CTFR 18/345,495 CTFR 79504 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 2, 5, and 13 have been cancelled; therefore, Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 are currently pending in application 18/345,495. Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more. Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05. Examiner note : The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c). Regarding Step 1, Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-19 are directed toward a process (method). Claim 20 is directed toward an apparatus (system). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1. Regarding Step 2A [prong 1], Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 20 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of resource management/ allocation. Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention: A method for determining responses to dangerous situations based on degrees of danger, comprising: generating predicted danger information of a crime scene and predicting current danger information of the crime scene based on pieces of report content information and pieces of field police report content information; calculating information about a range of dispatched police force based on pieces of dispatched police report content information; calculating information about a current field police force status and a range of the field police force based on the field police report content information; and determining a response to the crime scene based on supportable resource information for the crime scene, the predicted danger information, the current danger information, the dispatched police force range information, and the information about the current field police force status and the range of the field police force; wherein generating the predicted danger information comprises: generating suspect action prediction information based on first report content information including at least one of a crime type, report contents or dispatch code, or a combination thereof, among the pieces of report content information, second report content information including at least one of personal details of a suspect, a past dangerous action taken by the suspect, or suspect movement information, or a combination thereof, among the pieces of report content information, and first field police report content information including at least one of a field police report, an action of the suspect, a criminal tool of the suspect, physical damage to a victim, personal details of the victim or a location of the victim, or a combination thereof, among the pieces of field police report content information; generating crime type-based danger prediction information based on the first report content information and third report content information including predicted danger actions for respective crimes among the pieces of report content information; generating crime scene-based danger prediction information based on the first report content information and fourth report content information including a past danger history of the crime scene, among the pieces of report content information; and generating the predicted danger information based on the first report content information, the suspect action prediction information, the crime type-based danger prediction information, and the crime scene-based danger prediction information; wherein the range of the field police force corresponds to a range in which the field police force or dispatched police force can physically respond to a crime risk, and is calculated by applying equipment possessed by the field police force or the dispatched police force and their proficiency of the field police force or the dispatched police force with the equipment; and wherein determining the response comprises: determining a response to a predicted danger using at least one of the predicted danger, the range of the dispatched police force, the supportable resource information, or information about the range of the field police force, or a combination thereof; and determining a response to current danger based on the current danger and information about the current field police force status and the range of the field police force; wherein the determining the response to the predicted danger includes obtaining a predicted danger degree after a time t has elapsed from the predicted danger, by generating a maximum score for the dispatched police force range, a current field police force status score , and a field police force score ; and wherein the calculating of the information about the range and the determining the response to the predicted danger is performed by a deep learning model. As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-12, and 14-19 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 20 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, and 20. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Regarding Step 2A [prong 2], Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as an “apparatus”, a “memory”, a “control program”, and a “processor”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The presence of a deep learning model or computer implementations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The deep learning model and computer limitations claimed herein are simply used as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the underlying abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. As claimed, the deep learning model is not iteratively trained to improve the accuracy of the model itself, it merely processes data to achieve a scheduling/ dispatch objective based on factors, function capabilities (scores), and received input. Examiner notes that the additional limitations of machine learning and computer processing do not result in computer functionality or technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The deep learning model and the computer limitation simply process the data through inputting and outputting data. Processing data is mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 Fed.Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, Lending Tree, LLLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(non-precedential). Thus, the additional limitations of deep learning model and computer limitations do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application. The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-12, and 14-19 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. Regarding Step 2B, Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as an “apparatus”, a “memory”, a “control program”, and a “processor”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-12, and 14-19 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 20 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 20; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 4/22/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 and 14-20, have been considered but are not persuasive. 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. The Applicant has made the argument that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. 8 However, while the Applicant's claims are directed to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter (Step 1), the claims fail to recite limitations that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Step 2a-2b). The claim limitations (under their broadest reasonable interpretation) recite Certain methods of organizing human activity as defined in the guidance set forth in the 2019 Memorandum. This is so because the claimed limitations recite steps that involve a gathering and processing data to determine resource management/ allocation. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception of Certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, having determined that claims recite a judicial exception, analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See Memorandum (Step 2A, prong 2), see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application within the meaning defined in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, Examiner notes the following. While the computer technology does make the steps more easily performed, in principle, the steps can be performed without such computer and the notion of ‘practicality’ is not evidenced. ‘Practicality’ is based on whether the invention demonstrates: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for at least the reason that the claims reflect an improvement in a technology or technical field, and that the “claims do ‘cover[ ] a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.’ See, e.g., the present specification, paragraphs [0004] and [0005]: [0004] Especially, crimes against women and children have increased and have become a social problem. Persons who feel a threat to their own safety currently have requested personal protection from police officers in a police station or from a private security or guard company, but an institution taking charge of personal protection, such as the police station or the guard company, undergoes a serious shortage of personnel or equipment compared to the need therefor, thus making it difficult to efficiently manage all persons who request personal protection. [0005] The crime scene response capabilities of a field police officer (i.e., an on-scene police officer) who has arrived at a crime scene and a dispatched police officer who is being dispatched to the crime scene in the event of the crime may vary depending on the capabilities of individual police officers, and the scale of damage in the crime scene may also vary depending on the crime scene response capabilities of the field police officer and the dispatched police officer. The above identifies the existing problems in conventional technology of crime prevention of the limited resources of police/security forces .” However, the Applicant’s specification [0004] describes the problem as a shortage of personnel, and [0005] of the specification fails to disclose and improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field that would solve the shortage of personnel problem. The Applicant further argues that “the specification identifies a particular solution to the problems to achieve an improvement in the technology of crime prevention, by developing and deploying better crime prediction, and providing a corresponding police response . See, e.g., paragraphs [00178] and [00179]: [00178] The present disclosure may accurately determine the situation of a crime scene by calculating and predicting the degree of danger in the crime scene. [00179] Further, the present disclosure may effectively provide a response for supporting the dispatched police and the field police based on the degree of danger. In view of the above, embodiments corresponding to the amended claims achieve improvement to the technology of crime prevention, by using a particular method of predicting the degree of danger posed by a given crime or crimes . The improvement is directly reflected in amended claim l's ‘wherein generating the predicted danger information comprises: generating suspect action prediction information based on first report content information including at least one of a crime type, report contents or dispatch code, or a combination thereof, among the pieces of report content information, second report content information including at least one of personal details of a suspect, a past dangerous action taken by the suspect, or suspect movement information, or a combination thereof, among the pieces of report content information, and first field police report content information including at least one of a field police report, an action of the suspect, a criminal tool of the suspect, physical damage to a victim, personal details of the victim or a location of the victim, or a combination thereof, among the pieces of field police report content information; generating crime type-based danger prediction information based on the first report content information and third report content information including predicted danger actions for respective crimes among the pieces of report content information; generating crime scene-based danger prediction information based on the first report content information and fourth report content information including a past danger history of the crime scene, among the pieces of report content information; and generating the predicted danger information based on the first report content information, the suspect action prediction information, the crime type-based danger prediction information, and the crime scene- based danger prediction information.’ By performing crime prediction using specific, granular data such as amended claim l's ‘at least one of a crime type, report contents or dispatch code, or a combination thereof ... at least one of personal details of a suspect, a past dangerous action taken by the suspect, or suspect movement information, or a combination thereof ... an action of the suspect, a criminal tool of the suspect, physical damage to a victim, personal details of the victim or a location of the victim, or a combination thereof,’ more accurate crime prediction can be performed as described in par. [00178] of the specification as noted above: ‘accurately determine the situation of a crime scene by calculating and predicting the degree of danger in the crime scene’; and based on the more accurate prediction, an appropriate response that conserves resources can be made, as described in par. [00179] of the specification as noted above: ‘effectively provide a response for supporting the dispatched police and the field police based on the degree of danger.’ The above both represents the required improvement to a technology under the Alice/Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong Two and provides the "significantly more" under the Alice/Mayo test, Step 2B. The additional elements described above amount to an inventive concept that involves significantly more than the alleged judicial exception itself.” However, Para 00178 does not describe a specific data accuracy problem to be solved, only that the present disclosure may accurately determine the situation of a crime scene by calculating and predicting the degree of danger in the crime scene. Para 00179 also fails to describe a specific response effectiveness problem to be solved, only that the present disclosure may effectively provide a response for supporting the dispatched police and the field police based on the degree of danger. Furthermore, the specification/ drawings fail to disclose support for any specific functional improvement of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. In short, the claimed invention does not focus on improving computers as tools, but rather on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools (apply it). See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter). The claims are simply directed to an abstract idea (searching, correlating, and transmitting/ displaying data based on saved rules and characteristics) with additional generic computer elements, because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Finally, the examination proceeds to evaluating whether the claims add specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum (Step 2B). The claims do not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. May 30, 2026 /JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 2 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 3 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 4 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 5 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 6 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 7 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 8 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 9 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 10 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 11 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 12 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 13 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 14 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/345,495 Page 15 Art Unit: 3629
Prosecution Insights