone and in combination instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computing components, this is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the practical application section is applied here: for the same reason that the combination of elements is not a practical application, the combination is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per claims 2 and 12, which are similar in scope, the abstract idea is further defined with an alert severity rating, an information element that one could choose mentally to use to describe a number or condition.
Per claims 3 and 13, like 2 and 12, these are labels for information that one could decide to use to describe alerts.
Per claims 4 and 14, which are similar in scope, using a table to choose actions is like using a paper spreadsheet as that would teach table, and that it is stored on a system teaches using a generic computer to store information, like a PC storing an excel file.
Per claims 5 and 15, which are similar in scope, choosing options that are a assigned a code is a further mental process step.
Per claims 6 and 16, determining scores based on different inputs is a mental process step as it consists of preselected rules to make a final decision, like an equation. This could be done mentally or with pen and paper as they could simply be binary choices that amount to a score, or a linear equation, or a combination of both, which are readily done mentally or with pen and paper. That an engine is used is instructions to apply the abstract idea (here the linear equation) to a computer (engine is shorthand for a function).
Per claims 7 and 17, which are similar in scope, the limitation that a calculation or result is arrived at “by” a machine learning model that comprises one or more of named algorithms is an apply it limitation, instructing the user to apply the ML models to the abstract idea. This is because there is no detail as to how these models would arrive at the probability, only that they used in some way to do so.
Per claims 8 and 18, which are similar in scope, the abstract idea is further defined by the alert data comprising different sources, which could be observed. Using ML models named solely for their desired functional output (there is no indication what a “door classification model” would look like algorithmically except that the output would classify doors) is further apply it limitations.
Per claims 9 and 19, which are similar in scope, the additional element of the classification engine being, in the past (not positively claimed), trained on historical data is an apply it limitation because training using historical (alert) data is essentially describing training as it is usually done on previous data. Therefore this is a further apply it limitation.
Per claims 10 and 20, which are similar in scope, the limitation is similar to 9 and 19 where the engine is retrained using “contemporary alert data automatically collected by the system.” The retraining here is similar to the training and using the trained model as described in Example 47 claim 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility training examples, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility , which was found to be ineligible because the training at its broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematical calculation. Alternatively it is an apply it limitation because the retraining describes generally the kind of data used but there is no detail as to how the retraining is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) – a desired outcome or result is what is claimed).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Remarks:
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these features as an improvement to the technological field of building security systems. For example, by performing automated actions based on alert risks scores, the building may facilitate prioritized execution of security tasks. In addition, building resource consumption is reduced by executing the automated actions in accordance with an alert's respective alert risk score. For example, if an alert has a low alert risk score, the system may perform a more lightweight automated action, for example, by clearing the alert from the system rather than, for example, dispatching an officer. These and other reasons why the amended claims are patent-eligible under § 101 are discussed in detail below.”
Examiner Responds: A person ordinarily skilled in the art would not recognize this as an improvement in building security systems as none of the limitations technically limit security systems. This is a system of receiving, analyzing, and displaying the results of analysis that uses a security system, and one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that. No limitation the technical aspects of how a security system works; rather, the system describes how a system would be used. This is similar to applying a common business method to a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Alice, Versata, Gottschalk v Benson. Further, the limitations of the abstract idea are exchanging and analyzing information, which is patent ineligible subject matter, defined by cases such as Alice et seq. and Parker v Flook (alarm systems, specifically). See also, Electric Power Group. All of these cases are cited in the MPEP. Therefore this is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues: “Amended claim 1 recites, among other features, "automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert." Several examples of follow-up action which can be automatically executed based on the alert risk score are described in [0034] of the present application including "dispatched officer,""site/POC contacted," and "incident escalation" (see Table 1).
Applicant submits this feature cannot be reasonably classified as part of the alleged mental process because the human mind cannot mentally execute such automated follow-up actions with respect to a piece of building equipment. Rather, this step of claim 1 is believed to qualify as an additional element beyond the alleged mental process.”
Examiner responds: This argument has been taken under consideration but this is unpersuasive. Dispatching an officer is telling someone what to do. This is not technical but rather people telling people what to do, which further defines the mental process. One can mentally make a decision then write on pen and paper (or speak it) to someone, and this fulfills these limitations. The automatic element is just a rules based element, there is no discernment only if something happens then an officer is dispatched (Calling all units, please go to X location. Over and out.). A human mind can readily execute these steps: see – a 911 dispatcher. Not only is it a job, but it has formed the basis for several city based TV shows, and these shows are based on what happens if you call 911. The dispatcher says, “911, what’s your emergency?” As shown on the TV show, the dispatcher then coordinates with emergency personnel. And it is done automatically, because when the caller says that there is a fire, earthquake, car accident, chemical spill, or bank robbery, the dispatcher immediately (automatically) contacts law enforcement. See IMDB: < https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3319634/ >, “9-1-1: What’s Your Emergency?”, the show has been on TV since 2018, before the filing date of this Application.
Therefore, the abstract idea arguments are unpersuasive and the abstract idea finding is maintained.
Per Prong 2, Applicant argues:
“To the extent that claim 1 does recite any alleged abstract idea, Applicant submits that the additional elements described above integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application for facilitating building security systems.
The MPEP states that "Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." (MPEP, 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). The MPEP goes on to further state, "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include "An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field" and "Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." (MPEP, 2106.04(d)(I), emphasis added).
Applicant submits that claim 1 recites features which integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by "Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment." (MPEP, 2106.04(d)(I)). In particular, a system which includes "automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert" as recited in claim 1, applies or uses the alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way to facilitate automated actions by a building security system. For example, claim 1 specifies that the automated follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment is performed based on an alert risk score for the alert. Accordingly, Applicant submits that any alleged abstract idea recited in claim 1 is integrated into the practical application of securing a building and automatically performing or initiating follow-up actions based on identified security risks.”
Examiner responds: As, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the follow-up action could be a person being told to do something, this is not a meaningful way to limit a judicial exception as there is a) no additional technology involved above and beyond what was previously identified and b) it is actually an abstract idea element. The arguments here repeat the claim language which shows that the technology is absent to make this argument. Therefore this cannot be a meaningful limitation of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues: “Applicant emphasizes that the features of "automatically execut[ing], for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert" in claim 1 are based on an alert risk score of an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts. In particular, the follow-up action is performed for an alert that is also presented based on its alert risk score, for example, due to the alert being a high-priority or high-risk alert, and the follow-up action is performed to address the alert. Accordingly, Applicant submits features including performing a follow-up action with respect to the building equipment in claim 1 cannot reasonably be characterized as generally applying the alleged judicial exception, but rather "appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception" (MPEP §2106.04(d)) and therefore integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant also submits that the claimed invention recited in claim 1 provides "[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." (MPEP, 2106.04(d)(I)). In particular, the method of claim 1 reflects an improvement in the technical field of building security systems by automatically executing follow-up actions that can be performed according to determined alert risks scores related to alerts. For example, the building security can be brought back to a typical standard more quickly by automatically executing follow-up actions.”
Examiner responds: These arguments add nothing substantial to the previous paragraphs and repeat talking points. All of this taken as true, it is clear that these are human instructions that have no technology involved. An alert is a piece of communication, could be spoken or written. See Parker v Flook, for alarms. Applicant has no support for improving building security systems, as there is no support in the specification for this, and the building security system is not itself improved. Therefore, though the argument has been carefully considered, it is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“The MPEP sets forth a two-step process for evaluating a claim for improvements under Step 2A Prong Two. The MPEP provides "the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification." (MPEP, 2106.04(d)(1)). Applicant submits that both of these factors are satisfied by the present application.
First, Applicant respectfully submits that the present Application describes the technical improvement in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the technical improvement to building security systems. For example, Applicant's specification states that "the systems (e.g., a security system) and methods disclosed herein may improve on existing alert prioritization techniques by using internal context data and disposition classifiers to learn how important an alert is likely to be" and "improved alert prioritization may support alert disposition decision making of security center operators by placing alerts in a spatial/temporal context and prioritizing alerts based on machine learning derived prediction of the importance of an alert to a user that accounts for previous user dispositions of alerts with similar contexts" at paragraph [0031]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the present application improves building security systems, for example, by prioritizing alerts to support alert disposition decision making. In addition, by performing follow-up actions (See Specification paragraph [0034]) such as "Clear - Contractor disregard,""Clear - TSR/FSR submitted," and "Clear - Dispatched Officer," as described in paragraph [0035] of the Specification, alerts may be disposed of faster, further saving resources that would be wasted by security systems that do not support these alert prioritization and disposition features.
Second, the claims also include "components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification" as required by the MPEP. Applicant notes that "[t]he claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification" (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), emphasis added) as long as the claimed features would be understood as reflecting the improvement. This requirement is satisfied by the features recited in claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites "calculate, for the plurality of alerts, alert risk scores based on a combination of the alert disposition risk scores for the set of alert disposition options of the plurality of alerts," and "automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert." These features of claim 1 reflect the improvements described in the Specification. For example, by calculating alert risks scores for the plurality of alerts, alerts can be selected for performing automated follow-up actions.
With regards to the technical improvement, the MPEP states "The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception... Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field." (MPEP 2106.05(a), emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the improvement in claim 1 is provided by the additional element of "automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert" in combination with the previous claim elements when claim 1 is considered as a whole
In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that claim 1 when considered as a whole
integrates any alleged abstract idea into the practical application of facilitating building security systems.”
Examiner responds: Applicant’s only specification argument that there is some kind of technical or patent eligible improvement is that improvements are for “decision making of security center operators.” These are people, not technical elements. So, the improvement is for how people work together. This is not supported by the MPEP quotes, as Applicant’s argument is that people are working better together and “resources” (ie, human labor or monies spent on human labor) are saved. Though this argument has been carefully considered, Applicant’s application to help people to work more efficiently together is not patent eligible subject matter; is not a technical improvement in terms of patent law; the rejection is proper; and the arguments made are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is also eligible under Step 2B as reciting significantly more than an abstract idea. Regarding Step 2B, the MPEP states that, "Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s))." (MPEP 2106.5(11), emphasis added).
Applicant submits that claim 1 recites a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components" (MPEP, 2106.05) which amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Even if some elements of claim 1 could be interpreted as abstract/mental steps as suggested in the Office Action, Applicant submits the feature of "automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert" in claim 1 includes additional elements which amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea when considered in combination with the other features of claim 1.
Many of the factors discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two are relevant to Step 2B and such arguments are reiterated here with respect to Step 2B. In addition, Applicant submits that the additional element of "automatically execute, for an alert of the two or more of the plurality of alerts and based on an alert risk score of the alert, a follow-up action with respect to a piece of building equipment of the building associated with the alert" in claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because it contributes to the inventive concept when considered in combination with the preceding steps of claim 1. For example, previous features of claim 1 recite an improved use for a building security system that prioritizes alerts based on determined alert risk scores. The features of performing any of the specified follow-up actions in claim 1 are "based on an alert risk score of the alert" and include particular actions performed based on how the alert risk score is calculated. As a whole, claim 1 determines an appropriate action to perform and then executes the appropriate action based on its determined alert risk score as claimed.
Applicant submits that these features amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and cannot reasonably be considered "generic and well understood" as asserted in the Office Action. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1, when considered as a whole, amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that claim 1 is directed towards patent
eligible subject matter both under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B of the MPEP. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claim 1. Independent claim 11 has been amended to recite similar features as claim 1 and are allowable for at least the same reasons. Claims 2-10, and 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11 and are also allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant also requests the withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 2-20.”
Examiner responds: As the added limitation was found to be a part of the abstract idea, the argument presented, that it is significantly more, is not persuasive. The limitation is not an additional element as it is a non-technical “resource saving” (read: under a broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits human actions, as interpreted in the rejection above) element that is properly identified as a patent ineligible abstract idea.
Therefore, for these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure:
Freed, Benjamin. “Can Government’s Centralized Data Offices Put Themselves Out of Business?” Statescoop, available at: < https://statescoop.com/can-governments-centralized-data-offices-put-themselves-out-of-business/ >, October 29, 2018.
On page 4, where 311 calls for garbage is used to predict rat infestations. Teaching using alerts comprising alert types (a 311 call) to predict risk scores, to determine that something else will happen (rat problem).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619