DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/177,239. An advisory action was filed September 08, 2025. In response to the Office Action mail dated June 11, 2025, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments that are mail dated August 15, 2025. Applicant amended claim 1, 7, and 13. Applicant added new claims 18, 19, and 20. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 11, 2025, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not file an information disclosire 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. The Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. The claims are rejected using prior art, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 15, 2025 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.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
On pages 9-27 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses, Applicant's amended claims are not directed to an unpatentable abstract idea, and furthermore, the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
Streamlined Judicial Exception:
Applicant presented a discussion of the July 2019 Streamlined Judicial Exceptions and traversed the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant submits the amended claim 7 does not seek to tie up all meaningful limitations to sufficiently limit the technique of amended claim 7 to a practical application. Amended claim 7 is directed to eligible subject matter. Applicant amended claim 7 adding additional elements. Applicant draws an example from the 2014 Subject Eligibility Guidance, “a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships” was considered “clearly not an attempt to tie up use of the mathematical relationships.” Applicant traverses that claim 7 is not an attempt to tie up the purported abstract idea of “using data to coordinate an operational plan, notify team members, and disseminate tasks.” For similar reason, amended independent claims 7 and 13 also do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it. Additionally, for at least reasons, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-17 do not need to proceed through the full analysis of subject matter eligibility, as their eligibility is self-evident. Applicant traverses the claims include patent eligible subject matter under the revised two-step eligibility.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s introductory analysis to
Step 2A Prong One
On pages 13- 17 of the Applicant’s Step 2A Prong One arguments, the Applicant traverses, Applicant does not concede on the Examiner’s assertion that the method steps of claim 7 recite “methods or organizing human behavior: and “mental process[es]” that are “abstract ideas” and the limitations asserted to be mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind”. Applicant traverses amended claim 7 is better characterized as being directed to a method that improves the computer’s ability to, in real time, assemble data from multiple different sources and formats (e.g., location data, customizable image data, data files, message data) in a single platform and a single interface. Amended claim 7 necessitates computer technology, and the practice of the steps cannot be replicated by a human mind using mental processes.
Applicant argues the Office’s rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 relied on improperly characterizing the claims into an overly abstract interpretation, characterizing Enfish. Applicant’s point to the Office’s November 2016 memo that discuss, McRo, stating a claim may be directed to patent-eligible subject matter if the claim includes “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”
Applicant characterizes the application problem can be considered as to how to assist law enforcement in addressing the “challenges, especially in the coordination of tool/resources for an emergency callout operation …” (Application, as published, para. [003] –[004], [033].) The Applicant argues, even if claim 7 recites process steps that one with knowledge of law enforcement operations can perform with the human mind, which Applicants does not concede, just as in McRo, the specific structure of the alleged mental process, in addition to the specific structure of the method of organizing human activity, would prevent broad preemption of all use of such a mental process and method or organizing human activity. Claim 7 is rooted in technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Step 2A prong one arguments. As presented in the Applicant’s arguments, “the application, [and claim 7] is directed to a method that improves the computer’s ability to, in real time, assemble data from multiple different sources and formats (e.g., location data, customizable image data, data files, message data) in a single platform and a single interface. Amended claim 7 necessitates computer technology, and the practice of the steps cannot be replicated by a human mind using mental processes.” Examiner understands the abstract concept of collecting data from various sources to “… consider as to how to assist law enforcement in addressing the “challenges, especially in the coordination of tools/resources for an emergency callout…””. See Applicant’s argument p. 15. The Applicant further relies on specification [033] arguing the consolidation and management features of the application platform eliminates the need for communication over multiple different communications platforms. Examiner agrees the claim 7 (and similarly claims 1 and 15) recite collecting data from various sources for consolidation, and consideration as to how to assist law enforcement in addressing challenges, especially in the coordination of tools/resources for an emergency callout. Consideration as to how to assist law enforcement using data is a method that can be completed in the mind and/or using pen and paper. The claims recite a method of assembling data, for coordination, and thus, the claims recite a mental concept. Therefore, the claims recitations of the improving consolidation and improvement of data to assist law enforcement for an emergency callout are directed to an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s arguments “… assemble data from multiple different sources and formats…”, Applicant is pointed to Subject Matter Eligibility(SME) Example 42- Medical Records. As recited, the Applicant’s claims are similar to SME Example 42 claim 2.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertation of the amended claim necessitating computer technology, the additional elements are analyzed in Step 2A prong two and Step 2B, if necessitated. See below.
Step 2A Prong Two
On pages 17-22, of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Step 2A prong two arguments, the Applicant argues, even if amended claim 7 could be considered to recite the alleged judicial exception identified by the Office in the Office Action, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 7 is not directed to the judicial exception and is patent eligible under Prong Two. Applicant arguments recite excerpts of the 2019 Revised Eligibility Guidance such as “ … give weight to all additional elements whether or not they are conventional.” Applicant cites integration into a practical application means that the claim, as a whole, … will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception…,” referring to the 2019 Revised Eligibility Guidance, page 54. Applicant references Thales as an example of eligible subject matter. Applicant raises Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc and TQP Development, LLC as examples where an additional element reflects an improvement to a technical field. Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s Step 2A prong two determination of the recited judicial exception not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the criteria under Prong Two.
Applicant arguments assert like Thales and TQP amended claims 1, 7, and 13 reflect an improvement to a technology or a technical field, specifically an improvement to technology for coordination of tools/resources for an emergency callout operation. Applicant submits, amended claim 7 is further amended to integrate the purported abstract idea(s) into a practical application. Applicant specification set forth more than generically applying a computer to a judicial exception. Applicant’s 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 2106.04(d)(1), such that amended claim 1, 7, and 13 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argues the amended claims 1, 7, and 13 are not directed to a judicial exception and are patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A prong two arguments. The claims are analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A Prong two. In light of Step 2A prong two, the claims recite additional elements that are used to improve the consolidation and improvement of data to assist law enforcement for an emergency callout. As discussed in Step 2A prong one, the claims are directed to a judicial exception. At Step2A prong two, integration of the technology into a practical application is evaluated. The claims are applying technology (i.e., by an application server having a processor and memory, a team leader device over a network connection, a graphical user interface, from the drone) to conduct the abstract concept. The claims are MPEP 2106.05(f) – apply it.
Regarding the improvement argument at Step 2A prong two, the claims are merely improving the abstract idea of consolidating data in a database system then outputting steps in the operational plan template based on the information that is collected, see claim 14. Although the Applicant added the additional element of a drone in the new claims, the instant application specification [051] is viewing drone footage to log their communications with operators and [033] disclose documents like photographs and part of the operational event. The instant application specification [035] disclose real-time messaging between people (i.e., team leader and operators). 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.
Step 2B
On pages 22-28 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2B arguments, Applicant traverses 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 such that claim 7 recites eligible subject matter. Applicant argues the limitations of claim 7, individually or in combination, have not been shown to have been well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant points to Subject Matter Eligibility example 25, claim 2, “initiating of a signal to control a rubber molding press.” Applicant traverses, like Example 25 claim 2, modeled on Diamond, the claim 7 step of “broadcast” and “cause … the plurality of operator devices to be updated” demonstrates that claim 7 improves the technical field of technology for coordination for an emergency callout operation, and is sufficient to demonstrate eligibility under Step 2B.
On pages 26-28, Applicant submitted a table analysis of claim amended claim 7 compared to Example 42. Applicant concludes amended claims 1, 7, and 13 recite eligible subject matter eligibility. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-17 recite patent subject matter. Applicant therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Step 2B arguments. Subject Matter Eligibility Example 25, claim 2 (integrating the mathematical equations, to 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.
Instead, the Applicant’s claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42 – Medical Record Updates (assembling data from multiple different sources and formats and converting the non-standardized updated information into the standardized format). As presented, the Applicant’s claims are similar to SME Example 42 claim 2. Applicant is encouraged to consider SME Example 42 claim 1 as it may apply to the instant application specification, then positive recite the eligible matter in the claims.
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.
III. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
On pages 27-31 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, the traverses the pending rejection.
Applicant traverses Kane does not disclose the use of stored operational plan templates to guide the team leader device to initialize the operation with fields …as amended in the independent claims 1,7 and 15. Examiner submits a template is an operational plan.
Applicant traverses Simpson does not constitute an element of a primia facie case with regard to “stored operational plan templates”.
Applicant traverse the combination of Kane, Simpson, and Paul, fails to disclose or suggest each and every feature of independent claim 7 (likewise claim 1 and 13), and therefore, the claims is not unpatentable. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections of claim 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments. The Applicant’s amendments and new claims necessitate grounds for a new rejection.
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 from … having been previously authenticated as being an administrator … ; select, … , a stored operational plan template from among a plurality of stored operational plan templates; create, …, a law enforcement operations plan display from the stored operational plan template in response to the request for a law enforcement operations plan, the law enforcement operations plan … illustrating a plurality of predefined fields associated with different data associated with the law enforcement operations plan; provide, …, a plurality of predetermined prompts for receiving specified data, the predetermined prompts being derived from the stored operational plan template; receive, …, team leader input data associated with one or more of the displayed predetermined prompts; store, …, the team leader input data into a record associated with the law enforcement operations plan display, 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 display; broadcast, … to maintain persistent connections, the stored team leader input data and the stored operator input data to …, the broadcasting causing the stored team leader input data and stored operator input data to be displayed in [[a]] one or more of the predefined fields of the law enforcement operations plan display …, the plan display including a map displaying received geolocation information; and cause, … the operations plan display … to be updated substantially in real-time with subsequently-received team leader input data and subsequently-received operator input data in response …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 updating and 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) 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”, “a team leader device over a network connection, the team leader device”, “by a security server”, “by the team leader device”, “by the processor of the application server having memory”, “display being a graphic user interface”, “by the processor for display on the team leader device”, “by the processor via the network connection from the team leader device”, “by the processor”, “from the team leader device”, “with a plurality of operator devices”, “by the processor via the network connection from the plurality of operator devices”, “by the processor”, ” by the processor over the network connection, using a websocket push system”, “the plurality of operator devices”, “of each of the plurality of operator devices”, “by the processor”, “to the processor” in claim 7 (and similarly claim 1), “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”, in claim 13 (and the aforementioned elements of claim 7); 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, 4-8,10-14,16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) in view of 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:
See Figures.
receive, by an application server having a processor and memory, a request for a law enforcement operations plan from a team leader device over a network connection, the team leader device having been previously authenticated as being an administrator by a security server;
Trundle [005] teaches a drone -augmented emergency response service, configured to detect an emergency event based on data received from one or more pf a plurality of sensors located throughout the particular property. [T]he operations may include receiving an emergency event notification from a first monitoring control unit of the plurality of monitoring control units, determining, based on the received emergency event notification, the type of emergency, and transmitting an instruction to a monitoring station server., Trundle [005], [045]
Trundle [033] discloses the monitor control unit may evaluate the received event notification to determine whether the event notification is likely indicative of a potential security event, emergency event, or other type of alarm event such as a security event, emergency event, or other type of alarm event.
Trundle [035] discloses the monitoring station server 120a may be able to communicate directly with each of the one or more drones 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 in order to issue deployment instructions, engagement strategy instructions, redeployment instructions, or the like.
Trundle [041] discloses a scenario where the drone encounters a person, determines the person is not a threat in law enforcement databases. In a second scenario, the drone encounters a person, determines the person is a threat in law enforcement databases and waits for engagement policy instructions.
select, …a stored operational plan template from among a plurality of stored operational plan templates;
Trundle [056] discloses the deployed drone 252 may transmit the search results to a monitoring application server 230, which can analyze the search results, and provide an instruction to the deployed drone that includes a particular engagement policy that the drone 252 should use to engage the suspected criminal , Trundle [056],
Trundle [058] discloses the engagement policy that a deployed drone uses in order to engage a person may be based on the threat that the person poses. [T]he deployed drone may determine to employ a particular engagement policy independent of consultation with the monitoring application server 230 or central monitoring station 220. Examples of engagement policy e.g., low-level engagement policy, moderate level policy, and high-level engagement policy are operational policy/ templates. See Trundle [058]-[063]
Trundle [0069] discloses once detected, the monitoring application server 230 can instruct the one or more drones to investigate the detected threat. The deployed drones may then verify existence of the threat, verify the identity of the individual responsible for the threat, or both. At this point, or at the time each respective drone received initial deployment instructions, the monitoring application server 230, monitoring station server 220a, or internal software running on each respective drone, may select an engagement policy, and instruct the deployed drones to engage the individual associated with the threat using a low-level engagement policy, a moderate-level engagement policy, a high level engagement policy, or an engagement policy that falls somewhere in between each of the aforementioned policies in terms of the aggressiveness used to engage an individual., Trundle [0069], [085]
create, by the processor of the application server having memory, a law enforcement operations plan display from the stored operational plan template in response to the request for a law enforcement operations plan, the law enforcement operations plan …
Trundle discloses an operational plan for combating a fire., Trundle [0069], [085]-[088]
Although highly suggested, Trundle does not explicitly teach:
been previously authenticated as being an administrator by a security server; … select, by the team leader device, …. display being a graphic user interface illustrating a plurality of predefined fields associated with different data associated with the law enforcement operations plan; select, by the team leader device, provide, by the processor for display on the team leader device, a plurality of predetermined prompts for receiving specified data, the predetermined prompts being derived from the stored operational plan template;
receive, by the processor via the network connection from the team leader device, team leader input data associated with one or more of the displayed predetermined prompts;
store, by the processor, the team leader input data into a record associated with the law enforcement operations plan display, 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 display;
broadcast, by the processor over the network connection, using a websocket push system to maintain persistent connections, the stored team leader input data and the stored operator input data to the plurality of operator devices, the broadcasting causing the stored team leader input data and stored operator input data to be displayed in [[a]]one or more of the predefined fields of the law enforcement operations plan display of each of the plurality of operator devices, the plan display including a map displaying received geolocation information;
and cause, by the processor, the operations plan display 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.
Williams teaches:
… the team leader device having been previously authenticated as being an administrator by a security server; … select, by the team leader device, a stored operational plan template from among a plurality of stored operational plan templates; the law enforcement operations plan display being a graphic user interface illustrating a plurality of predefined fields associated with different data associated with the law enforcement operations plan;
Williams discloses login to a system, Figure 3. Williams [0087] discloses the admin can create custom checklists using an Emergency Plan interface., Williams [087], [Figure 8]
select, by the team leader device, a stored operational plan template from among a plurality of stored operational plan templates;
create, by the processor of the application server having memory, a law enforcement operations plan display from the stored operational plan template in response to the request for a law enforcement operations plan, the law enforcement operations plan display being a graphic user interface illustrating a plurality of predefined fields associated with different data associated with the law enforcement operations plan;
Williams [0087] discloses the admin can create custom checklists using an Emergency Plan interface., Williams [087], [Figure 8], [Figure 9].
Williams [0112] discloses in implementations safety checklists may be pushed to users in an active shooter situation, which may help the users remain calm and follow a checklist of items to reach safety and/or help others reach safety, which active shooter checklists may be admin-defined using the admin portal and may be pushed to users within a relevant geographic location through the system automatically in response to third-party notifications received at the server such as from law enforcement. Williams [0112] –[0113]
provide, by the processor for display on the team leader device, a plurality of predetermined prompts for receiving specified data, the predetermined prompts being derived from the stored operational plan template;
Williams [0088] discloses from th[e] interface the admin may define evacuation maps or other items., Williams [0088], [Figure 10].
Williams [0102] discloses FIG. 15 shows an emergency plan checklist interface (interface) 1500 that is accessible by the end user by selecting the Checklist menu item shown in FIG. 14A (which, as indicted above, in other implementations may be an “Emergency Plan” menu item instead). The checklist has a title at the top and an arrow may be selected to return to a parent menu.
receive, by the processor via the network connection from the team leader device, team leader input data associated with one or more of the displayed predetermined prompts;
Williams [102] discloses the title is a description, and below this are a plurality of checklist items which are recommended to the user to prepare for the upcoming hurricane. The end user received this checklist, along with an associated news feed item previously described, because the user was in a geographically indicated area affected by the emergency described in the news feed item. The user may complete the checklist items and check each item off as it is done, and may at any time press the Save button to save the updated checklist, or select Ignore to ignore the checklist and the news feed item (for example, if the end user has already left the geographic area), and the user may also select a dropdown menu which is shown here showing the Hotels wording (other items may also be shown in this menu, such as pharmacies, gas stations, grocery stores, hospitals, etc., once the menu is dropped down). Williams [102]
store, by the processor, the team leader input data into a record associated with the law enforcement operations plan display, 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;
Williams [107] discloses in an implementation users could be given a license plate number and vehicle identification, and responding to the alert may be greatly simplified such as the ability to simply press a “located” button to initiate a communication to police if the license plate or vehicle was spotted, and this communication may automatically communicate to police the GPS location of the user initiating the contact so that police officers may head to that location., Williams [107]
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;
Williams [0112] –[0113] teaches safety checklist, geolocation, checklists may be admin-defined using the admin portal and may be pushed to users within a relevant geographic location. The system will be configured to report non-emergency concerns to law enforcement.
store, by the processor, the operator input data into the record associated with the law enforcement operations plan display; broadcast, by the processor over the network connection, using a websocket push system to maintain persistent connections, the stored team leader input data and the stored operator input data to the plurality of operator devices, the broadcasting causing the stored team leader input data and stored operator input data to be displayed in [[a]]one or more of the predefined fields of the law enforcement operations plan display of each of the plurality of operator devices, the plan display including a map displaying received geolocation information;
Williams [088] discloses FIG. 10A shows that the admin has input each field and the route is shown from the source location, passing through the in between location, to the destination., Williams [088], [Figure 10A].
Williams [090] discloses in implementations the admin may send a push notification to end users by navigating to a Push Notification interface (interface) 1100 as seen in FIG. 11, accessible by selecting the Push Notification menu item. Williams [090], [Figure 11].
Williams [092] in implementations wherein a third-party notification provider such as the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE issues an alert, an automated process is initiated which includes sending out one of the pre-populated checklists to users affected by the warning. If the warning is not issued quickly to users then the area may be affected before users receive the notification. Automating the sending of push notifications from the system to the users thus allows dynamic real-time warnings to be sent to users with enough time for them to react appropriately. Williams [092].
and cause, by the processor, the operations plan display 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.
Williams discloses e figures previously described show the ability of a user to prepare draft news feed items and the like, but these may be general news feed items that can apply to many locations. So, for example, the admin may prepare one “hurricane warning” news feed item and save it in the system, and the admin may also set up trigger events within the system and using the servers and database(s). See Williams [090]-[092]
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
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) in view of Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1) and in further view of Paul (2021, Blockchain based secure smart city architecture using low resource IoTs).
Regarding Claim 9, [and similarly claim 3 and claim 15]
The computer program product of claim 8, the database being … a database
Kane Figure 1-Figure 6A and the associated text disclose the system and software architecture and the internet protocol (IP) network architecture., Kane [Figure 1-Figure 6A ], [057]-[080] and Kane [012] discloses information can be disseminated to members in multiple organizations immediately, can be stored for later generation of reports, and can be transferred to secure databases for preservation of legal evidence.
Trundle does not explicitly teach:
… a blockchain database.
Paul teaches:
… a blockchain database.
Paul Figure 1 teaches layered architecture city (local police, municipal authority) and transactions stored in a blockchain., Paul [Figure 1], [Figure 3 – and the associated text]
Trundle teaches drone-augmented emergency response services. Paul discloses using layered blockchain technology between nodes of communication in a smart city application. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, drone response scenarios as taught by Trundle, with mutual authentication of access transactions of different nodes which can prevent several cyber threats, as taught by Paul, to attain distributed and trustworthy access control for IoT applications., Paul [section 1.4 p. 196 column 2 paragraph 2].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trundle (AU 2020/203,351 A1) in view of Williams (US 2019/0230467 A1) and in further view of Simpson (2021, Re-assessing measurement error in police calls for service: Classifications of events by dispatchers and officers).
Regarding Claim 17,
The system of claim 15, 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 and Simpson [p. 4 paragraph 3], [Simpson p.6].
Trundle teaches drone-augmented emergency response services. Simpson teaches emergency response including dispatcher and the 911 system. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, drone response scenarios as taught by Trundle, with piece together details about events, assign events to call-types, and prioritize the police response, as taught by Simpson, to adopt[s] a smart and efficient access control technique to prevent misclassification of the events and prioritize calls, Simpson [p. 4 paragraph 3].
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.
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
Prosecution Insights