DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 2/23/2026.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards determining schedules of interviewers and interviewees (e.g. humans) and deploying resources to locations of interest based on public safety incidents that have occurred, which is managing how humans interact via meetings and how they deploy resources (e.g. Organizing Human Activity). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Diehr, Diehr is unrelated to the claims as the claims have nothing to do with the rubber molding process. The claims recite deploying the video capture device to the determined location of interest, but that deployment is still done by a human as shown in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0020 at least. The newly amended autonomous control is still recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner also points to Applicant’s specification which states nothing beyond generic use of autonomous vehicles for implementing the abstract idea, where the only mention of autonomous is in Paragraph 0106. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 are directed toward a process and a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a scheduling computing device for selectively deploying one or more mobile image capture devices for a public safety related comprising: a receiver arranged to receive public safety related interview scheduling information that comprises at least one interview window time parameter associated with an interview window for interviewing an interviewee by an interviewer regarding a public safety incident, the at least one interview window time parameter comprising at least a start time of the public safety related interview; one or more electronic processors operably coupled to the receiver and arranged to: access, responsive to the at least one interview window time parameter, one or more electronically-stored existing public safety incident case records associated with the public safety incident; process information contained in the one or more electronically-stored existing public safety incident case records, and identifying one or more locations of interest relevant to the public safety incident; determine that the one or more mobile image capture devices is available to deploy prior to a start of the interview window; an output port, coupled to the one or more electronic processors and arranged to output instructions to electronically control the one or more available mobile image capture devices to be autonomously deployed to travel to the one or more public safety incident locations of interest prior to the start of the interview window; and the receiver further arranged to subsequently receive, from the one or more available mobile image capture devices, video captured by the one or more available mobile image capture devices at the one or more public safety incident locations of interest (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing scheduling data of an interviewee and an interviewer of public safety incidents of humans and determining time windows and availability for scheduling the meetings and deploying humanly controlled video capture devices to record the public safety incident locations of interest, which is managing how humans interact.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-17, and 19-22 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “receive public safety related interview scheduling information; and the receiver further arranged to subsequently receive, from the one or more available mobile image capture devices, video captured by the one or more available mobile image capture devices at the one or more public safety incident locations of interest (claims 1 and 13)”, which would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the independent claims further recite “a scheduling computing device, one or more mobile image capture devices (claim 1)”; “a scheduling computing device comprising: a receiver arranged to; one or more electronic processors operably coupled to the receiver and arranged to: an output port, coupled to the one or more electronic processors and arranged to; one or more available mobile image capture devices (claim 13)”, which are additional elements that would not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
The Examiner notes that the claimed image capture devices are behaving in the normal and expected fashion as other image capture devices and are recited in Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0028-0032 of Applicant’s specification as being generic image capture devices, where the vehicle, drone, and airborne unit are all human operated (See Paragraph 0020), which merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-17, and 19-22 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 7, 12, 14-15, and 19 additionally recite “an electronic message (claims 7 and 19); a public safety vehicular camera, a live surveillance drone resource, and a live surveillance airborne unit (claim 12); a user interface operably coupled to the one or more electronic processors (claims 14-15)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System Independent claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 recite a scheduling computing device, one or more mobile image capture devices (claim 1)”; “a scheduling computing device comprising: a receiver arranged to; one or more electronic processors operably coupled to the receiver and arranged to: an output port, coupled to the one or more electronic processors and arranged to; one or more available mobile image capture devices (claim 13); however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0143 and Figures 2 and 7. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the Independent claims further recite “receive public safety related interview scheduling information; and the receiver further arranged to subsequently receive, from the one or more available mobile image capture devices, video captured by the one or more available mobile image capture devices at the one or more public safety incident locations of interest (claims 1 and 13)”, which would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-17, and 19-22 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, dependent claims 7, 12, 14-15, and 19 additionally recite “an electronic message (claims 7 and 19); a public safety vehicular camera, a live surveillance drone resource, and a live surveillance airborne unit (claim 12); a user interface operably coupled to the one or more electronic processors (claims 14-15)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 disclose a system and method for analyzing scheduling data of an interviewee and an interviewer for public safety incidents of humans and determining time windows and availability for scheduling the meetings based on person availability and video capture device availability and deploying humanly controlled video capture devices to record the public safety incident locations of interest prior to the start of an interview window.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Treasure (US 2018/0276586 A1) – which discloses scheduling and routing of vehicles to locations.
Furman et al. (WO 2020218928 A1) – which discloses deploying virtual assistants to collect data from public incidents.
Yeoh et al. (US 2021/0176317 A1) – which discloses identifying suspicious object movements based on signal strength and information from IoT.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22, such as analyzing scheduling data of an interviewee and an interviewer for public safety incidents of humans and determining time windows and availability for scheduling the meetings based on person availability and video capture device availability and deploying humanly controlled video capture devices to record the public safety incident locations of interest prior to the start of an interview window. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a scheduling computing device for selectively deploying one or more mobile image capture devices for a public safety related comprising: a receiver arranged to receive public safety related interview scheduling information that comprises at least one interview window time parameter associated with an interview window for interviewing an interviewee by an interviewer regarding a public safety incident, the at least one interview window time parameter comprising at least a start time of the public safety related interview; one or more electronic processors operably coupled to the receiver and arranged to: access, responsive to the at least one interview window time parameter, one or more electronically-stored existing public safety incident case records associated with the public safety incident; process information contained in the one or more electronically-stored existing public safety incident case records, and identifying one or more locations of interest relevant to the public safety incident; determine that the one or more mobile image capture devices is available to deploy prior to a start of the interview window; an output port, coupled to the one or more electronic processors and arranged to output instructions to electronically control the one or more available mobile image capture devices to be autonomously deployed to travel to the one or more public safety incident locations of interest prior to the start of the interview window; and the receiver further arranged to subsequently receive, from the one or more available mobile image capture devices, video captured by the one or more available mobile image capture devices at the one or more public safety incident locations of interest (as required by claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22)” has no motivation to combine the scheduling specific aspects with the public safety incident interviews requiring specific time windows based on public safety incident locations of interest and deployment of the mobile imaging device prior to the start of the interview, thus rendering claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-22 as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights