DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/177,631. In response to Examiner’s action that is mail dated August 26, 2026, submitted amendments and arguments that are mail dated August 26, 2026. Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 7, and 13. Applicant submitted arguments that traverse Examiner’s rejections. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 26, 2026, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not file an information disclosure for consideration.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 are amended.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not persuasive. The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the amendments to claims are persuasive for claims. The claims 1-20 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Response to arguments dated August 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
On pages 11-28 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. Applicant submits the amended claim 1 recites meaningful implementation-based limitations that confine any alleged abstract idea to a particular practical application. Specifically,
On page 15 -16, Applicant traverses the pending Step2A, Prong one analysis. Applicant states the amended claim 1 is more accurately characterized as reciting a particular computer implemented process that selects a stored operational plan template, receives categories from a team leader device, creates an operations plan from the template and supplied data, processes an amalgam of those inputs and broadcasts the resulting plan and updates the plan. Applicant traverses the operations cannot be completed with pen and paper because the operations require a computer. Applicant traverses the claims do not merely recite generically organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant Step 2A, prong one arguments. The claims examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation are coordinating law enforcement operations in real time. Coordination of operations has been done in the past using walkie talkie, pen and paper, telephone, and using checklist. In this application, Examiner interprets a checklist synonymous with a template for planning an operation.
Examiner further notes, in data science and statistics, an amalgam of data inputs refers to the process of combining multiple individual data components (features, variables, or measurements) into a single, higher-level representation for analysis is abstract because it could be interpreted as a mathematical concept or mental concept. However, Applicant specification discloses the amalgam of these inputs is processed by the application running on the application server to output in real time the state of the law enforcement event to the team leader device and the operator devices. Specification [033].
Furthermore, Examiner points out the abstract idea are the concepts that are recited in the limitations minus the computer elements. At step 2A, prong one, the analysis is whether the concept is abstract and when the concept can be completed without a computer. Here forms, templates, and checklist with prompts are claimed. Such documents have been used in operations of law enforcements dating before computers. Applicant should focus on Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
On pages 17 -24, Applicant traverses the pending Step 2A, Prong two analysis. Applicant traverses claim 1 recites a specific distributed-computing implementation for receiving multiple types of operational data from multiple remote devices, processing the amalgam of those inputs together at an application server, and maintaining a substantially real-time representation of the state of an operation across distributed devices through persistent network connections. Applicant traverses claim 1 requires the application server to receive team-leader input data including messages. On page 18, the Applicant traverses the amended claim recites the consolidation, an amalgam, and resulting common-platform operations. Applicant submits these amended limitations are not a generic computer implementation of an alleged abstract idea.
On pages 18- claims the application provides a technical improvement. The Applicant states the specification identifies the resulting improvement: “The consolidation and management features of the application platform eliminates the need for communication over multiple different communication platforms. specification [033]. Applicant submits a direct correspondence between the claimed implementation and the technological improvement is technical rather than merely an improvement to human coordination. Applicant lists the additional elements.
On pages 21-23 of Step 2A, prong two arguments, Applicant presents Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42 and the Applicant’s claims in a table format. Applicant traverses the amended claim 1 is analogous to Example 42. Applicant submits the amended claims recite a particular networked implementation through which information from remote sources is processed and made available to remote devices in real-time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant Step 2A, prong two arguments. The claims examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation are merely using a computer and computer components to exchange data. This is MPEP 2106.05 (f) – applying a computer to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the claims are improving the abstract concept of coordinating operations. The Applicant claims broadly describe the passing of communication (e.g., receiving, selecting, displaying, providing) using servers and devices and processors. As described, the claims and arguments describe known computer execution of computer instructions.
Moreover, the Applicant’s SME Example 42 arguments are not persuasive. Example 42 involves network-based system for managing patient information. The invention collects, converts, and consolidates patient data from multiple healthcare providers into a standardized format, stores it on network-based storage devices, and generates notifications whenever the information is updated. The Applicant’ claims do not suggest or necessitate a standardized formatting, and thus, the Example 42 argument is not analogous.
Applicant’s claims are not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing communications and checklist process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
On pages 24-28, the Applicant traverses the Step 2B analysis. Applicant submits the amended claim 1 now makes a claimed arrangement and its resulting functionality particularly explicit. The requires a particular distributed arrangement in which team-leader input data and operator data are separately received by the application server. The Applicant argues the operator device provides in-real-time an update law enforcement operations plan representing a current state of a law enforcement event. Applicant submits the BASCOM analysis is omitted. Applicant submits the amendment expressly defines the functional relationship among the claimed servers.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the list of arguments that Applicant submitted regarding Step 2B. The amended claims as a whole are considered when determining if the claims amount to significantly more. Examiner submits the claim(s) as a whole merely describes how to generally apply the concept of receiving, displaying, and providing communications in a computer environment. Since this does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, the claim lacks an inventive concept and is ultimately ineligible.
Regarding Bascom, Examiner did not argue that analysis.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Below.
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
On pages 28- 32 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, the traverses, in light of the amendments, the combination of the prior art used to reject the claims would would not be obvious. Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claims of the pending claims.
The prior art rejection withdrawn. The references that are cited below, alone or in any combination, fails to teach or suggest, “… A computer program product comprising computer-readable program code to be executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program code including instructions to: receive, by an application server having a processor and memory from a user using a team leader device, a request for a law enforcement operations plan over a network connection, the team leader device having been previously authenticated as being an administrator by a security server; select, by the team leader device upon receiving instructions from the user, a stored operational plan template from among a plurality of stored operational plan templates, each stored operational plan template guiding the user in the creation of a law enforcement operations plan display on the team leader device, by the processor of the application server having memory using a graphic user interface, a plurality of predefined fields from the stored operational plan template; provide, by the processor for display using the graphic user interface on the team leader device, a plurality of predetermined prompts specifying data to be supplied for the plurality of predefined fields, the plurality of predetermined prompts being derived from the stored operational plan template; receive, by the processor via the network connection from the user using the team leader device, team leader input data associated with a first subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts and not receiving team leader input data associated with a second subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts; store, by the processor, the team leader input data into a record associated with the law enforcement operations plan, the team leader input data comprising messages from the team leader device, identities and geolocations associated with a plurality of operator devices, files representing documents and image data associated with the law enforcement operations plan, and customizable image data; receive, by the processor via the network connection from the plurality of operator devices, operator input data including messages, geolocation information and other operational data; store, by the processor, the operator input data into the record associated with the law enforcement operations plan; create, by the processor of the application server having memory, the law enforcement operations plan from the stored operational plan template and the team leader input data and the operator input data, the law enforcement operations plan including (i) aspects predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the first subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts [[or]]and with operator input data and (ii) not including predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the second subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts; broadcast, by the processor over the network connection, using a websocket push system to maintain persistent connections, the law enforcement operations plan to the plurality of operator devices, the broadcasting causing the stored team leader input data and stored operator input data to be displayed on each of the plurality of operator devices in one or more of the predefined fields from the stored operational plan template, the plan display including a map displaying locations corresponding to received geolocation information, wherein the application server consolidates an amalgam including the messages, geolocation information, files representing documents, image data, and other operational data received from the team leader device and the plurality of operator devices, processes the amalgam into the law enforcement operations plan, and communicates the law enforcement operations plan in real time to the team leader device and plurality of operator devices through the persistent connections; and cause, by the processor, the law enforcement operations plan of each of the plurality of operator devices to be updated substantially in real-time with subsequently-received team leader input data and subsequently-received operator input data in response to the processor receiving, consolidating, and processing each subsequently-received team leader input data and each subsequently-received operator input data such that the law enforcement operations plan displayed on the team leader device and the plurality of operator devices provides in real-time an updated law enforcement operations plan representing a current state of a law enforcement event as recited in the sequence of claim 7 (and similarly claim 1 and claim 13). Examiner submits prior art is available to teach limitations in part. Combining the prior art references to claim as whole would be nonobvious.
Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane (WO 2014/169, 232 A) , Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) and Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1). The combination of references does not teach the claims as amended.
In the prior office action, Examiner relied on the prior art:
Kane (WO 2014/169, 232 A) discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency.
Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) teaches drone augmented emergency response service.
Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1) discloses push notifications of emergency.
In light of the Applicant’s arguments and amendment’s mail dated August 26, 2026, Examiner conducted an updated prior art search. Examiner found the following prior art relevant.
Gates (2019, Policing as Digital Platform) discloses “The Axon Network” a vision of technologies integrate into activities of policing.
Schilling (2021, Vision-Based Drone Flocking in Outdoor Environments) discloses drones equipped with multiple camera to provide omnidirectional visual inputs.
Considering the combination of prior art in combination with the pending prior are a large amount of references.
The Applicant’s amendments that are mail dated August 26, 2026, further narrow the claim limitations, and hence, the combination of the prior art references would not be obvious. The combination Kane, Trundle, William, Gates, and Schilling that Examiner would rely on to teach the amended claims would result in the reliance of a large number of references to teach the sequence of the claimed limitations that is not obvious. Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) Here, the reliance on a large number of references weighs against the obviousness.
Since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims amended independent claims cannot be found in the cited prior art and can only be found as recited in Applicant’s Specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references(s) to teach all the claim elements, including the features identified by Applicant that are not taught by the cited prior art, would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, any combination of Kane, Trundle, William, Gates, and Schilling and/or any other additional reference(s) would be improper to teach the claimed invention. Examiner withdraws the prior art rejection.
When completing an updated search, Examiner determined the combination of references that are incorporated to teach the Applicant’s sequence of limitations, only gleaned in the applicant’s disclosure, are an excessive number of references. Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention; however, in this application a large number of references would be hindsight reasoning, (See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971), because the large number of references weighs against the obviousness. The combination of excessive references and hindsight teaching. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Examiner withdraws the prior art rejection.
Applicant’s prior art arguments and amendments, filed on August 26, 2026, with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. The claims are allowable.
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 1-6, 18 are process.
Claims 7-12, 19 are manufacture.
Claims 13-17, 20 are machine.
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 7 (and similarly claim 1 and claim 13) recite, “ … receive, … a request for a law enforcement operations plan … the team leader … having been previously authenticated as being an administrator…; select, … upon receiving instructions from the user, a stored operational plan template from among a plurality of stored operational plan templates, each stored operational plan template guiding the user in the creation of a law enforcement operations plan; display … a plurality of predefined fields from the stored operational plan template; provide, … for display… a plurality of predetermined prompts specifying data to be supplied for the plurality of predefined fields, the plurality of predetermined prompts being derived from the stored operational plan template; receive, …, team leader input data associated with a first subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts and not receiving team leader input data associated with a second subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts; store, …, the team leader input data into a record associated with the law enforcement operations plan, the team leader input data comprising messages …, identities and geolocations associated … files representing documents and image data associated with the law enforcement operations plan, and customizable image data; receive, …, operator input data including messages, geolocation information and other operational data; store, …, the operator input data into the record associated with the law enforcement operations plan; create, … the law enforcement operations plan from the stored operational plan template and the team leader input data and the operator input data, the law enforcement operations plan including (i)_predefined fields aspects of the stored operational plan template associated with the first subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts and with operator input data and (ii) not including predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the second subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts; broadcast,… to maintain persistent connections, the law enforcement operations plan…, the broadcasting causing the stored team leader input data and stored operator input data to be displayed … in one or more of the predefined fields … from the stored operational plan template, the plan display including a map displaying locations corresponding to received geolocation information, … consolidates an amalgam including the messages, geolocation information, files representing documents, image data, and other operational data received…, processes the amalgam into the law enforcement operations plan, and communicates the law enforcement operations plan in real time… ; and cause, …, the law enforcement operations plan … to be updated substantially in real-time with subsequently-received team leader input data and subsequently-received operator input data … receiving, consolidating, and processing each subsequently-received team leader input data and each subsequently-received operator input data such that the law enforcement operations plan displayed …provides in real-time an updated law enforcement operations plan representing a current state of a law enforcement event. Claims 1-20 in view of the claim limitations, are an abstract idea of coordinating law enforcement operations in real time, and thus, the claims are managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the claims are using predetermined prompts (checklist/templates/form) to develop a plan, and thus, the claims are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), so the claims recite a mental process.
The claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, and therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, ““A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, which when executed, cause the one or more processors to:”, “by an application server having a processor and memory from a user using a team leader device,”, “from over a network connection,”, “the team leader device”, “by a security server” , “on the team leader device, by the processor of the application server having memory using a graphic user interface,”, “with a plurality of operator devices,” “by the processor of the application server having memory,”, “using a websocket push system ”, “wherein the application server ”, “to the team leader device and plurality of operator devices through the persistent connections”, in claim 7 (and the aforementioned elements of claim 1 and 13); however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
Claim 2, 8, 14: a database
Claim 3, 9, 15: a database, a blockchain database
Claim 4, 10, 16: an application programming interface between an operator device client application in communication with the processor via the network connection.
Examiner submits: a map displaying locations is an output; mage data associated with the law enforcement operations plan is an output; and persistent connection describes intended use over a computer network.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claims 2-6, 18 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 8-12, 19 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 7. Dependent claims 14-17, 20 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 13. The claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-6, 18 & 8-12, 19 & 14-17, 20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kane (WO 2014/169, 232 A) discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency.
Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1)
Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1) discloses push notifications of emergency.
Gates (2019, Policing as Digital Platform) discloses “The Axon Network” a vision of technologies integrate into activities of policing.
Schilling (2021, Vision-Based Drone Flocking in Outdoor Environments) discloses drones equipped with multiple camera to provide omnidirectional visual inputs.
Green (WO 9620464 A1) discloses transmit information through software control to the scanner 15 such as criminal records, mug shot pictorials, known aliases, in addition to satellite images that may allow the law enforcement office., Green [page 10 lines 28-36]
Anstey (WO 2018201237 A1) [087] discloses transaction data analysis software 1006 may provide a convenient Application Programming Interface (API) for use by, e.g., law enforcement, governments, or Bitcoin users, executing their own software.
Esposito (2021, Blockchain-based authentication and authorization for smart city applications). Esposito discloses using layered blockchain technology between nodes of communication in a smart city application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
