DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 09 March 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, and 16-17 are amended.
Claims 8 and 18 have been canceled. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in Remarks/Arguments, pages 10-11) that Step 2A Prong One - The Claim Is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea... Importantly, the independent claims do not merely determine which individuals should receive alerts, but instead control how the computing device generates and suppresses alert transmissions across a communication network. These operations describe the functioning of a computing device controlling communications across a network rather than a process for organizing human activity or performing mental steps. The independent claims also recite that the alert includes device-executable instructions executed by communication devices, further confirming that the claim concerns interactions between networked computing devices rather than the organization of human behavior.
In response to Applicant's argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. Therefore, the mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claims out of the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping (i.e. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Applicant argues (in Remarks/Arguments, page 11) that the focus of the independent claims is therefore the operation of a communication network and the behavior of computing devices during emergency alert conditions. Federal Circuit precedent confirms that claims directed to specific computer-implemented processes that improve the functioning of a technological system are not directed to abstract ideas. In McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court held that claims were not abstract where they recited a specific automated process that improved computer animation technology. Similarly, the present independent claims recite a specific automated process by which a computing device processes incident information, trains one or more alert generation engines based on device feedback, and controls alert transmissions across a communication network. The claim therefore focuses on a particular technological process rather than a generalized concept.
In response to Applicant's argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, unlike McRO, in which the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Applicant's claims are directed to the use of a computing device classifying individuals as recipients or nonrecipients and transmitting alerts only to recipient devices while refraining from transmitting alerts to nonrecipient devices which does appear to provide a technical improvement to a technical problem or automates a process to produce a specific, tangible, and superior "output" (like realistic animation). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in Remarks/Arguments, page 11) that regarding Step 2A Prong Two - The Claim Integrates Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application Even if the independent claims were interpreted, arguendo, as involving an abstract idea, the independent claims integrates that abstract idea into a practical technological application that improves the operation of a communication system. The computing device first operates in a baseline mass alert mode, collects feedback from communication devices, and uses that feedback to train alert generation engines. The computing device then implements a bandwidth-reduction alert mode in which alerts are selectively transmitted to recipient devices while transmissions to nonrecipient devices are suppressed. This operational sequence produces a concrete technological effect. By refraining from transmitting alerts to nonrecipient devices, the computing device reduces network bandwidth consumption relative to the baseline mass alert mode. The computing device further require that the bandwidth preserved by this controlled transmission behavior is used by first responder radios located at or near the premises during the incident. In contrast to conventional alert systems that broadcast alerts to all registered devices, the claimed computing device and method modifies the transmission behavior of the computing device and communication network themselves by selectively suppressing alert transmissions in order to preserve network bandwidth for first responder communications. The independent claims therefore modify how the computing device and a communication network operates during emergency alert conditions in order to preserve network resources for critical responder communications. This type of network-behavior modification is further analogous to the technological improvements recognized as patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59 (Fed. Cir 2014). In DDR, the Federal Circuit held that claims were eligible because they were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" and altered conventional Internet behavior to address a technological problem arising in computer networks. Likewise, the present independent claims alter conventional alert-broadcast behavior, where alerts are transmitted indiscriminately to all devices, by implementing a feedback- trained alert generation system that selectively controls network transmissions. The independent claims therefore integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that modifies the operation of a computer-implemented communication network.
In response to Applicant's arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, Applicant appears to be referencing a business solution to a business problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an alert service to those classified as recipients or non-recipients to save bandwidth. Secondly, the overall performance of the system is not improved as paragraph [0058] describes the communication of radios as being improved. The radios do not appear to be part of system, but uses the bandwidth. Examiner suggests that Applicant show a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology or establishes a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification support the asserted technical improvement. For instance, reducing bandwidth by not providing an alert and then permitting a radio to use the saved bandwidth is not a technical solutions to technical problems, but is instead, a business solutions to business problem by using generic tools (e.g. computing device) to implement the abstract idea. Thirdly, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the courts determined that "[p]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101" (Recentive Analytics, Inc. V. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18)); and the courts also determined that "The requirements that the machine learning model be 'iteratively trained' or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement." Recentive Analytics, Inc. V. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 12." Lastly, unlike DDR, Applicant's claims do not provide a solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks by determining a recipient/non-recipient of an alert based on their network address. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in Remarks/Arguments, page 12) that the independent claims also reflect the type of technological improvement to computer functionality recognized as patent-eligible in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the Federal Circuit emphasized that claims directed to improvements in the operation of a computer system itself are not abstract. In the present independent claims, the computing device is configured to modify the way alerts are generated and transmitted across the network based on trained alert generation engines and recipient classifications. This change in system behavior directly improves the efficiency and resource usage of the communication network during emergency incidents.
In response to Applicant's arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that unlike Enfish, the claims do not specifically improve computer functionality; they merely use computer functionality to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (in Remarks/Arguments, pages 12-13) that regarding Step 2B - The Claim Recites Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea, and even assuming arguendo that the claim recites some form of abstract idea, the independent claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. The independent claims require a specific ordered combination of operations including operating in two distinct alert modes, receiving feedback from communication devices, training alert generation engines using that feedback, and implementing a selective alert transmission process that suppresses transmissions to nonrecipient devices. This ordered combination of elements produces a concrete network-level result: alert transmissions to nonrecipient devices are suppressed, thereby reducing network traffic and preserving bandwidth that is used by first responder radios communicating near the premises.
The claimed computing device therefore performs more than generic data processing. Instead, the claimed computing device controls network transmission behavior in a manner that improves the availability of communication resources during emergency incidents. The Office itself acknowledges the technological nature of the claimed subject matter. In responding to Applicant's earlier arguments, the Office states that (emphasis added) "Applicant's claims do provide a technical improvement to a technical problem by enhancing the overall performance of the system." This admission confirms that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem in a communication system. Improvements to the operation and performance of computer or network systems are a hallmark of patent-eligible subject matter under Federal Circuit precedent.
In response to Applicant's arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the Examiner inadvertently left out the word "not" before the word "provide" (in the Final Rejection #6) as the Examiner continued to argue the claims were patent ineligible in #7 and #8. Secondly, It is obvious that the Examiner respectfully disagreed and noted that there was "no" technological improvement by further explaining that Applicant's claims were "unlike" patent eligible Enfish and McRO, but patent-ineligible like Electric Power Group. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible and do not provide a technological improvement or an inventive concept.
Applicant argues (in Remarks/Arguments, page 14) that the Office also recognizes that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed feature of communicating using network bandwidth preserved for first responder radios as a result of selectively refraining from alert transmissions. This acknowledgment further demonstrates that the claims do not merely recite a conventional implementation of generic computer components. Instead, the claims recite a specific and non-conventional arrangement of communication system operations that alters network behavior during emergency alert conditions. When considered as a whole, the amended independent claims recite a computing device, and method therefore , that receives incident information, trains alert generation engines using device feedback, selectively controls network alert transmissions, and preserves network bandwidth for emergency responder communications. These operations constitute a technological improvement in the operation of a communication network rather than an abstract idea implemented on generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C.$101.
In response to Applicant's argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that novelty and nonobviousness of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 does not bear on whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 (e.g. eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 45, “communicating” should be inserted before “using” or Applicant must provide the claim with markings showing that “communicating” has been deleted as the previous amendment of 10/17/2025 was presented with markings to indicate the changes that were made.
Claim 11, line 46, “communicating” should be inserted before “using” or Applicant must provide the claim with markings showing that “communicating” has been deleted as the previous amendment of 10/17/2025 was presented with markings to indicate the changes that were made.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1 and 11 substantially recite:
receiving [ ] a first indication of a first incident associated with a given premises,
[ ] storing: network addresses associated with individuals associated with the given premises, wherein the individuals have previously registered respective network addresses to receive mass alerts; electronic roles of the individuals; and electronic schedules of the individuals;
operating [ ] in a mass alert mode comprising transmitting a mass alert associated with the first incident to all [ ] associated with the network addresses;
receiving [ ] feedback associated with the first mass alert [ ];
using the feedback [ ] to train one or more alert generation engines for generating alerts for future incidents;
receiving [ ]a second indication of a second incident associated with a given premises;
implementing [ ] a node for reducing bandwidth usage comprising:
classifying [ ] the individuals as recipients or nonrecipients of alerts for the second incident based on the electronic roles and the electronic schedules, regardless of the individuals having previously registered to receive the mass alerts;
determining [ ] respective current activity classifications of the recipients and the nonrecipients based on the electronic roles and the electronic schedules;
identifying [ ] from the respective current activity classifications, respective relationship statuses between the recipients and the nonrecipients;
generating [ ] a second mass alert based on the respective relationship statuses, the mass alert including instructions for a recipient to carry out relative to respective nonrecipients;
transmitting [ ] the second mass alert to respective network addresses associated with the recipients; and
refraining [ ] from transmitting the second mass alert to the respective network addresses associated with the nonrecipients, thereby reducing network bandwidth in association with the given premises as compared to the mass alert mode, the network bandwidth reduced by an amount defined by a number of the nonrecipients; and
[communicating] using saved network bandwidth at first responder radios, located proximal or at the given premises, in association with the incident, the saved network bandwidth being due to the reducing of the network bandwidth in association that occurs when refraining from transmitting the mass alert to respective network addresses associated with the nonrecipients. These limitations as a whole recite a method or organizing human activity. The claims as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or a Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind which includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a computing device,” “at least one memory,” “a network,” “communication devices,” and “one or more alert generation engines” ” in claim 1; and claim 11 recites the additional elements: “a device,” “a communications interface,” “a controller,” “ a computer-readable storage medium,” “program code,” “at least one memory,” “a network” “communication devices” and “one or more alert generation engines” to perform the “receiving”, “storing,” “operating,” receiving,” “using,” “receiving,” “implementing,” “classifying,” “determining,” “identifying,” “generating,” “transmitting,” “refraining,” and “using” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claims 1 and 11 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a computing device,” “at least one memory,” “one or more alert generation engines” and “a network” in claim 1; and “a device,” “a communications interface,” “a controller,” “ a computer-readable storage medium,” “program code,” “at least one memory,” “one or more alert generation engines” and “a network” in claim 11, performing generic computer functions of “receiving”, “storing,” “operating,” receiving,” “using,” “receiving,” “implementing,” “classifying,” “determining,” “identifying,” “generating,” “transmitting,” “refraining,” and “using”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e. reciting “receiving”, “storing,” “operating,” receiving,” “using,” “receiving,” “implementing,” “classifying,” “determining,” “identifying,” “generating,” “transmitting,” “refraining,” and “using”). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., “a computing device,” “at least one memory,” “a network,” “communicating devices,” and “one or more alert generation engines” in claim 1; and “a device,” “a communications interface,” “a controller,” “ a computer-readable storage medium,” “program code,” “at least one memory,” “a network,” “communication devices,” and “one or more alert generation engines”” in claim 11). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Further, in regards to the “computing device” and the “controller” the “receiving,” “receiving,” “receiving,” “generating,” and “transmitting” limitations in claims 1 and 11 are just mere data gathering, and also are characterized as transmitting or receiving data over a network and insignificant post-solution activity and are also recited at a high level or generality, and merely automates the receive and acquire steps.
Step 2B
The independent claims 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 element of using the (“computing device,” “at least one memory,” “network,” “communication devices,” and “one or more alert generation engines” in claim 1; and “device,” “communications interface,” “controller,” “computer-readable storage medium,” “program code,” “at least one memory,” “one or more alert generation engines,” “network,” and “communication devices” in claim 11 to perform the “receiving”, “storing,” “operating,” receiving,” “using,” “receiving,” “implementing,” “classifying,” “determining,” “identifying,” “generating,” “transmitting,” “refraining,” and “using” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are patent ineligible.
As per dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, the limitation merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite an indication of an incident defines a type of the incident, and the mass alerts are generated based on the type of the incident. Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite the instructions are based on: incident type of the second incident; the electronic roles and the electronic schedules; at least one of the respective activity classifications; and the respective relationship statuses. quote comprises a rationale related to how the optimized part data was created. Dependent claims 4 and 14 recites the electronic roles define electronic access rights of the recipients and the nonrecipients the removal rate is one of a material removal rate and an area removal rate. Dependent claim 5 and 15 recite the electronic roles further define roles of the recipients and the nonrecipients relative to the given premises. Dependent claim 6 and 16 recite wherein the instructions comprise one of: first instructions for guiding the nonrecipients to a position relative to one or more of the given premises and the second incident; and second instructions for the recipients to implement an activity relative to one or more of the given premises and the second incident. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 7 and 17, the recitations, “an email, a text message and a multimedia messaging service message” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claims 1 and 11, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 9 and 19, the recitation, “receiving registration data to register respective network addresses, respective electronic roles and respective electronic schedules of the individuals…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 9 and 19, the recitation, “receiving de-registration data to de-register one or more respective network addresses, one or more respective electronic roles and one or more respective electronic schedules of one or more of the individuals…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art Discussion
As per independent claims 1 and 11, the best prior art,
1) Schuler et al. (US PG Pub. 20230169807 A1),
2) Klein et al. (US PG Pub. 20180027397 A1), and
3) Kiss (US PG Pub. 2015/0282108 A1).
Neither Schuler et al., Klein et al., nor Kiss, alone or in combination, anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The features in claims 1 and 11 include:
using saved network bandwidth at first responder radios,
located proximal or at the given premises, in association with the incident, the saved
network bandwidth being due to the reducing of the network bandwidth in
association that occurs when refraining from transmitting the mass alert to the
respective communication devices associated with the respective network addresses
associated with the nonrecipients.
As per independent claims 1 and 11, the best Foreign prior art,
1) Eisold et al. (WO 2009038765 A1) discloses a process for rapid deployment of a disaster alert system.
However, Eisold et al., alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The features in claims 1 and 11 include:
using saved network bandwidth at first responder radios,
located proximal or at the given premises, in association with the incident, the saved
network bandwidth being due to the reducing of the network bandwidth in
association that occurs when refraining from transmitting the mass alert to the
respective communication devices associated with the respective network addresses
associated with the nonrecipients.
As per independent claims 1 and 11, the best NPL prior art,
1) Batallones, Sherian, “Centralize Incident Response Management with the Teams Emergency Operations Center (TEOC)”m 09/072023, avepoint.com; 3 pages.
Batallones, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The features in claims 1 and 11 include:
using saved network bandwidth at first responder radios,
located proximal or at the given premises, in association with the incident, the saved
network bandwidth being due to the reducing of the network bandwidth in
association that occurs when refraining from transmitting the mass alert to the
respective communication devices associated with the respective network addresses
associated with the nonrecipients.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) McCann et al. (AU 2010308477 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for controlling congestion in a communication network
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628