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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on 9/10/26.
Claims 1, 11, 12 and 20 have been amended.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/10/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method and claims 11-20 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite methods for implementing, a first workflow environment associated with a first entity and a second workflow environment associated with a second entity different from the first entity, wherein the first workflow environment and the second workflow environment are implemented independently of one another such that, when a trigger of a given safety workflow occurs in one of the first workflow environment and the second workflow environment, responsive actions of the given safety workflow occur only in the one of the first workflow environment and the second workflow environment; monitoring in the first workflow environment associated with a first entity, a first safety workflow associated with a first entity, the first safety workflow comprising a first trigger and a first responsive electronic action associated with the first entity; the first trigger occurring when one or more conditions are met as determined using sensor data associated with the first entity; comparing an event, associated with the first trigger of the first safety workflow, with an export rule, associated with the first entity and maintained in the first workflow environment, for exporting the event to one or more second safety workflows associated with one or more second entities different from the first entity, the one or more second entities including the second entity; in response to the event of the first safety workflow meeting the export rule, exporting the event to the second workflow environment associated with a second entity; comparing the event with an import rule, associated with a second entity and maintained in the second environment for initiating a second safety workflow associated with the second entity, the second safety workflow based on the event; and, in response to the event meeting the import rule, initiating the second safety workflow associated with the second entity, the second safety workflow comprising a second trigger and a second responsive action associated with the second entity, the second trigger corresponding to the event. wherein the second safety workflow is further initiable, in the second workflow environment, in response to the second trigger being detected independent of the event, such that the event meeting the import rule initiates the second safety workflow as if the event were detected at a location associated with the second entity.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as Claims 1, 11 a workflow computing device, a first physical device, one or more physical sensors, a second physical device, (Claim 11) a computing device, processor, storage medium), the claims are directed to monitoring and initiating workflow based on trigger event and rules. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving event data, analyzing it, and providing workflow. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – a workflow computing device, sensor, a first physical device, a second physical device, (Claim 11) a computing device, processor, storage medium. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide workflow based on rule for event. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to Claims 1, 11 a workflow computing device, a first physical device, one or more physical sensors, a second physical device, (Claim 11) a computing device, processor, storage medium these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0039] details “ the workflow server 102 may be implemented as one or more computing devices, one or more servers, one or more cloud computing devices, and the like. [0031] These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data, which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claims.
Claims 2, 12 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 & 11 by defining details for export and import rules and monitoring execution of at least two first safety workflows associated with the first entity, wherein a first subset of the at least two first safety workflows meets one or more export rules, and a second subset of the at least two first safety workflows does not meet any of the one or more export rules; in response to respective events of the first subset meeting one or more of the export rules, comparing the respective events with one or more import rules to initiate one or more of the second safety workflows when the respective events meet one or more of the import rules; and in response to further respective events of the second subset not meeting any of the one or more export rules, failing to compare the further respective events with the one or more import rules such that none of the one or more of second safety workflows are initiated. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 13-15 recites the event is associated with one or more respective keywords and one or more respective locations; wherein the export rule comprises one or more keywords, and wherein the event meeting the export rule comprises: one or more respective keywords, associated with the event, meeting one or more of the keywords of the export rule; wherein the import rule comprises: one or more keywords; and location criteria, and wherein the event meeting the import rule comprises: one or more respective keywords, associated with the event, meeting one or more of the keywords of the import rule; and one or more locations, associated with the event, meeting the location criteria of the import rule. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6-7, 16-17 recite wherein the event meeting the export rule comprises: metadata, associated with the event, meeting one or more of keywords and respective export metadata of the export rule, or wherein the event meeting the import rule comprises: the metadata, associated with the event, meeting one or more of respective keywords, location criteria and respective import metadata of the import rule, wherein the event is associated with one or more keywords, one or more respective locations, and movement data, and wherein the import rule comprises: one or more respective keywords; location criteria; and a time period, and wherein the event meeting the import rule comprises: the one or more keywords, associated with the event, meeting one or more of the respective keywords of the import rule; and a distance from the one or more respective locations associated with the event, determined from the movement data and the time period, meeting the location criteria of the import rule. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8-10, 18-20 recite receiving input from a first device associated with the first entity to one or more of define and edit the export rule; receiving input from a second device associated with the second entity to one or more of define and edit the import rule; maintaining a log of when the event meets one or more of the export rule and the import rule. The receiving function is similar to a data gathering function. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes 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)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Subject Matter distinguished from prior art
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Saini (US 11,880,795 B1) discloses the method/system comprising:
Saini discloses implementing, a first workflow environment associated with a first entity and a second workflow environment associated with a second entity different from the first entity (Col 1 lines 54-67 conditions at various locations are continuously monitored and when an event of interest is detected, the system operates to determine if it is an actionable event and if so, the system automatically identifies the type of event, notifies management and identifies and notifies an individual or a number of individuals qualified to take action with regard to the event and assigns a workflow in response to the event)., wherein the first workflow environment and the second workflow environment are implemented independently of one another such that, when a trigger of a given safety workflow occurs in one of the first workflow environment and the second workflow environment, responsive actions of the given safety workflow occur only in the one of the first workflow environment and the second workflow environment (Col 11 lines 30-45 the system automatically identifies the event and can notify management and/or identifies and notifies a qualified individual or a number of qualified individuals and assigns workflows with regard to the event. Further, the system and method operates to detect and identified events having assigned concern levels that can be used to assign workflows and depending on the concern level can prioritized the workflows. Such workflows can, for a non-limiting example, a workflow can include a qualified individual or group of individuals delivering or retrieving objects to or from a location; having one or more qualified individuals react with other individuals (such as a sales clerk reacting with a customer); one or more qualified individuals performing a task or taking corrective action at a location)
Saini discloses monitoring, at a workflow computing device, in a first workflow environment associated with a first entity, execution of a first safety workflow associated with the first entity (Col 2 lines 1-5 the system includes one or more image capture apparatus, such as a camera, that takes images at a location and transmits the images to a control unit having analysis software that operates to monitor the images and if an event is detected it operates to determine if the event is a recognized event. Col 2 lines 20-24 54-58 businesses (such as hospitals, stores, warehouses, manufacturing plants, and other similar places) to monitor and take timely action on observed event that may be taking place at various locations on the property. The one or more image capture apparatus includes or cooperates with one or more condition sensors that operate to monitor conditions at the location. Col 6 lines 1-6an image capture system 102 includes one or more condition sensors 132 that operate to obtain location information 134 concerning the conditions 18 at the location 10. The one or more condition sensors 132 may include, but are not limited to, temperature sensors, humidity or water sensors, noise sensors, motion sensors, gas sensors, smoke sensors, and the like, that operate to obtain location information 134 such that the location information 134 is transmitted to the control unit 108. Col 10 lines 18-24 managing workflow for observed event can be used to monitor conditions at various locations. Such events can include, but not limited to, the arrival of customers or objects, the detection of unauthorized individuals entering a location, a condition (such as smoke, water, or fire, etc., taking place at a location), and the arrive of an object at a location, etc.), the first safety workflow comprising a first trigger and a first responsive electronic action executed by a first physical device associated with the first entity (Col 1 lines 54-62 conditions at various locations are continuously monitored and when an event of interest is detected (trigger), the system operates to determine if it is an actionable event and if so, the system automatically identifies the type of the event, notifies management (electronic action) and identifies and notifies an individual or a number of individuals qualified to take action with regard to the event and assigns a workflow in response to the event. Col 2 lines 58-64 the analysis software uses the conditions at a location to identify a concern value for the event. If the concern level is of a specific level, the response software operates to identify one or more administrative agencies that an alarm notice based on the event and the concern level.);
Saini discloses comparing, at the workflow computing device, in the first workflow environment, an event, associated with the first trigger of the first safety workflow, with an export rule, associated with the first entity, for exporting the event to one or more second entities different from the first entity (Col 6 lines 13-26 when the control unit 108 receives location information 134 it operates to direct the analysis software 116 to compare the location information 134 to threshold references 136 (export rule) stored in a threshold database 138 and if the location information 134 exceeds a pertinent threshold reference 136 for that location, it directs the response software 118 to transmit a warning notice 140 to one or more individuals (exporting event) input/output device 130. The response software 118 further operates to transmit one or more images 104 showing the location 10 together with the warning notice 140 thereby allowing the one or more individuals (one or more second entities) to view the location 10 and better access the condition at the location 10 and the need to perform any corrective measures (workflows). Col 6 lines 34-37, 58-67 if the location information 134 exceeds a threshold reference 136, the response software 118 operates to transmit an alarm notice 142 to one or more administrative agencies 144.(second entity). If the recognized event is smoke at a location, the analysis software directs the response software to access the workflow databank and depending on the concern level can operate to transmit an alarm notice to one or more administrative agencies, such as a police station or a fire station, that smoke has been detected at a location. Depending on the concern level for the recognized event, the analysis software operates to direct the response software to select the proper workflow (task) and transmits the workflow to one or more qualified individuals.)
Saini discloses in response to the event of the first safety workflow meeting the export rule, exporting the event to a second workflow environment associated with a second entity (Col 6 lines 42-48, 58-67 FIG. 5, if the location information 134 exceeds a threshold reference 136, the response software 118 operates to identify one or more appropriate administrative agencies 144 (second entity), such as by utilizing a listing of administrative agencies 146 stored in an agency database 148 that correspond to recognized events and transmits an alarm notice 142 to the identified one or more administrative agencies 144. If the recognized event is smoke at a location, the analysis software directs the response software to access the workflow databank and depending on the concern level (export rule) can operate to transmit an alarm notice to one or more administrative agencies, such as a police station or a fire station (a second workflow environment/second entity), that smoke has been detected at a location.); comparing, with an import rule, associated with a second entity for initiating a second safety workflow associated with the second entity, the second safety workflow based on the event ( Col 6 lines 25-38 if the location information 134 at a location 10 exceeds a threshold reference 136, the image capture apparatus 102 at the location 10 operates to transmit images 104 of the location 10 to the control unit 108 which directs the analysis software 116 to analyze the images 104 and operate to detect and identify one or more recognized events 124 contained within the images 104. In another preferred embodiment of the invention, if the location information 134 exceeds a threshold reference 136, the response software 118 operates to transmit an alarm notice 142 to one or more administrative agencies 144. Col 6 lines 41-48 FIG. 5, if the location information 134 exceeds a threshold reference 136, the response software 118 operates to identify one or more appropriate administrative agencies 144, such as by utilizing a listing of administrative agencies 146 stored in an agency database 148 that correspond to recognized events (import rule for second entity) and transmits an alarm notice 142 to the identified one or more administrative agencies 144., Col 7 lines 30-36 The response software 118 can then operate to identify one or more qualified individuals 16 to respond to the new recognized event, such as by accessing the listing of qualified individuals 160 stored in the memory 110 and transmits a workflow 126 (second workflow) and preferably images 104 of the event 12 to the individual input/output devices 130 of the one or more identified qualified individuals 16 in response to the new recognized event 124. ); and,
Saini discloses in response to the event, initiating, the second safety workflow associated with the second entity (Col 7 lines 48-62 the analysis software 116 cooperates with the response software 118 such that recognized events 124 detected and identified by the analysis software 116 that result in the analysis software 116 directing the response software 118 to transmit a workflow 126 to one or more identified qualified individuals 16, the transmitted workflow 126 includes one or more images 104 showing the recognized event 124. In another preferred embodiment, the analysis software 116 operates to identify (highlight) the recognized event 124 shown in the one or more images 104 that is being transmitted with the workflow 126. It should be understood that the workflow 126 being transmitted to the individual input/output devices 130 of the one or more identified qualified individuals 16 can include audio, such as an audio description of the recognized event and concern level (such as expressed audio by the administrator) as well as an audio notification 162 that a workflow 126 has been transmitted to the individual's input/output device 130.), the second safety workflow comprising a second trigger and a second responsive electronic action (Col 8 lines 36-48 if the analysis software detects and identifies a recognized event (such as an object or smoke at a location), the analysis software accesses the concern level database and identifies the concern level for the identified recognized event ( second trigger). Thus, the analysis software operates to identify the recognized event and a concern level for the recognized event. The analysis software then directs the response software to access the listing of qualified individuals and identifies one or more qualified individuals, such as security officers, that are qualified for responding to the recognized event and sends a workflow (electronic action) to the one or more qualified individual's input/output device that a recognized event has been detected.)
Saini does not specifically teach comparing, at the workflow computing device, in the second workflow environment, the event with an import rule, associated with a second entity for initiating a second safety workflow associated with the second entity, the second safety workflow based on the event; in response to the event meeting the import rule, initiating in the second safety workflow environment, the second safety workflow associated with the second entity
Appelbaum (US 8,453,159 B2), teaches comparing, at the workflow computing device, in the second workflow environment, the event with an import rule, associated with a second entity for initiating a second safety workflow associated with the second entity (Col 15 lines 12-18Published objects can be access controlled. A workspace makes use of a published object by "subscribing" to it. Subscribing consists of making at least one aspect of a published object available to an entity other than the publishing entity. Both publish and subscribe actions are controlled actions within their respective workspaces. (second workflow environment). Col 16 lines 49-67 Once information has been aggregated into an event object, it is passed to an analytics section 6020 for further processing (comparing) by placing it into an event queue. The analytics section 6020 provides a framework in which one or more analytic rules may be applied to event objects obtained from event queues. Each event object is processed by one or more rules (import rules). The results of the rule processing can include creating additional event objects, taking specific actions, or simply saving the event for possible later use. Specific actions resulting from rules acting on event objects, including external notifications, system updates, generation of additional event objects, etc., are managed by one or more responder sections 6030. The responder section(s) 6030 provide the external interfaces and program logic required to affect each configured action. Each of input, analytic, and responder sections may be deployed on a single computer, or may be distributed across a plurality of computers (second workflow environment). Col 18 lines 8-15 A responder section (7130) receives notification requests (or "notifications") from an analytics section through the communications means (7150) and processes these requests (second workflow environment). Each responder section further includes one or more responder services (7132a, 7132b, 7132c), which can convert notifications into responses for further processing, responder rules (7134a, 7134b, 7134c) that are used to configure the operation of the responder services (initiating second workflow), and an optional responder-processing log (7138), which is used to record the operation of the responder section. Analytics and responder services optionally can perform additional pre-processing/enrichment of events, and can insert events into any of the communication interfaces linking components of the system. Various embodiments of the present invention further include one or more instances of a rules engine Col 18 lines 58-62 event queues can be published from a first workspace, which makes them available to one or more second workspaces.), the second safety workflow based on the event (Col 8 lines 60-67 An RS is a data structure that can be provided as a data file, database entry, directory entry, or in another machine-readable format that can be used to describe a rule and associated information. RSs can be shared between users, workspaces, or systems or exported and transported between users, workspaces, systems or instances of the invention and can optionally be included in RuleBooks to simplify sharing and transporting RSs. Col 10 lines 29-38 the RuleBook items, or RuleBooks, are converted in format by exporting, for purposes of transport from a first system, and are converted again, by importing, for use on a second system., Col 16 lines 52-63 The analytics section 6020 provides a framework in which one or more analytic rules may be applied to event objects obtained from event queues. Each event object is processed by one or more rules (import/export rule). The results of the rule processing can include creating additional event objects, taking specific actions, or simply saving the event for possible later use. Specific actions resulting from rules acting on event objects, including external notifications (export rule for event), system updates, generation of additional event objects, etc., are managed by one or more responder sections 6030. The responder section(s) 6030 provide the external interfaces and program logic required to effect each configured action. Col 21 lines 30-38 The responder section operates one or more responder services, which convert responder notifications received within the system (9270) into responses (e.g., external notifications, messaging, or other actions) (9280). For example, a responder service can convert responder notifications resulting from the processing of an event object (such as the one above representing a news story that passed the pattern matching for "airplane") into an e-mail message, using information contained within the event object to fill in one or more aspects of the email message, such as a "To:" address or "Subject:". Each responder service has one or more configuration components in the form of responder rules (second workflow)); in response to the event meeting the import rule, initiating in the second safety workflow environment, the second safety workflow associated with the second entity (Col 15 lines 48-50 The import and export actions are controlled actions (e.g. subject to access and configuration controls) (import rules). Col 18 lines 8-15 A responder section (7130) receives notification requests (or "notifications") from an analytics section through the communications means (7150) and processes these requests (second workflow environment). Each responder section further includes one or more responder services (7132a, 7132b, 7132c), which can convert notifications into responses for further processing (initiating second workflow), responder rules (7134a, 7134b, 7134c) that are used to configure the operation of the responder services (initiating second workflow), and an optional responder-processing log (7138), which is used to record the operation of the responder section.)
Saini/Appelbaum do not specifically teach in response to the event meeting the import rule, initiating in the second workflow environment, the second safety workflow comprising a second trigger and a second responsive electronic action executed by a second physical device associated with the second entity, the second trigger corresponding to the event, wherein the second safety workflow is further initiable, in the second workflow environment, in response to the second trigger being detected independent of the event, such that the event meeting the import rule initiates the second safety workflow as if the event were detected at a location associated with the second entity
Bercovici et al. (US 2022/0030407A1) teaches in the second workflow environment, the event associated with a second entity for initiating a workflow associated with the entity ([0092] the actions of incident manager 724 may be performed in response to a trigger generated based on a dispatch assignment performed at a computer-aided dispatch device (not shown). The electronic communication may be provided from one or more UEs or other devices, e.g., a phone call/SMS message/email from a user UE, data and/or an alert from a sensor or other IoT UE. The electronic communication may indicate the type of incident to which first responders (e.g., EMTs, fire, police, bomb squad) (second entity) from one or multiple different agencies are to be dispatched.), the second safety workflow based on the event ([0097]Each agency console 722 may, in response to reception of the information from incident manager 724, provide available resources of the UEs associated with the agency and capabilities of these resources to incident manager 724. Each agency console 722 may, for example, provide to incident manager 724a list of main dispatched users/UEs with their roles (e.g., on-site coordinator or manager of the incident scene groups, specific PTT group manager or member); in response to the event meeting the rule, initiating the second safety workflow ([0098] Each agency console 722 may, in response to reception of the information from incident manager 724, provide available resources of the UEs associated with the agency and capabilities of these resources to incident manager 724. Each agency console 722 may, for example, provide to incident manager 724a list of main dispatched users/UEs with their roles (e.g., on-site coordinator or manager of the incident scene groups, specific PTT group manager or member), [0127] The incident manager may subsequently alert the relevant first responder agencies and the service provider (network orchestrator) covering the area of the incident scene, communicating the incident code and incident type to the agencies (and eventually to the network orchestrator). The incident manager may in particular determine the desired resources (e.g., number of responders/devices, network and device capabilities) to be used from the different agencies based on the incident, before negotiating the resources with the agencies. The agencies may send their available resources and relevant information to the network orchestrator via the incident manager. The agencies may also send unique user IDs of users to be dispatched and their roles to the incident manager.) comprising a second trigger and a second responsive electronic action associated with the second entity ([0120] second UE 902b of the UEs 902a, 902b, 902c may receive a trigger to leave the incident. The trigger may indicate, for example, that second UE 902b is no longer assigned (or has been reassigned) to the incident, and thus that second UE 902b is to disconnect from the network slice), the second trigger corresponding to the event ([0131] When the incident is over or when otherwise instructed, the UEs may depart from the incident scene. In some embodiments, the UEs may be reconfigured to their original state upon leaving the incident. UEs may, in general, leave the incident either by sending a PTT communication to a predetermined “leave” number or by sending a “leave” command to the incident manager. certain events may be triggered only when a specific UE leaves the incident. The specific UE may have a particular role or be the highest-ranking UE (of a particular agency or of all agencies). When the specific UE of each and every agency leave the incident, or, if a uniform command structure is used for the incident, when the highest-ranking UE/overall commander of the overall incident leaves.).
Grutu (US11,997,125) discloses presenting a plurality of available security actions to a user to resolve one or more security threats associated with the input data, the available security actions being respectively selectable by the user.
NPL, Management and monitoring security events in a business organization”, 2022 (NF 1/2/26) discloses managing network security process and risk calculations. Monitoring security events by tier 1 and tier 2 level support.
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest at least “in response to the event meeting the import rule, initiating, in the second workflow environment, the second safety workflow associated with the second entity, the second safety workflow comprising a second trigger and a second responsive electronic action executed by a second physical device associated with the second entity, the second trigger corresponding to the event, wherein the second safety workflow is further initiable, in the second workflow environment, in response to the second trigger being detected independent of the event, such that the event meeting the import rule initiates the second safety workflow as if the event were detected at a location associated with the second entity.” The prior art teachings as recited above fail to set forth any sufficient rationale for combining or otherwise modifying any of the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole. To arrive at the claimed invention with the precise combination of claimed features would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without relying on improper hindsight to substantially reconstruct Applicant's claimed invention.
Thus, the aforementioned combination of features claimed, as a whole, are not anticipated nor rendered obvious for any sufficient rationale by any of the prior art teachings. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations for the dependent claims due to their respective dependencies to the independent claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, examiner has considered all arguments. 101 rejection is updated per amendment. Applicant states on page 11 that claims recite a specific system architecture controlling interactions between computing environment, therefore claims are not directed to abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract idea of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Applicant further discusses DDR for providing technological solution. The court in DDR, in noting that the claims were so rooted in computer technology to overcome such a technical problem, distinguished the claims from claims found to be directed to ineligible subject matter by noting that the claims in DDR did not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the internet. The instant claims, however, unlike those in DDR, merely recite the performance of a business practice known from the pre-internet world (monitoring a first safety workflow associated with first entity) along with the requirement to perform it on the internet (or via a computer). Thus, as distinguished from the claims in DDR, the instant claims are not directed to a technical solution to a technical problem, and are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Bascom remarks, In Bascom, the courts agreed that an inventive concept can be found in the unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements, and more specifically “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user” where the filtering tool at the ISP is able to “identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account.” The Federal Circuit also determined that the claimed arrangement of elements in the system results in an improvement in the technology of filtering content on the Internet, because it offers “both the benefits of a filter on the local computer, and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” In instant case, the claims do not recite any improvement in the technology and there is no indication that the arrangement of the workflow is non-conventional or non-generic. Instead, the computer/additional elements appears to be a generic computer. Therefore, the arrangement of elements is conventional and generic.
With regards to Desjardin decision, claims were directed to training a machine learning model, however current claims do not recite any ML model or training of a ML model. The amended claims recite do not recite any ML models, or any details regarding training or model or how the model is used. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Applicant remarks regarding 103 rejections have been considered. In view of claim amendments and applicant’s remarks on pages 28-29, 35U.S.C 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin (US 10,861320) discusses the systems, methods, and media generate spatiotemporal emergency communication predictions, carry out data augmentation, detect emergency anomalies, optimize emergency resource allocation, or any combination thereof. “emergency service providers” may include organizations and institutions that may provide assistance in an emergency. For example, law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services commonly handle many emergency requests. In addition, specialized services may also be included, such as Coast Guard, Emergency management, HAZ-MAT, Emergency service providers, emergency response personnel, emergency dispatch center, and public safety access points may be used to refer to the organizations, systems, and/or personnel that provide emergency response services and/or coordination of such services.
Baum (US 2021/0407279 A1) discloses an integrated security system that adds an enhanced value to these security systems by enabling consumers to stay connected through email and SMS alerts, photo push, event-based video capture and rule-based monitoring and notifications. The Automations engine 308 manages the user-defined rules of interaction between the different devices (e.g. when door opens turn on the light). Though the automation rules are programmed and reside at the portal/server level, they are cached at the gateway level in order to provide short latency between device triggers and actions.[0114]
Scheidler (US 10,681,060) discloses maintaining a log for event (Fig 13)
Rahul (US 2017/0316354) discloses receive information associated with a workflow response to an incident at a site, to generate a flow chart, based on the received information, to document a non-linear sequence of steps selectable in response to the incident, and to determine a total number of positive response pathways to reach a node of the workflow in the flow chart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights