DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to the communications filed on 03 February 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, 18 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more, and therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In the instant case, claims 1-10 and 21 are directed to a method, claims 11-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nonetheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
The limitations of Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the abstract idea of processing,…the input data using a collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate a recreation of the interaction, wherein the collaborative AI model is trained to reduce a risk of biased police reporting by using objective unbiased language; determining, … the interaction is complete based on the input data; processing, …, the recreation using the collaborative AI model to generate a police report of the interaction that reduces a risk of biased police reporting by using objective unbiased language; outputting,…the police report... and processing, a new recreation of a new the interaction using the refined collaborative Al model, wherein the refined collaborative AI model generates a new police report of the interaction.
The limitations are considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations pertain to managing an interaction between an individual and a police officer and managing policing activities.
Additionally claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the abstract idea, refining, the collaborative AI model using the feedback, wherein refining the collaborative AI model includes refining weights of the collaborative AI model based on a loss function or adjusting a prompt context of the collaborative AI model and wherein refining the collaborative AI model improves the accuracy of the collaborative AI mode. The recited “refining” encompass mathematical concepts because the steps recites refining weights of the collaborative AI model based on a loss function. Therefore the limitations fall withing the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 12, 15-17 and 21 further reiterate the same abstract idea as identified in claims 1 and 11 (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) with further embellishments of the input data, the historical data, the processing input data and the collaborative AI model.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite additional elements including: by one or more processors; and one or more storage devices coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for police reporting; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, plurality of sensors, video data from a camera. The collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) model is invoked as an algorithm to process input data and the recreation. In light of the Specification, there is no indication that the claimed steps performed by the processors or non-transitory computer readable medium require any specialized computer hardware or particular machine, or invoke any inventive programming. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality. In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by computing components at a high-level of generality with no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer elements or processor itself. See also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement”). The “sensors” and camera are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic functions of transmitting data.
At best, the additional elements merely pertain to using the program and processor as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Automating the recited claimed features using a computer does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible since the processor is merely performing generic computer functions (i.e., receiving, generating, processing, outputting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h).
Claims 1, 11 and 20 also recite, receiving, by one or more processors, input data from a plurality of sensors associated with an interaction between at least one individual and a police officer, wherein the input data includes at least video data from a camera associated with the police officer; receiving,… feedback associated with the police report, wherein the feedback includes ground-truth features associated with features of the police report. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, so therefore, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 12, 15-17 and 21 recite similar additional elements as claims 1 and 11 and amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite additional elements including types of sensors. The types of sensors are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic functions of transmitting data and therefore amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite receiving, by the one or more processors, historical data associated with the at least one individual and the police officer. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, so therefore, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite, synchronizing the plurality of sensors to receive consistent streams of the input data. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, so therefore, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite, outputting the police report further comprises storing the police report or transmitting the police report to a device associated with the police officer or a dispatch. The limitations are mere data output and storage recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 10 recites additional elements including types of devices. The types of devices are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic functions of receiving/storing data and therefore amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As a whole, claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Instead, the computing components are being used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Automating the recited claimed features using a computer does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible since it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or providing nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h). For the same reasons, the recited elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the receiving, outputting and storing steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Ultramercial, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions indicate that mere transmission, storage, presenting of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
After considering all claim elements, both individually, in combination and in ordered combination, it has been demonstrated that claims 1-21 as a whole are not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to a “method of organizing human activity”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to generating a recreation and generating a police report of an interaction between at least one individual and a police officer. Therefore, the claims are directed to managing interactions between a police officer and at least one individual. The elements, “input data, a plurality of sensors, video data, a camera and collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) model” are additional elements addressed in Prong 2A Step 2.
Applicant contends that, “under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application for at least the same reasons as cited by the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) in Ex Parte Desjardins. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024- 000567, at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential) (ARP). In Ex parte Desjardins, the ARP determined that machine-learning training techniques amounted to an "improvement to how the machine-learning model itself operates", which the ARP considered a practical application of the abstract idea. Id. at 8. The amended claims recite training techniques that that similarly improve the collaborative Al model itself. For example, amended claim 1 recites "processing ... the input data using a collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate a recreation", "processing ... the recreation using the collaborative Al model to generate a police report", "receiving ... feedback" and "retraining the collaborative AI model using the feedback, ... wherein retaining the collaborative AI model improves an accuracy of the collaborative AI model." (emphasis added). Thus, the amended claims similarly recites elements that improve the operation of collaborative Al models through a retraining process that improves the accuracy of collaborative Al model.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values). Unlike Ex Parte Desjardins, Applicant’s claimed refining weights are not tied to the performance of the collaborative AI model. Applicant merely sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner without the necessary technical details. Examiner further asserts that the additional elements, processors, and AI model are merely used as tools to automate the process of recording an interaction between a police officer and an individual and creating a police report. The claims at best, merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, recited at a high-level of generality which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the currently amended independent claims recite a significant amount of details of how the various processes in the claimed solution are accomplished, for instance detailing how the "recreation" is generated (e.g., "processing, in real-time [...], the input data using a collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) model"), how the "collaborative AI model" is trained and retrained (e.g., "trained to reduce a risk of biased police reporting in real time as the interaction is occurring based on one or more characteristics of the police officer" and "retrained according to a loss function that updates weights of the collaborative Al model, and wherein retraining the collaborative Al model improves an accuracy of the collaborative Al model"), and how the "police report" is generated (e.g., by "processing [...] the recreation using the collaborative AI model," the police report is "particular to the police officer" and "reduces a risk of biased police reporting"), among other "details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished." However, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant. As stated above, “how” the trained AI model actually reduces risk of bias in police reporting has not been demonstrated in the claimed invention. The retraining of the collaborative AI model according to a loss function that updates weights of the collaborative Al model does not adequately demonstrate how the claimed solution are accomplished because the limitations do not link the “weights” to the performance of the collaborative AI model. The processor(s) as recited in the claim perform generic computer functions of receiving data, processing data and outputting data and amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(F)). The collaborative AI model is merely used to process input data and the recreation and also amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Considering all claim elements, both individually, in combination and in ordered combination, the claim elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues that, “if the reference to the "generic computer component" in the Office Action is intended to be an argument that the additional elements are purportedly "well- understood, routine, or conventional," then Applicant respectfully disagrees with such an argument. Applicant also notes that the MPEP requires that "Examiners should not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports the rejection in writing with one or more of' several types of evidence, none of which is provided in the Office Action. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III).” The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the rejection above, the examiner cited to court cases to provide evidence supporting that the additional elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine, or conventional. (See MPEP 2106.07(a) Part III, (B) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), subsection II, as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0127542 A1: System 100 can include a server(s) 180 or other computing resource(s) (e.g., virtual machine(s)) that can generate a graphical representation 185 or scene reconstruction associated with an emergency event. In one embodiment, the server 180 can execute the ESS engine to perform scene reconstruction in various scenarios including crime scenes (ongoing such as where a suspect is on the run or completed), disasters, accidents, and so forth. In one embodiment, the ESS engine can obtain information from various sources including emergency calls, satellite SOS messages, FirstNet communications (or other emergency responder networks), CBRS communications, private network communications, and so forth.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 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 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights