DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/177,239. Applicant amended claim 1, 7, and 13.Applicant submitted arguments. 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.
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. Claims 18-20 are new.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the amendments 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 not persuasive for claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20. The Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. The claims are rejected using prior art, see below.
Regarding claims 3, 9, 15, and 17 the Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Claims 3, 9, 15 and 17 are allowable.
Applicant is encouraged to send an AIR request for an interview, ensuring an e-mail is provided for response and scheduling.
Response to Arguments
Response to arguments dated February 19, 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 10-33 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses, Applicant's the pending rejection.
I. Ex parte Desjardins. On pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant refers to the Advance notice change to the MPEP in light of Ex parte Desjardins Memo dated December 5, 2025. The Applicant discussion provides snips of the Memo as a basis for arguments.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s introduction of the Ex parte Desjardins Memo. Here, Examiner includes a citation from the December 4, 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations Memorandum.
PNG
media_image1.png
177
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the Ex Parte Desjardins Memo dated December 5, 2025 Memo include:
PNG
media_image2.png
183
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The December 5, 2025 does not change the USPTO practices and procedures, but provide analysis for claims that are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the longstanding Federal Circuit precedent. Examiner asserts an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement is considered at Step 2A prong two and again at Step 2B. See responses to the Step 2A prong two and Step 2B below.
II. Response To Arguments Regarding Section 101.
Claim Amendments Directed to Creation of Law Enforcement Operations Plan. On pages 11-13, Applicant states the claims are amended to clarify the process by which the law enforcement plan is created from stored operational plan template, which improves over the prior art by facilitating using a stored operational plan template and “creating an operational plan”.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s statement. The creation of law enforcement plan is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis and arguments. See below Step 2A Prong One arguments.
Regarding SME Guidance Example 42. On page 12, Applicant states Examiner and Applicant favorably discuss the Example 42 claim 2. Applicant introduces an analysis comparing the Applicant’s claims with the Example 42 claim 2.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s statement. The Examiner will provide responses to the Applicant’s analysis in the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. See below Step 2A Prong Two arguments.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2. On page 12-13, Applicant state the claims are amended to clarify the steps that conclude in the step creating a law enforcement operations plan that is specific to the input from the stored operation plan template. Applicant included an excerpt of claim 7.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s statement. The Examiner will provide responses to the Applicant’s analysis in the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. See below Step 2A Prong Two arguments.
III. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
On pages 13-15, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s analysis of the claims being directed to a judicial exception. The Applicant disagrees with the claims reciting an abstract idea. Applicant inserted the amended claim 7. Applicant states claims 1 and 13 have been amended similar to claim 1.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s statement. The Examiner will provide responses to the Applicant’s analysis in the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments under Step 2A prong one. See below Step 2A Prong One arguments.
Streamlined Judicial Exception
On pages 15-18 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant restates an interpretation of the Ex Parte Desjardin Memo and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Applicant restates amended claim 7. Applicant stated the claim recites specific implementation-based limitations on several levels concerning the creation of the operations plan, data input and output, broadcasting, and updating that are technological, not abstract or solely conceptual. Applicant restates the referencing Ex Parte Desjardins “Examiner’s and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality.” Applicant restates the additional elements that are recited in the amended claim 7. Applicant suggest a comparison of the 2014 Eligibility Guidance referencing “ a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships. Applicant states the extensive list of additional elements in claim 7 [and similarly claim 1 and 13] is not an attempt to tie up the purported abstract idea of “using data coordinate an operational plan, notify team members, and disseminate tasks.” Additionally, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 do not need to proceed through the full analysis of subject matter eligibility, as their eligibility is self evident.” Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-20 as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s arguments. Regarding the robotic arm, which is Subject Matter Eligibility Example 46, the Applicant’s claims are not analogous. Examiner does not find Applicant’s reference to Example 46 p[persuasive. Applicant is pointed to the Step 2A and Step 2B analysis that are provided below.
Step 2A, Prong One
On pages 18-21 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant states even if claim 7 recites steps that one with knowledge of law enforcement operations can perform with the human mind, which Applicant does not concede, just as in McRO, the specific structure of the alleged mental process, in additional to the specific structure of the method or organizing human activity, would prevent broad preemption of allies of a such a mental process and method of organizing human activity. Applicant contends the amended claim 7 does not merely recite generically “organizing human activity” or “using predetermined prompts to develop a plan.” but rather recites a particular solution rooted in technology.
Applicant disagrees that claim 7 is directed to a mental process or capable of being performed using a pencil and paper. Applicant characterizes the claim 7 as being directed to a method that creates a law enforcement operations plan specific to supplied data from a stored operational plan template, broadcasts the plan over a network to a plurality of operator devise, and updates the broadcast plan in real time upon receiving additional data. This constitute a technical solution that could not implemented without the use of technology as described. Applicant cites Enfish and McRo. Applicant points to instant specification [003] to support argument.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A prong one arguments. A particular solution rooted in technology is a Step 2A prong two analysis. Examiner asserts the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner points to the MPEP 2106 to the determine if the claims recite an abstract concept and to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A prong one.
Throughout pages 10-21, Applicant cites memos that were issued by the Office. Examiner points Applicant to the memo Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 dated August 4, 2025.
PNG
media_image3.png
306
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner submits, “creating a law enforcement operations plan specific to supplied data from a stored operational plan template, broadcasts the plan over … a plurality of operator devise, and updates the broadcast plan in real time upon receiving additional data”, does not require a computer device. In fact, these action can be completed using a paper form with designated form fields to populate using pen. The communications/ broadcasting can be completed using in person discussion, telephone, or walky talky. The creating an operation plan is a mental concept. Furthermore, claims recite managing personal behavior and business instructions, and thus, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Because the claims recite mental concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims are directed to a judicial concept at Step 2A prong one. Therefore, the technical solutions are evaluated at Step 2A prong two and Step 2B.
Step 2A, Prong Two
On pages 21-31 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant states even if amended claim 7 could be considered to recite the alleged judicial exception identified in the Office Action, “ the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.” Citing 2019 Revised Eligibility Guidance. Furthermore, Applicant argues Ex Parte Desjardins resulted in the admonition that the Examiner should not longer focus on using 101 to reject claims, instead focusing on 102, 103, and 112. Applicant refers to Thales Visionix, Inc, Thales, and TDQ Development as examples of additional elements that reflect an improvement to a technical field.
Specifically, in amended claims 1, 7, and 13 reflect an improvement to a technology for coordination of tools/resources for an emergency callout operation, including creating a law enforcement operation plan specific to supplied data from a stored operational plan template, broadcasting the plan over a network to a plurality of operator devices, and updating the broadcasts plan in real time upon receiving additional data. On page 25, Applicant argues by creating a law enforcement operation plan that is specific to received input, broadcasting that plan to operator devices, and updating that when additional input is received is a method that specifically improve the technology.
Applicant states the amended claim 7 includes additional elements beyond generic computing element and is further amended to integrate the purported abstract ideas(s) into a practical application.
Applicant traverses that received geolocation information, map created from the geolocation information, or broadcasting of the law enforcement operations plan to the operator device with the map can be dismissed as “generic computer elements” citing Applicant cite Ex Parte Desjardin.
Applicant submits the specification provides details that make it apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that amended claims 1, 7, and 13 improve the technology for coordination of tools / resources for an emergency callout operation, in accordance with MPEP 210.40(d)(1). Applicant states creating an operation plant that details specifics of the operation thereby integrates any judicial exception into a practical application. Because the judicial exception are so integrated, amended claims 1, 7, and 13 are not directed to a judicial exception.
On pages 27-29 the Applicant provides a table with the Analysis of claim 1 of Example 42 in the left column and the corresponding elements of Applicant’s claim 7 in the right column. Examiner included excerpts of the Table below.
PNG
media_image4.png
112
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
218
799
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
219
789
media_image6.png
Greyscale
On page 29 the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant stated there is nothing new and revolutionary about converting from a first non-standard) format to a second standard format. Instead, the collection of additional elements simply provide a useful feature – a practical application citing Example 42.
Applicant submits Amended claims 7 receives information from multiple sources and broadcasts the information in a predefined, standardized format. Applicant submits amended claim 7 favorably compares to Example 42. For theses reasons, and taking into account Ex Parte Desjardins, claims 1, 7 and 13 are eligible subject matter under Step 2A, prong two. Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are similarly eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong two. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-20 as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A prong two arguments. At Step 2A the claims are evaluated for integration into a practical application and a technical improvement.
The Applicant’s additional elements that are computers that are completing computer functions. As illustrated in the table provided by the Applicant’s the additional elements of processor, leader device, operator device, websocket, display, a security server are computer components function as a computer. Thus the judicial exception is using the additional elements to perform the broadcasting, and create a plan, and display a map. In claims 19, the Applicant recites a drone. Claim 9, cites a blockchain database. The claims 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).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument of an improvement, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated, the claims recite additional elements that are using a computer to display the form and display the map. The creation of the form is an instruction that the computer is performing, Unlike Example 42, the Applicant’s claims do not perfom the standardization from an unstandardized format to a standardized format for real-time use. The Applicant’s Example 42 arguments are not persuasive. Furthermore, the Applicant’s Ex Parte Desjardins arguments are not persuasive because the claims are applying a computer to the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Claim 1-20 are not integrated into a practical Application. The claims 1-20 do not amount to an improvement in technology. The claims are improving the abstract concepts.
Step 2B
On pages 31-33 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant traverses claims 1-20 are eligible subject matter. Applicant submits the amended claims 1, 7, and 13 include a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field which is indicative that an inventive concept is present.
Applicant submits claim 7 (and similarly claim 1 and 13) I in particular the steps by which the law enforcement operation plan is created from the selected stored operational plan template, the broadcasting of the operational plan and map, and the updating of the operational plan when additional input is received, are significant because each imposes meaningful limits on the claim, as required by MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant argues SME Example 25, statins the “initiating a signal that controls the press to open when the comparison indicates equivalent, meaning that the molded product is cured.”
Applicant argues claim 7 improves the technical field of technology coordination of tools/resources for an emergency callout operation, and is subject matter eligible matter under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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).
The claims when viewed as whole and an ordered combination, using computer elements to conduct the abstract idea. The claims are 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). For example, the claims are using a computer to display a map.
The claims are using the technology to gather information, store information, and display information. The integration of the technical analysis implemented to actively influence the determination of the operational plan that is displayed is absent. The invention appears to be static collected information (e.g., files, images, documents) into a database then called/selected by a user for display. The claims do not recite an improvement to the field of technology.
Regarding the Subject Matter Eligibility Example 25, claim 2 (a specific rubber molding process to open the press at the optimal time for curing rubber, which adds meaningful limitation in combination with the mathematical relationship particularly taken in combination) is not analogous to the Applicant’s application. The Example 25, the claims amounted to significantly more because the additional elements when considered as an ordered combination provided meaningful limits in the use of the equation and improved the technical field of precision rubber molding.
The additional elements recited in the claims are general computer components that are gathering, storing, and displaying information. The claims 1-20, considered as a whole at Step 2B, do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 1-20 are not patent eligible
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
A. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20
On pages 33- 38 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, the traverses Trundle does not teach the amendments and “templates”, “leader device”, and “authentication”, and computer elements. Applicant request the prior art is withdrawn.
Examiner notes Kane was used as 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in the action dated February 25, 2025. Examiner’s updated search determined Kane teaches leader device, authentication and an electronic form used on a mobile device. The Applicant’s amendments are taught by Kane (WO 201/169232 A1), Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) in view of Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1). Examiner used the Trundle reference to emphasize the drone and mapping. Examiner maintain the population of screens on a device are templates. The independent claims are a Markush.
Applicant is encouraged to send an AIR request for an interview, ensuring an e-mail is provided for response and scheduling.
B. Claims 3, 9, and 15
On pages 38 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, Applicant submits Paul fails to cure the deficiencies of Trundle and Williams. Although Paul is used to teach blockchain, the combination fails to disclose the dependent claims 3, 9, and 15 as obvious.
Although Examiner updates the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection, the Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Examiner relies on Kane (WO 201/169232 A1), Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1), and Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1) to teach the independent claims. Examiner then relied on Paul to teach claims 3, 9, and 15. The combination of Kane, Trundle, Williams, and Paul would be piecemeal. Examiner withdraws the rejection for claims 3, 9, and 15.
C. Claim 17
On pages 38-39 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, Applicant submits Simpson fails to cure the deficiencies of Trundle and Williams. Simpson is used to teach measure error, the combination fails to disclose dependent claim 17 as obvious.
Although Examiner updates the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection, the Applicant’s claim 17 amendments are persuasive. Examiner relies on Kane (WO 201/169232 A1), Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1), and Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1) to teach the independent claims. Examiner then relied on Simpson to teach claim 17. The combination of Kane, Trundle, Williams, and Simpson would be piecemeal. Examiner withdraws the rejection for claims 17.
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.
Claim 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 … having been previously authenticated as being an administrator… ; select, … upon receiving instructions from the user, a stored operational plan template from a list displaying a plurality of stored operational plan templates; 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 one or more of the displayed 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 with…, 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 display; 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 predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the first subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts or with operator input data and not including predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the second subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts; broadcast, … law enforcement operations plan …, 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; and cause, …, the 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 each subsequently-received team leader input data and each subsequently- received operator input data. Claims 1-20 in view of the claim limitations, are an abstract idea of displaying law enforcement operations, and creating … a law enforcement operations plan … using predetermined prompts, 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 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:”, “by an application server having a processor and memory from a user using a team leader device”, “over a network connection, the team leader device”, “by a security server”, “by the team leader device”, “… using a graphic user interface,”, “using the graphic user interface on the team leader device”, “by the processor of the application server via the network connection from the user using the team leader device”, “a plurality of operator devices”, “by the processor of the application server via the network connection from the plurality of operator devices,”, “by the processor of the application server over the network connection, using a websocket push system to maintain 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.
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 fails 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20. is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane (WO 2014/169, 232 A) in view of Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) and Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, (claim 1 and similarly claim 13)
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;
Kane [002], [005], [016] [Figure 1], [Figure 7] – system and emergency, acquiring proximity. Kane [071], [077], [0110] teaches dispatch. Kane [094] teaches authentication.
Williams [Figure 8], [087] discloses and emergency checklists.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with automated real-time warnings pushed to users, as taught by Williams, to allow enough time for users to react., Williams [092]
Trundle [005], [033], [035], [041], [045, [Figure 1, 2, and 3] teaches drone response scenarios and emergency notification services.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Trundle teaches drone-augmented emergency response services. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with evaluation event notifications and emergency events as taught by Trundle, to issue deployment instructions, Trundle [035].
select, by the team leader device upon receiving instructions from the user, a stored operational plan template from a list displaying a plurality of stored operational plan templates;
Kane [0106], [Figure 9a, 9B, 9C] disclose danger levels, threats and options.
Williams [Figure 8], [Figure 14] , [Figure 15], [087]-[088], [0112]-[0113] provides notification of an emergency plan, and location, and a checklist.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with automated real-time warnings pushed to users, as taught by Williams, to allow enough time for users to react., Williams [092]
Trundle [056], [058] transmits instruction over the internet.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Trundle teaches drone-augmented emergency response services. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with evaluation event notifications and emergency events as taught by Trundle, to issue deployment instructions,. Trundle [035].
display on the team leader device, by the processor of the application server using a graphic user interface, a plurality of predefined fields from the stored operational plan template;
Kane [0106]-[0108], [0113]-[0114], [Figure 11B] teaches dispatch center and control centers, thus a leader device.
Williams [Figure 8], [Figure 14] , [Figure 15], [087]-[088], [0112]-[0113] provides notification of an emergency plan, and location, and a checklist.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with automated real-time warnings pushed to users, as taught by Williams, to allow enough time for users to react., Williams [092]
provide, by the processor of the application server 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;
Kane [0106] – [0108], [Figure 9a, 9B, 9C] teaches prompts and a type of emergency list.
receive, by the processor of the application server via the network connection from the user using the team leader device, team leader input data associated with one or more of the displayed 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;
Kane [0106]-[0108], [0113]-[0114], [Figure 11B]
Williams [Figure 8], [Figure 14] , [Figure 15], [087]-[088], [0112]-[0113] provides notification of an emergency plan, and location, and a checklist. System is configured to report concerns to law enforcement.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with automated real-time warnings pushed to users, as taught by Williams,to allow enough time for users to react., Williams [092]
store, by the processor of the application server, 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;
Kane [057]-[080], [Figure 1A] – [Figure 6A].
Williams [Figure 11], [Figure 10A], [077], [092] teaches push notifications of emergencies.
Kane discloses improving response times to emergency events. Williams discloses push notifications of emergency. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, reports can be transferred to secure databases as taught by Kane, with automated real-time warnings pushed to users, as taught by Williams ,to allow enough time for users to react., Williams [092]
receive, by the processor of the application server via the network connection from the plurality of operator devices, operator input data including messages, geolocation information and other operational data;
See Kane [Figure 1A], [Figure 7].
store, by the processor of the application server, the operator input data into the record associated with the law enforcement operations plan display;
See Kane [Figure 1A], [Figure 7].
create, by the processor of the application server, 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 predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the first subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts or with operator input data and not including predefined fields of the stored operational plan template associated with the second subset of the plurality of predetermined prompts;
See Kane [Figure 1A], [Figure 7], [Figure 14], [Figure 21] and the associated text.
Within claim 7, Kane discloses templates for incidents, and thus, Kane discloses supervised learning and unsupervised learning. Claim 1 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
broadcast, by the processor of the application server over the network connection, using a websocket push system to maintain persistent connections, 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;
See Kane [Figure 1A], [Figure 7], [Figure 21]
and cause, by the processor of the application server, the 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 each subsequently-received team leader input data and each subsequently- received operator input data.
See Kane [081], [084].
Regarding Claim 8, [and similarly claim 2 and 14]
The computer program product of claim 7, the computer program product further comprising instructions to store in a database a snapshot of the record including all input data received from the team leader device and from the operator devices.
See Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, [and similarly claim 4 and claim 16]
The computer program product of claim 7, the geolocations of the operator devices being received at the processor via an application programming interface between an operator device client application in communication with the processor via the network connection and geolocation services running on the operator devices.
See Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, [and similarly claim 5]
The computer program product of claim 7, the predetermined prompts being presented in a checklist format, where the predetermined prompts include prompts for the documents associated with the operations plan and the customized image data.
See Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, [and similarly claim 6]
The computer program product of claim 7, the computer program product further comprising instructions to receive confirmation from each of the operator devices in response to transmitting, by the processor, notifications to each of the operator devices of initializing the operations plan, and transmitting, by the processor, to the operator devices the operations plan display in response to receiving the confirmations from each of the operator devices.
See Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, [and similarly claim 18 and claim 20]
The computer program product of claim 7, the computer program product further comprising instructions to: receive, by the processor via the network connection, at least one image originating from a drone; store, by the processor, the at least one image originating from the drone into the record associated with the law enforcement operations plan display, wherein the plan display further includes the at least one image originating from the drone.
See Claim 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights