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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 8/12/2025.
Claims 1, 12 and 21 are currently amended.
Claims 2-9, 11, 13-21 were previously presented.
Claim 10 was cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are directed to a method, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…identify a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate a message in response to a zoning request, the zoning request comprises message information, wherein the message information includes a request for emergency services information; identify a plurality of recipients, based at least in part on the geographic area; transmit said message to said plurality of recipients; receive a set of responses from at least a portion of said plurality of recipients in real time; validate each response received from said portion of said plurality of recipients as the responses are received using an automated geolocation verification process, wherein each response is validated at least by verifying a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area, wherein the geolocation is derived from GPS metadata associated with the received response; identify, from content in each validated response, data points for generation of a zone map of the geographical area, the zone map having a plurality of emergency service zones; generate the zone map, based at least in part on the data points for generation of the zone map; provide access to said portion of said plurality of recipients to update the response received from said portion of said plurality of recipients in real time; receive updated responses from at least a portion of said recipients; validate each updated response, wherein each updated response is validated at least by verifying a geolocation of the update to the response is within the geographic area; identify, from content in each validated updated response, an update to the zone map, the update to the zone map including an update to at least one of the plurality of emergency service zones; generate an updated zone map, based at least in part on the update to the zone map; display one or more of the responses or updated responses of the updated zone map based on the verified geolocation of the response or update to the response; and provide said updated zone map to a user”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. generate and provide the zone map having a plurality of emergency service zones to a user based on the responses of the recipients) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more hardware processors, one or more communication systems, a network and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the recipients in real time; validate …each response… using an automated geolocation verification process…; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate… the zone map…; provide …access to the plurality of recipients; receive… updated responses from the recipients; validate… each updated response…by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify… an update to the zone map; generate… an updated zone map; display… one or more of the responses or updated responses; and provide … the updated zone map to a user”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the one or more hardware processors, the one or more communication systems, the network and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the recipients in real time; validate …each response… using an automated geolocation verification process…; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate… the zone map…; provide …access to the plurality of recipients; receive… updated responses from the recipients; validate… each updated response…by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify… an update to the zone map; generate… an updated zone map; display… one or more of the responses or updated responses; and provide … the updated zone map to a user”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 is rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Independent claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…identify a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate a message in response to a zoning request, the zoning request comprises message information, wherein the message information includes a request for emergency services information; identify a plurality of recipients, based at least in part on the geographic area; transmit said message to said plurality of recipients; receive responses from at least a portion of said plurality of recipients in real time; validate each response received from said portion of said plurality of recipients as the responses are received, wherein each response is validated at least by verifying a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify, from content in each validated response, data points for generation of a zone map of the geographical area, the zone map having a plurality of emergency service zones; generate the zone map, based at least in part on the data points for generation of the zone map; provide access to said portion of said plurality of recipients to update the response received from said portion of said plurality of recipients in real time; receive updated responses from at least a portion of said recipients; validate each updated response, wherein each updated response is validated at least by verifying a geolocation of the update to the response is within the geographic area; identify, from content in each validated updated response, an update to the zone map, the update to the zone map including an update to at least one of the plurality of emergency service zones; generate an updated zone map, based at least in part on the update to the zone map; display one or more of the responses or updated responses of the updated zone map based on the verified geolocation of the response or update to the response; and provide said updated zone map to a user; determine a risk associated with each of the plurality of emergency service zones in the updated zone map; store one or more of the responses, the updated responses, the zone map, or the updated zone map associated with the geographic zone; and retrieve previously stored responses, updated responses, zone maps, or updated zone maps associated with the geographic zone; wherein the update to the zone map is generated to select and apply one or more geospatial response model based on patterns in the previously stored responses, updated responses, zone maps, or updated zone maps”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. generate an insurance policy rate for each of the plurality of emergency service zones) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more hardware processors, one or more communication systems, a network, a graphical user interface, a database and a trained artificial intelligence module that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… said message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the plurality of recipients in real time; validate …each response …by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate …the zone map; provide access…to the plurality of recipients…; receive …updated responses from the recipients; validate …each updated response; identify …an update to the zone map; generate …an updated zone map; display …one or more of the responses or updated responses; provide …said updated zone map to a user; determine …a risk; store… the responses, the updated responses, the zone map, or the updated zone map; and retrieve …previously stored responses, updated responses, zone maps, or updated zone maps; and wherein the update to the zone map is generated …to select …and apply… one or more geospatial response model based on patterns in the previously stored response and zone maps…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the one or more hardware processors, the one or more communication systems, the network, the graphical user interface, the database and the trained artificial intelligence module that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… said message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the plurality of recipients in real time; validate …each response …by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate …the zone map; provide access…to the plurality of recipients…; receive …updated responses from the recipients; validate …each updated response; identify …an update to the zone map; generate …an updated zone map; display …one or more of the responses or updated responses; provide …said updated zone map to a user; determine …a risk; store… the responses, the updated responses, the zone map, or the updated zone map; and retrieve …previously stored responses, updated responses, zone maps, or updated zone maps; and wherein the update to the zone map is generated …to select …and apply… one or more geospatial response model based on patterns in the previously stored response and zone maps…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 12. Therefore, claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 12. Claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more hardware processors and the machine learning module included in the dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 15-18 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “generate …an automated action response plan; and provide …said automated action response plan to a user” (claim 2); “receive… data related to the implementation; and update …model data...” (claim 3); “generate… automated action response plans” (claim 4, 7, 15 and 18); “generate… zone maps” (claim 5, 6, 16 and 17); “generate a second automated action response plan; and provide… said second automated action response plan to said user” (claim 8); and “generate… insurance policy rates for each zone in said zone map” (claim 9), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more hardware processors and the machine learning module included in the dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 15-18 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “generate …an automated action response plan; and provide …said automated action response plan to a user” (claim 2); “receive… data related to the implementation; and update …model data...” (claim 3); “generate… automated action response plans” (claim 4, 7, 15 and 18); “generate… zone maps” (claim 5, 6, 16 and 17); “generate a second automated action response plan; and provide… said second automated action response plan to said user” (claim 8); and “generate… insurance policy rates for each zone in said zone map” (claim 9), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-21 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…As such claims 1, 12 and 21, and the claims that depend therefrom are not directed to an abstract idea…the claims as presently amended are integrated into a practical application and therefore allowable…” (Please see the remarks on pages 10-11).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that claim 1 recites the limitations of “…identify a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate a message in response to a zoning request, the zoning request comprises message information, wherein the message information includes a request for emergency services information; identify a plurality of recipients, based at least in part on the geographic area; transmit said message to said plurality of recipients; receive a set of responses from at least a portion of said plurality of recipients in real time; validate each response received from said portion of said plurality of recipients as the responses are received using an automated geolocation verification process, wherein each response is validated at least by verifying a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area, wherein the geolocation is derived from GPS metadata associated with the received response; identify, from content in each validated response, data points for generation of a zone map of the geographical area, the zone map having a plurality of emergency service zones; generate the zone map, based at least in part on the data points for generation of the zone map; provide access to said portion of said plurality of recipients to update the response received from said portion of said plurality of recipients in real time; receive updated responses from at least a portion of said recipients; validate each updated response, wherein each updated response is validated at least by verifying a geolocation of the update to the response is within the geographic area; identify, from content in each validated updated response, an update to the zone map, the update to the zone map including an update to at least one of the plurality of emergency service zones; generate an updated zone map, based at least in part on the update to the zone map; display one or more of the responses or updated responses of the updated zone map based on the verified geolocation of the response or update to the response; and provide said updated zone map to a user”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. generate and provide the zone map having a plurality of emergency service zones to a user based on the responses of the recipients) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more hardware processors, one or more communication systems, a network and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the recipients in real time; validate …each response… using an automated geolocation verification process…; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate… the zone map…; provide …access to the plurality of recipients; receive… updated responses from the recipients; validate… each updated response…by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify… an update to the zone map; generate… an updated zone map; display… one or more of the responses or updated responses; and provide … the updated zone map to a user”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12 and claim 21 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea…the claims as presently amended are not integrated into a practical application. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…on Step 2B (Inventive Concept), even if the claims were found to involve an abstract idea, they recite significantly more than just the abstract idea…” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-12).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Independent claim 1 and claim 12 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the one or more hardware processors, the one or more communication systems, the network and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the recipients in real time; validate …each response… using an automated geolocation verification process…; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate… the zone map…; provide …access to the plurality of recipients; receive… updated responses from the recipients; validate… each updated response…by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify… an update to the zone map; generate… an updated zone map; display… one or more of the responses or updated responses; and provide … the updated zone map to a user”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 21 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the one or more hardware processors, the one or more communication systems, the network, the graphical user interface, the database and the trained artificial intelligence module that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “identify… a geographic area for emergency services zoning; generate… a message…; identify… a plurality of recipients; transmit… said message to said plurality of recipients; receive… responses from the plurality of recipients in real time; validate …each response …by verifying …a geolocation of the response is within the geographic area; identify…data points for generation of a zone map; generate …the zone map; provide access…to the plurality of recipients…; receive …updated responses from the recipients; validate …each updated response; identify …an update to the zone map; generate …an updated zone map; display …one or more of the responses or updated responses; provide …said updated zone map to a user; determine …a risk; store… the responses, the updated responses, the zone map, or the updated zone map; and retrieve …previously stored responses, updated responses, zone maps, or updated zone maps; and wherein the update to the zone map is generated …to select …and apply… one or more geospatial response model based on patterns in the previously stored response and zone maps…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the amended claims 1, 12 and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. They are not similar to Example 42, 45 and 47 in the Guidelines (please see the remarks on pages 13-14).
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…they recite significantly more than just the abstract idea. For instance, the system and methods: i) use of automated GPS-based validation to ensure response integrity; ii) dynamically generate and update zone maps from validated real-time data; and iii) use Al-driven selection of geospatial response models based on prior data patterns. These claim elements go beyond generic computer implementation and provide novel, technically rooted features not previously conventional in the art…” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-12).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant does not point to claim limitations that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea but instead merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. The “i) use of automated GPS-based validation to ensure response integrity; ii) dynamically generate and update zone maps from validated real-time data; and iii) use Al-driven selection of geospatial response models based on prior data patterns”, which are not seen to be a technical field or an improvement of the functioning of the computer itself. These limitations are adding more details of how to generating the zone map for the emergency service zones. These limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. In other words, more details of the 'abstract idea' is not going to be "significantly more" than the 'abstract idea' because even though, the specific combination of features may be a narrow abstract idea, it still is an abstract idea. Please see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which stated that in "defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303".
Furthermore, the Office also would like to point out to the Applicant that the "novelty" (provide novel, technically rooted features not previously conventional in the art) in the abstract idea does not satisfy the second prong of Step 2A and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test analysis. Please see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, the 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89; see also Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility").
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN C. NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694