DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claims/amendments filed on 01/28/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 21 are currently amended. Claims 10, and 17 are cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-24 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The earliest filing date is the filing date of the present application, 03/03/2023.
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 1-9, 11-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-9, 11, and 21-23: An automated method of managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident using electronic workflows, the method comprising:
Claims 12-16, 18-20 and 24: A communication system, comprising: a server having a processor configured to
Claims 1-9, 11, and 21-23 recite a method which falls under process. Claims 12-16, 18-20 and 24 recite a communication system with structure which falls under apparatus, or machine. These fall under the categories process or manufacture which are potentially eligible subject matter categories, therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under Step 2 of the eligibility analysis.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1 and 12 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: An automated method of managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident using electronic workflows, the method comprising:
receiving, at an electronic processor of a public safety (PS) server, an electronic notification of mass arrest event with grouping request for grouping arrestees, as part of a first electronic workflow (1), the grouping request originating from a field operated public safety (PS) radio (302) operating at the mass incident without dispatch communication;
generating, at the electronic processor of the PS server, a mass arrest ID based on type of mass event (304);
generating, at the electronic processor of the PS server, an electronic form including the mass arrest ID, the electronic form including fields for collecting individual arrestee information based on the type of mass event (306);
transmitting the electronic form, from the PS server to the requesting field operated PS radio (308), as part of a second electronic workflow (2);
collecting, via a user interface of the field operated PS radio, responses to the pull- down menus of the electronic form for each arrestee, including individual arrestee information, current offense type and personal attribute information, as part of a third electronic workflow (3);
electronically tagging, via a short range communications link from the field operated PS radio to an electronic tag device associated with each arrestee, the mass arrest ID and collected individual arrestee information including current offense type and personal attribute information (310);
receiving, from the field operated PS radio, the tagged information associated with each arrestee at the PS server (312) as part of a fourth electronic workflow;
automatically assigning, by the electronic processor of the PS server, each tagged arrestee to an offense group based on current offense type (314);
searching, using the electronic processor of the PS server, previous electronic arrest records stored at a public safety database,
automatically refining, at the electronic processor of the PS server as part of a fifth workflow (5), each offense group into assigned sub-groups based on the personal attribute information and the prior electronic arrest records associated with each arrestee (318), wherein automatically refining each offense group into assigned sub-groups further comprises:
executing a machine learning model of the PS server, trained on historical mass incident data and post-processing action feedback, to dynamically determine and adjust the sub-group assignment, based on parameters associated with the personal attribute information including:
computing, with the electronic processor of the PS server, a sum of fixed weights assigned to different personal attribute information and fixed weights assigned to different types of criminal records including violent crimes and non-violent crimes, the fixed weights being stored in a memory associated with (104b) the PS server (104);
comparing, with the electronic processor of the PS server, the computed sum associated with each arrestee to determine if the computed sum exceeds one or more predetermined security risk thresholds stored in the memory of the PS server;
assigning electronic tags of arrestees to different sub-groups comprising: a violent offender sub-group in response to the computed sum exceeding the predetermined security risk threshold;
a non-violent offender sub-group in response to the computed sum not exceeding the predetermined security risk threshold;
generating, using PS server analytics on the post processing action-feedback of the machine learning model, automated arrest processing procedure instructions, customized for each assigned sub-group (320), to physically separate the violent offender sub-groups from the non-violent offender sub-groups,
transmitting the automated arrest processing procedure instructions, customized for each assigned sub-group, from the PS server to the field-operated PS radio (102) associated with the grouping request (322) as part of a sixth electronic workflow for display at the user-interface of the field operated PS radio;
and updating each electronic tag device, via a short-range link from the field operated PS radio, with respective sub-group assignment and associated automated arrest processing procedure instructions, wherein the electronic tag device is configured to dynamically store, update, and present context-specific instructions to the field operated public PS radio (302) operating at the mass incident for real-time arrestee transport assignments to transport arrestees from the incident scene to a processing facility, the arrestee transport assignments physically separating the violent offender sub-groups from the non-violent offender sub-groups via different transport vehicles, without dispatch communications.
Claim 12: A communication system, comprising: a server having a processor configured to:
receive, at the server processor, an electronic notification of a mass arrest event with grouping request for grouping arrestees from a requesting field operated public safety (PS) radio operating without dispatch communication;
generate, with the server processor, a mass arrest ID based on type of mass event;
generate, with the server processor, an electronic form for collecting individual arrestee information based on the type of mass event, the electronic form including pull menus for selecting current offense type and personal attribute information for each arrestee;
transmit the electronic form from the server to the requesting PS radio for collection and electronic tagging of current offense type and personal attribute information for each arrestee;
receive, at the server processor, the collected and tagged information input to the user interface of the public safety radio including the current offense type and personal attribute information for each arrestee;
automatically assign each arrestee to an offense group based on current offense type;
search, with the server processor, a memory associated with the PS server, for electronic arrest records associated with each arrestee of the offense group;
access, with the server processor, a publicly available electronic database based on the collected personal attribute information for each arrestee;
automatically refine, using server analytics, the offense group into assigned sub-groups based on the arrest record and collected personal attribute information associated with each arrestee, wherein the sub-groups are determined, with the server processor, by:
executing a machine learning model of the PS server, trained on historical mass incident data and post-processing action feedback, to dynamically determine and adjust the sub-group assignment, based on parameters associated with the personal attribute information further including:
computing a sum of fixed weights assigned to different personal attribute information and fixed weights assigned to different types of criminal records, the fixed weights being stored in the memory of the server;
comparing, with server processor, the computed sum associated with an arrestee to determine if the computed sum exceeds a predetermined security risk threshold;
assigning electronic tags of arrestees to different sub-groups comprising: a violent offender sub-group in response to the computed sum exceeding the predetermined security risk threshold;
and a non-violent offender sub-group in response to the computed sum not exceeding the predetermined security risk threshold;
generate, using the post processing action-feedback of the machine learning model, automated arrest processing procedure instructions for each assigned sub- group to physically separate the violent offender sub-group from the non-violent offender sub-group;
transmit the arrest processing procedure instructions including the identified arrestees for each assigned sub-group from the server to the user interface of the field operated PS radio associated with the grouping request; and
updating each electronic tag device, via a short-range link from the field operated PS radio, with the sub-group assignments for each arrestee and associated automated arrest processing procedure instructions which physically separate the violent offenders from the non-violent offenders, wherein the electronic tag device is configured to dynamically store, update, and present context-specific instructions to the public safety radio, without dispatch communications, for real-time arrestee transport assignment from at the masse incident to a processing facility, the real time arrestee transport assignment separating the violent offender sub-groups from the non-violent offender sub-groups via different transport vehicles.
The bolded limitations fall within the abstract idea category, “certain methods of organizing human activity” particularly the subcategories commercial interactions or legal obligations, and managing personal relationships, personal behavior or interactions between people found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Referring to the specification [0003] the invention aims to solve the problem of “facilitat(ing) the organization and transport of arrestees at an incident scene to a processing facility.” It further explains that these acts are currently being performed through “paper records and officer communication back and forth to dispatch which can be very time-consuming.” The legal obligation in this case is the legal process of detaining and booking a person under arrest. The invention aims to ensure compliance with this legal obligation by providing a system in which police organize the arrested individuals, an act which falls under the abstract idea sub category “managing personal behavior interactions between people.” The entire process above is directed to “managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident, generating arrest procedure recommendations” which are routine activities that police officers have a legal duty to perform, and are actions that organize interactions between people, therefore representative claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under prong 2.
The examiner notes that while the process does disclose data processing steps such as executing a model, trained on historical mass incident data and post-processing action feedback, to dynamically determine and adjust parameters for sub-group assignment, including:
computing a sum of fixed weights assigned to different types of criminal records,
comparing the computed sum associated with each arrestee to determine if the computed sum exceeds one or more predetermined security risk
These are merely steps recited at a high level of generality such that they are merely reciting instructions to perform generic data processing in order to perform the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by searching criminal records, categorizing individuals into groups, and displaying the results of the processing. Since the results of the processing are merely instructions for users to perform certain actions, they are no more than instructions to perform the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, therefore, the instructions to an officer with the real-time arrestee transport assignments separating the violent offender sub-groups from the non-violent offender sub-groups via different transport vehicles, is still merely a recitation of instructions to a user to manage personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people.
The current amendments replace the word “recommendations” with “instructions,” however, the scope of instructions more closely follows the wording of the sub-grouping, therefore, the claims as amended are still a recitation of an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims replace “present context-specific recommendations to a field officer” with “present context-specific instructions to the public safety radio,” however, even with the integration of a computer, the claim itself still recites a human interaction under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) clarifies, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” Therefore, sending the context-specific instructions to a PS radio does not preclude the claims overall from reciting “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the category includes certain activity between a person (officer) and a computer (PS radio).
Finally, the amendments of “based on parameters associated with the personal attribute information further including: computing a sum of fixed weights assigned to different personal attribute information and fixed weights assigned to different types of criminal records,” is still a recitation of the abstract idea because it still recites the processing of personal information at a high-level of generality such that it encapsulates instructions to manage personal behavior. In other words, the claims are no more than a set of instructions to an individual to perform the computations. Even when considering the step of generating, using the post-processing action-feedback of a model, since the generating of steps is still merely indicating what kind of data to use (post-processing action-feedback is merely information gathered after the interaction), the steps still fall within the scope of instructions to manage “personal behavior, interactions or relationships between people.”
The examiner notes that the negative limitation “without dispatch communication” does hold patentable weight, but it does not restrict the claims to technological implementations because it does not restrict other forms of non-technological communication. Similarly, even if the claims restricted all forms of communication, since the claims result in a series of instructions to manage personal behavior, whether that is generated through computer processing, or manually, it still falls within “managing personal behavior, or interactions, or relationships between people” therefore the claims are still a recitation of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
(a)-automated method in claim 1
(b)-electronic processor in claim 1
(c)-electronic notification in claims 1, 12
(d)-electronic workflow in claims 1, 12
(e)-electronic database in claims 1, 12
(f)-public safety server in claims 1, 12
(g)-public safety radio in claims 1, 12
(h)-electronic form in claims 1, 12
(i)-pull down menu of the electronic form in claims 1, 12
(j)-automatically (assigning, refining) in claims 1, 12
(k)-electronic arrest records in claims 1, 12
(l)-memory in claim 12
(m)-electronic tag in claims 1, 12
(n)-electronic tag device in claims 1, 12
(o)-user interface in claims 1, 12
(p)-short-range link in claims 1, 12
(q)-server processor in claim 12
(r) -machine learning model in claims 1, 12
The additional elements listed above are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity. In this case, the abstract idea of “managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident, generating arrest procedure recommendations” its corresponding the data collection, processing and output operations are merely indicated to be performed on generic computing components such as electronic processor, electronic database, public safety server, public safety radio, memory, electronic tag, electronic tag device, user interface, and server processor. As made clear in the specification in at least [0012], these components are generic components and not a particular, improved computer infrastructure. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f) for guidance on “apply it” or mere instructions to perform an abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the modifiers, “electronic” and “automatic” are also a mere indication to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device, therefore additional elements a, b, c, d, e, h, j, k, m, and n are merely “apply it” or performing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
Furthermore, the additional elements are also a general link to a particular technology or technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). In particular, the additional elements h, I, and o are general links to the field of user interface technology. In this case the abstract idea is merely performed on a user interface, with elements such as electronic forms and pull down menus which are inherent to generic user interface technology. The implementation of user interfaces and such elements are not an improvement to a particular technology or technological environment as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(a), therefore these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, additional elements, m, n, and p are a general link to electronic tag technology such as Radio-Frequency Identification(RFID) or Near Field Communication (NFC). The claims merely generally link tag technology in the manner that they are inherently used. For example, using RFID tag devices to track and identify an object, or even store data. This implementation of tag technology does not meaningfully limit the use of the technology on the abstract idea since it is generically claimed. There is no improvement to the field of tag technology purported as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(a).
Finally, the amended limitation of using a “machine learning model” to dynamically determine and adjust parameters is both an “apply it” level elements and a “general link” because it merely requires the model to be a machine learning without meaningfully limiting its use on the claims. It is an “apply it” level element because it merely uses machine learning as a black box to perform the intended outcome of determining and adjusting parameters. Furthermore, determining and adjusting parameters based on historical/personal attribute data on specifically a “machine learning model” is an “apply it” level element because it still merely invokes machine learning generically as a tool to perform the existing process, without reciting any improvements to the field of machine learning (see MPEP 2106.05(a). In addition, because the model is merely recited to be a ”machine learning” model, it is merely a general link to the field of machine learning without meaningfully limiting the claims such that they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even when considering the additional elements individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because even the combination of RFID technology, radio devices used for input and output, and machine learning for generic data processing collectively are still mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
(a)-automated method in claim 1
(b)-electronic processor in claim 1
(c)-electronic notification in claims 1, 12
(d)-electronic workflow in claims 1, 12
(e)-electronic database in claims 1, 12
(f)-public safety server in claims 1, 12
(g)-public safety radio in claims 1, 12
(h)-electronic form in claims 1, 12
(i)-pull down menu of the electronic form in claims 1, 12
(j)-automatically (assigning, refining) in claims 1, 12
(k)-electronic arrest records in claims 1, 12
(l)-memory in claim 12
(m)-electronic tag in claims 1, 12
(n)-electronic tag device in claims 1, 12
(o)-user interface in claims 1, 12
(p)-short-range link in claims 1, 12
(q)-server processor in claim 12
(r) -machine learning model in claims 1, 12
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic processor, electronic database, public safety server, public safety radio, memory, electronic tag, electronic tag device, user interface, server processor, and machine learning to perform electronic or automatic “managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident, generating arrest procedure recommendations” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, user interfaces, machine learning and electronic tags are generally linked to the abstract idea in a matter that does not meaningfully limits its use on the abstract idea as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus claims 1, and 12 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-16, 18-24 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
-Claims 2, 4, 5, and 14-15 merely further limit the abstract idea, which is the arrest processing procedure. These are further limited to include transportation processing, facility processing, and safety strategies for transporting such as bus seating. Therefore, it is more of the same abstract idea of “managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident, generating arrest procedure recommendations” which are all steps to comply with a legal obligation, and all are steps to organize human behavior because they are no more than “instructions” to manage personal behavior. There are no further additional elements being recited, therefore the existing additional elements in the claims they depend on are still found not be integrated into a practical application and have not been found to be significantly more for the reasons as stated above. Please review MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
-Claims 3 and 13 merely further limit what is included in personal attribute information to include physical and cultural attributes. Therefore they are more of the same abstract idea of “managing interactions between individuals, identifying arrested persons, searching their records, and providing recommendations on how to group individuals so as to minimize danger” which are all steps to comply with a legal obligation, and all are steps to organize human behavior. Specifically, they are encompassed under the identification step, and only further specify what information is being taken during that step. There are no further additional elements being recited, therefore the existing additional elements in the claims they depend on are still found not be integrated into a practical application and have not been found to be significantly more for the reasons as stated above. Please review MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
- Claims 6, 7, and 18 add the additional step of calculating a security risk number and sending an alert to the PS radio when the number passes a certain threshold. Specifically, the claims recite the following, where the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements are italicized:
Claims 6: wherein automatically refining the offense group into sub-groups further comprises: sending an alert to the PS radio along the automatic processing procedure instructions when the computed sum associated with an arrestee exceeds a predetermined security risk threshold.
Claims 7 and 18: wherein the fixed weights are assigned based on criminal record severity, wherein violent crimes are weighted more heavily than non-violent crimes.
The simple equations above, when claimed as broadly as they are claimed, can be and are performed by law enforcement officers when determining the risk of an individual. Even when considered in combination with claims they depend on the combined abstract idea is now “managing interactions between individuals, identifying arrested persons, searching their records, following instructions to determine risk threshold and asking for instructions on how to group individuals so as to minimize danger” which are still both directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” The new step, “following instructions to determine risk threshold” falls under the teachings and instructions section of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Furthermore, the additional element of sending an alert to the PS Radio is an additional element that is repeated from the first step. It is still not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application and has not been found to be significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Prong 2 and Step 2B rejections of representative claims 1 and 12, particularly because it is merely instructions to apply an abstract idea on general computing devices in their ordinary capacity as seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, it is also generally linking the field of arrestee booking to radio, and mobile devices without providing significantly more.
-Dependent Claims 8, and 19 recite the following additional steps which are analyzed individually and outlined with bold to designate the abstract idea or italicized to designate the additional elements:
-monitor and compare, using server analytics, arrest processing actions taken at the mass arrest event to the arrest processing procedure recommendations;
-determine accepted instructions, rejected instructions and deviated instructions, based on the compared arrest processing actions; and
-adjust the automatic arrest processing procedure instructions for other grouping requests based on the determined accepted instructions, rejected instructions and deviated instructions.
-storing the adjusted arrest processing procedure instructions for the type of mass incident to the memory of the server for access in future mass incidents.
These additional steps are simply steps that provide instructions to change and update the “management of personal behavior or relationships between people” as seen in MPEP 2106.04(a)(II)(C). The way it is currently claimed simply entails the process of a supervisor observing how their employees perform based on the instructions given to them and the results of those instructions, and adjusting their instructions overtime to improve their system. This is an abstract idea because even when applied to the process of arrestee booking, whichever officer is in charge of the process as a whole would performing the steps listed above throughout their career as they are further experienced and informed, ultimately improving their management of other people. Therefore in the combination with the claims depended upon the abstract is now, “managing interactions between individuals, identifying arrested persons, searching their records, following instructions to determine risk threshold, providing instructions on how to group individuals so as to minimize danger, and improving the instructions overtime based on results” The fact that the abstract idea is performed on the additional element of a processor does not make it claim eligible because the processor represents the computing device being instructed to perform the abstract idea in its ordinary capacity as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore the claims have not been integrated into a practical or have been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
Claims 9, and 20 adds the additional of step of “wherein the automatic arrest processing procedure instructions are stored in, and retrievable from, a memory of the server based on mass incident type.” This is simply a claim to storing information in the form of data. Therefore the combined abstract idea is still, “managing interactions between individuals, identifying arrested persons, searching their records, following instructions to determine risk threshold, providing instructions on how to group individuals so as to minimize danger, and storing the instructions based on their mass incident type.” The new additional element of a memory is simply an example of “apply it” or its equivalents or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea of storing instructions based on their incident type on a computing device of a memory device of the server in its ordinary function and capacity. Therefore the claims have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and have not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea as it merely requires the “automatic arrest processing procedure instructions to be “periodically stored,” which is merely a data processing step. Therefore it is more of the same abstract idea without any additional elements. Therefore the claim is still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 16, and 21 merely further limit the abstract idea, which is arrest processing procedure instructions. These are further limited to include transportation processing recommendations, facility processing recommendations, and safety strategies for transporting such as bus seating. Therefore, it is more of the same abstract idea of “managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident, generating arrest procedure instructions” which are all steps to comply with a legal obligation, and all are steps to organize human behavior. Therefore, even in combination, these additional elements of the claims have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and have not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept.
Claims 22-24 merely further define the abstract idea by adding additional steps and rules to managing the personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals. Furthermore, claims 23 and 24 merely indicate type of data and the source of the data used to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims recite more of the same abstract idea of “managing on-scene arrests during a mass incident, generating arrest procedure recommendations.” Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider and the previous additional elements are still merely apply it (MPEP 2106.05(f) or general links (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The amended claims 1 and 12 are a further limitation of the original claims indicated as subject matter distinguished from the prior art in the nonfinal rejection dated 02/06/2025. After an updated search, the best prior art of record remains to be Dalley et al. ( US 20140040158 A1 ), Zickafoose et al. (US 20230252790 A1), and Michael D Johnston (US 20170148124 A1) hereinafter Johnston which still fails to expressly teach, or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim.
- Dalley discloses a method of managing mass arrests, including an interface for intaking information in (Dalley [0027]), an RFID system for tracking arrestees (Dalley[0025]), and assignment of a group of arrestees to a transport vehicle (Dalley [0041]).
- Zickafoose discloses an incident management system in a school bus system that arranges the seating arrangement of students in a school bus based on classification of incident types (Zickafoose [0081]), providing recommendations based on the incident type (ZIckafoose [0083]).
-Johnston disclose a system for risk analysis of criminals to determine the likelihood of reoffending based on criminal history, police reports, witness statements, hospital records, character references and psychological testing whilst weighting these various factors to determine a risk level.
In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest all of the features in the independent claim 1 (also representative of claim 12) and more specifically the limitations of:
-automatically refining, at the electronic processor of the PS server as part of a fifth workflow (5), each offense group into assigned sub-groups based on the personal attribute information and the prior electronic arrest records associated with each arrestee (318), wherein automatically refining each offense group into assigned sub-groups further comprises:
executing a machine learning model of the PS server, trained on historical mass incident data and post-processing action feedback, to dynamically determine and adjust parameters for the sub-group assignment, based on parameters associated with the personal attribute information including:
Computing, with the electronic processor of the PS server, a sum of fixed weights assigned to different personal attribute information and fixed weights assigned to different types of criminal records including violent crimes and non-violent crimes, the fixed weights being stored in a memory associated with (104b) the PS server (104);
comparing, with the electronic processor of the PS server, the computed sum associated with each arrestee to determine if the computed sum exceeds one or more predetermined security risk thresholds stored in the memory of the PS server;
assigning electronic tags of arrestees to different sub-groups comprising: a violent offender sub-group in response to the computed sum exceeding the predetermined security risk threshold;
When considering the limitations above, in view of the claim as a whole, the prior art of record fails to disclose the steps above because it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to automatically refine each offense group into assigned sub groups including a violent offender sub-group in response to exceeding a predetermined security risk threshold because Johnston’s security risk analysis is meant for individually determining the risk of reoffending and not particular the live risk of a person during a mass arrest. While Dalley does teach mass arrest processing, Dalley is silent on the limitations of mass arrest IDs, refinement into subgroups, generation of recommendations based on a specific subgroup, seating assignment, and configuring the electronic tag device to dynamically store, update, and present context-specific recommendations to a field officer for real-time operational guidance at the incident scene or processing facility. Therefore, a hypothetical combination of the Dalley, Zickafoose, and Johnston would not predictably yield every limitation of the claim language because there is no clear motivation to combine Johnston’s risk analysis, with Zickafoose’s group assignment, into Dalley’s mass arrest system to arrive at the amended claims.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-24 are also deemed allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on allowable claims 1 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive for the following reasons.
In page 12 of the applicant’s response, regarding the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-24, the applicant asserts that “police officers are unable to generate arrest procedure instructions in today’s mass incident environment, without some reliance on dispatch communications.” However, the examiner is not convinced that this assertion, along with the information provided in the applicant’s background, makes it apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement to computer functionality, or to technology or a technical field is purported by the claims. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “other cases have found that additional elements are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem,” however, the problem of reliance on dispatch is not a technological problem, nor is do the claims recite a technological solution. At best, it is an administrative problem, and the claims recite a potential improvement to how personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals are managed, but do not recite a technological improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Furthermore, in response to the applicant’s assertion that the “without dispatch communication” move the claim outside of routine activity, this argument is not persuasive because this negative limitation does not necessarily narrow the scope of the claims to technological implementation only. Even assuming arguendo that it did, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more because it is merely “apply it” in that it recites the idea of a solution or outcome without meaningfully limiting the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that the instructions derived “not only based on criminal records but also current personal attributes of each arrestee” would not be known to an officer and are not part of typical dispatch communication between an officer an dispatch. However, this argument still does not convince the examiner that a technical improvement is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Instructions based on “personal attributes” are still managing personal behavior, and even when including these in the fixed weights, it is still managing the personal information of an individual. Since the claims merely use this personal information to result in a set of instructions to an individual, it is still more of the same “certain methods of organizing human activity.” While the examiner is “not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement” (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the applicant has not satisfied the burden to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. The provided arguments may show an improvement to the procedure, but given that the improvement is to how personal behavior is managed, it does not count as a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, even though the amendments may move the independent claims “outside of any routine activities that police officers perform at a mass incident” these improvements to the abstract idea are still part of the abstract idea. Even novel recitations of an abstract idea still fall under “judicial exceptions” and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. While the amended claims remain distinguished over the prior art of record, since the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has not been overcome, the claims remain rejected and are not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Rabb et al. (US 10984496 B1) discloses a threat assessment assistance module with a machine learning engine to identify patterns in behavior to detect a risk indicative of a violent behavior or possible traumatic event such as a “school shooting, violent rally, terrorist attacks, extremist events...”However, Rabb does not teach or suggest using this technique in order to provide instructions to separate violent protestors from non-violent protestors.
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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626