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
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on November 27, 2025
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 22 and 23 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 9-11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-23 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 1-4, 6-8, and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-20 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-23 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 22 and 23) recites the following steps:
A method for generating emergency alerts, the method comprising:
receiving, a request from a user for information relating to one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest;
retrieving, information regarding recorded hazards or potential hazards in a plurality of different geographical regions or locations, information pertaining to any hazards or potential hazards recorded at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest;
based upon the existence of a recorded hazard or potential hazard at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest, and in response to the request, causing the user to display geo-fenced zones within, or in proximity to, the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest detailing any zones which are affected by the recorded hazard or potential hazard; and
based upon there being no recorded hazards or potential hazards at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest:
causing, a user to select one or more activities occurring, or likely to occur, and in which the user is, or likely to be, engaged, in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest
retrieving, information related to prohibitions or restrictions relevant to the one or more particular geographical area or location of interest, information pertaining to activities requiring a permit as a result of any prohibitions or restrictions
and based upon the one or more activities requiring a permit, automatically issuing, a permit to the user for any permitted activities that authorizes the user to engage in the one or more activities in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest, wherein the method further comprises
receiving, safety information including any previous safety measures associated with the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest and/or the one or more activities;
analyzing the safety information to generate new safety instructions and/or update existing safety instructions in relation to the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest and/or the one or more activities; and
providing, to the user upon issuance of the permit, or at a particular time thereafter, a checklist of the safety measures and/or the updated safety instructions in relation to the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest and/or the one or more activities.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth generating emergency alerts, which amounts to a “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. These limitations therefore fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) generating emergency alerts (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 22 and 23 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
computer (Claim 1)
by one or more processors, (Claim 1, 22 and 23)
a user device (Claim 1, 22 and 23)
using one or more artificial intelligence techniques (Claim 1, 22 and 23)
a database (Claim 1, 22 and 23)
an electronic permit (Claim 1, 22 and 23)
A system for generating emergency alerts, the system including comprising one or more processors (Claim 22)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed on a computer, causes one or more processors of the computer to perform steps to generate emergency alerts, (Claim 23)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 4, 6, 17, 19, 20 and 21 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
by one or more processors
wherein a central server is operable to communicate with the user device in addition to any devices operated by the authority responsible for managing emergency situations, with each device operable to execute a software application that enables communication with the central server
the user device
geo-fenced zones
link
an electronic permit
the user device using one or more of GPS, Wi-Fi, Cell ID or A-GPS monitoring.
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2018/0283897) in view of Baekkelund (2013/0013461), Ufkes (2022/0375292) and Yale Wang (10,811,139).
Claim 1
Wang discloses computer-implemented method for generating alerts, the method including comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request from a user device for information relating to one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest (Wang [0060]); See at least [0060] “The accident information comprises a plurality of reasons, accident locations availed from the unified database for current location of the user or for a location requested by the user.”
retrieving, by one or more processors, from a database containing information regarding recorded hazards or potential hazards in a plurality of different geographical regions or locations, information pertaining to any hazards or potential hazards recorded at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest (Wang [0024]); See at least “the unified database stores historic traffic accidents data and real-time crowdsourced traffic accident data for different categories of the users.”
based upon the existence of a recorded hazard or potential hazard at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest, and in response to the user request, causing the user device to display geo-fenced zones within, or in proximity to, the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest detailing any zones which are affected by the recorded hazard or potential hazard (Wang [0023]); See at least “The accident zones are identified with different formats, for example, shapes or colors based on the category of an instantaneous location of the user. The colors may be displayed on the electronic map and location data is shown over the display module.”
Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitation below. Baekkelund teaches
based upon there being no recorded hazards or potential hazards at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest: causing, by one or more processors, the user device to prompt a user to select one or more activities occurring, or likely to occur, and in which the user is, or likely to be, engaged, in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest (Baekkelund [0037]); See at least “a consumer can communicate with the central authority to select a specific site and time period from those that are not already in use by other consumers, and a desired activity from a displayed menu of those that are available for license…”
retrieving, by one or more processors, from a database containing information related to prohibitions or restrictions relevant to the one or more particular geographical area or location of interest, information pertaining to activities requiring a permit as a result of any prohibitions or restrictions (Baekkelund [0036]), See at least “The present invention encompasses all systems comprised of a central software-based permit sales engine operated by municipalities, commercial entities, and other authorities or their designees, communicating wirelessly with constituents or consumers carrying portable communication devices equipped with GPS, enabling the sale of permits defined by combinations of activities, locations and time periods.”
based upon the one or more activities requiring a permit, automatically issuing, by one or more processors, an electronic permit to the user device for any permitted activities that authorizes the user to engage in the one or more activities in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest, wherein the method further comprises: (Baekkelund [0035]). See “Once a location is determined and an application is submitted via the mobile device or through any other acceptable platform, the permit is issued to the users' mobile device or to the account established through the acceptable platform.”
receiving, by the one or more processors, safety information including any previous safety measures associated with the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest and/or the one or more activities; (Baekkelund [0016]); See at least “The engine is capable of mapping all active permits by general location and by zoom activation identify relevant information pertaining to all individual permits.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts, as taught by Wang, the issuing reports of permits to restricted areas, as taught by modified Baekkelund, to allow these permits to be allocated in a timely and efficient manner (Baekkelund [0005]).
Wang nor Baekkelund disclose the following. Ufkes teaches:
providing, to the user device upon issuance of the electronic permit, or at a particular time thereafter, a checklist of the safety measures and/or the updated safety instructions in relation to the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest and/or the one or more activities (Ufkes [0081]). See at least “Compliance checklist interface 1000 may comprise a compliance checklist 1002 comprising a plurality of interface elements to enable a user to provide complete compliance checklist inputs 1004 corresponding to one or more check-out compliance parameters (e.g. acknowledgement(s) that compliance requirement(s) are satisfied) and/or other compliance inputs 1006 (e.g. a certification number for the technician).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts and issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by Wang and Baekkelund, the method of using a safety checklist a conditional access environment, as taught by Ufkes, because a failure to manage these safety and/or compliance situations risks lives and poses significant financial risk for all companies involved (Ufkes [0006]).
None of the references teaches updating rules or guidance based on artificial intelligence analyzed data. Yale Wang teaches updating guidance based on AI analyzed information from disparate sources:
analyzing the safety information using one or more artificial intelligence techniques to generate new safety instructions and/or update existing safety instructions in relation to the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest and/or the one or more activities (Yale Wang [Summary][Column 6 Lines 4-23]); See the Summary which discloses a computer network architecture with machine learning and artificial intelligence to update guidance and rules relating to a patient at a particular hospital [location].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts issuing permits and checklists in restricted areas, as taught by Wang, Baekkelund and Ufkes, the method of using artificial intelligence to update guidance of a particular location, as taught by Yale Wang, to reduce the need for human intervention in updating guidance that benefits visitors (Yale Wang [Background]) .
Claim 2
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Baekkelund further teaches:
storing, by one or more processors, data relating to the activities selected by a plurality of different users in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interested areas, and data relating to permits issued in respect of the activities; receiving, by one or more processors, a request from an authority responsible for managing emergency situations to access a report regarding the one or more particular geographical locations or areas of interest; and providing, by one or more processors in response to the request from the authority responsible for managing emergency situations a report regarding activities recorded and any permits issued in respect of the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest (Baekkelund [0016]). See at least “An authority of the municipality, including but not limited to a security officer, can access the central software-based permit sales engine to request and verify information about the permits held for a given location or by a given individual. The engine is capable of mapping all active permits by general location and by zoom activation identify relevant information pertaining to all individual permits.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the issuing reports of permits to restricted areas, as taught by modified Baekkelund, to allow these permits to be allocated in a timely and efficient manner (Baekkelund [0005]).
Claim 3
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
wherein a central server is operable to communicate with the user device in addition to any devices operated by the authority responsible for managing emergency situations, with each device operable to execute a software application that enables communication with the central server (Wang [0099][Figure 1]).
Claim 4
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Baekkelund further teaches:
wherein the prohibition or restriction that exists at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest arises from the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest being in a restricted fire zone, and the one or more activities requiring a permit comprises igniting a fire (Baekkelund [0029]). See at least “The instant application as described herein can also be used for a fire pit. In jeopardy of being erased by counties, for example San Diego, Calif., the popular fire pits can now be maintained and generate additional revenues. By submitting electronic application from or with reference to a pre-numbered pit location, the area can be licensed instantly based on a selected radius from the pit (3-30 feet), time slot and span and number of attendees.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the method of issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by modified Baekkelund, to allow these permits to be allocated in a timely and efficient manner (Baekkelund [0005]).
Claim 6
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
wherein when a hazard or potential hazard is recorded at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest, or associated geo-fenced zone, the method further comprises: causing, by one or more processors, the user device to alert the user to the hazard or potential hazard comprising providing the user with one or more notifications issued by an authority responsible for managing emergency situations (Wang [0073]). See at least “Any type of hazardous conditions may trigger the mobile application to send out customized notifications to the user.” See also [0115] “when the system of the mobile application recognizes other users who may be in the same location at the same time, the mobile application may automatically provide a notification indicating important, resourceful information about the accident.”
Claim 7
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
wherein when the one or more particular geographical of interest, and geo-fenced zones within or in proximity thereto, are displayed to the user and one or more are affected by the recorded hazard or potential hazard, the method further comprises: causing, by one or more processors, the user device to prompt the user to select the particular area or location of interest or geo-fenced zone designated on the display of the user device as an area of an actual or potential hazard, to access further details regarding the hazard or potential hazard comprising links to one or more authorities responsible for managing emergency situations and enabling a live data exchange between the authority and the user (Wang [0114]). See at least “The mobile application may track certain routes that the user drives through on a more frequent basis and may use this information to notify the user when there are any accident problems occurring on that route. This may prepare users before they start on their trip to their destination. The other part of the dynamic reporting function is the live-reporting function where the mobile application may provide real-time accident reports along the route the user is driving on at the moment.”
Claim 8
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Baekkelund further teaches:
wherein the electronic permit issued to the user is created based on location and category, such that different permits will issue in respect of different locations and/or different categories of activities including comprising activity sub- categories (Baekkelund [0013]). See at least “The present invention enables the sale of permits defined by the combinations of activities, locations, and time periods.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the method of issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by modified Baekkelund, to allow these permits to be allocated in a timely and efficient manner (Baekkelund [0005]).
Claim 12
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above disclose the limitations above. Modified Ufkes further teaches:
causing, by one or more processors, the user device to prompt the user to submit a completed checklist; and receiving, by one or more processors, the completed checklist and automatically transmitting same to a relevant authority responsible for managing emergency situations in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest (Ufkes [0081]), See at least “Upon inputting compliance checklist input 1004 and/or other compliance inputs 1006, a user may submit the inputs via a SUBMIT interface element 108. Compliance checklist 1002 may be statically or dynamically configured based on a variety of safety factors according to the service site and/or the access reason input.” See also [0084] “Upon the user submitting 1506 the check-out checklist inputs 1504, safety and compliance mobile application 220 initiates a protocol via mobile electronic device 218 to communicate check-out checklist inputs 1504 to safety and compliance application server(s) 230 [relevant authority].”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts and issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the method of using a safety checklist a conditional access environment, as taught by modified Ufkes, because a failure to manage these safety and/or compliance situations risks lives and poses significant financial risk for all companies involved (Ufkes [0006]).
Claim 13
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Ufkes further teaches:
detecting, by one or more processors, that the completed check list has not been received within a pre-defined time period of the user vacating the particular geographical area or location of interest (Ufkes [0084]); See “If checkout checklist inputs 1504 are compliant according to the compliance rules, safety and compliance mobile application 220 may verify the user's check-out request and provide a check-out verification interface 1600 to the user.”
automatically transmitting, by one or more processors, a notification regarding the non-completion of the checklist by the user to the relevant authority responsible for managing emergency situations in the particular geographical area or location of interest (Ufkes [0084]). See “Check-out verification interface 1600 may comprise interface element (s) to provide a check-out verification to the user 1602, and interface element(s) for the user to close 1604 the instance of safety and compliance mobile application 220.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts and issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the method of using a safety checklist a conditional access environment, as taught by modified Ufkes, because a failure to manage these safety and/or compliance situations risks lives and poses significant financial risk for all companies involved (Ufkes [0006]).
Claim 14
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
wherein detecting that the user has vacated the particular geographical area or location of interest is achieved by monitoring a location of the user device using one or more of GPS, Wi-Fi, Cell ID or A-GPS monitoring (Wang [0043]). See at least “the location identifier is a Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation device installed in a vehicle.”
Claim 15
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
causing, by one or more processors, devices associated with relevant authorities responsible for managing emergency situations in the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest to also display the information pertaining to hazards or potential hazards recorded at the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest, and geo-fenced zones within, or in proximity to, the one or more particular geography or locations of interest detailing any zones which are affected by the recorded hazard or potential hazard (Wang [0117][0119]). See at least “When integrated into an in-vehicle navigation system, the vehicle's display may be used to show potential accident notifications in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention as described above.”
Claim 16
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Baekkelund further teaches:
wherein the information displayed on devices associated with authorities responsible for managing emergency situations further comprises a map and associated information pertaining to permits issued to users in relation to the one or more particular geographical areas or locations of interest displayed on the map (Baekkelund [0016]). See at least “The engine is capable of mapping all active permits by general location and by zoom activation identify relevant information pertaining to all individual permits.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the method of issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by modified Baekkelund, to allow these permits to be allocated in a timely and efficient manner (Baekkelund [0005]).
Claim 17
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Baekkelund further teaches:
wherein the information pertaining to permits comprises one or more of details of the permit, a category or sub-category of the permit, the user to whom the permit was issued, and the contact details of the user (Baekkelund [0018]-[0024]). See [0021] “Provide Personal Identification for each individual to be covered by the permit.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of generating alerts, as taught by modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang, the method of issuing permits in restricted areas, as taught by modified Baekkelund, to verification of the permit without requiring a personal appearance (Baekkelund [0007]).
Claim 18
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
wherein when a user device is determined to be in proximity to a geographical area or location in which an actual, or potential, hazard has been recorded, the method further comprises: causing, by one or more processors, the user device to generate one or more alerts or notifications for transmission to the user (Wang [0053]). See at least “An alert is issued in advance during an approach of the users to the interested location with accident history for the category of the user.”
Claim 19
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
providing access to information pertaining to hazards or potential hazards in particular geographical areas or locations to users who are or represent property owners within the particular geographical areas or locations, wherein said access is sufficient to enable property owners to upload information pertaining to their properties for addressing emergency situations that arise in their proximity (Wang [0106]). See “The system may process the information reported from the users who enter such information and upload images of accident related information.”
Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of information uploaded by the user (i.e. “information pertaining to their properties for addressing emergency situations that arise in their proximity” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is allowing upload of user information. The reference cited teaches this. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches
wherein the information uploaded by property owners comprises information relating to the location and operation of hardware that exists on the property that is configured to prevent or address particular hazards or potential hazards (Wang [0106]). See “The system may process the information reported from the users who enter such information and upload images of accident related information.”
Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of information uploaded by the user (i.e. “information relating to the location and operation of hardware that exists on the property” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is allowing upload of user information. The reference cited teaches this. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21
Modified Wang, Baekkelund, Ufkes and Yale Wang disclose the limitations above. Modified Wang further teaches:
transmitting, by one or more processors, information to the users who are, or represent, property owners regarding the preparation of their property in the event of a hazard on or in close proximity to their property (Wang [0073]). See at least “depending on the weather conditions such as when it may rain or snow, the mobile application may automatically remind the vehicle owner or driver by notifying them to check their windshield wipers, tires, and tum on their headlights.”
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges amendments made to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully submits that the presently claimed invention confines the claim to a practical application and therefore amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea such that it comprises patent-eligible subject matter.
The Examiner notes that this claim of significantly more is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself. In fact. Applicant can provide no tangible findings that there was actually anything different and/or improved in the instant system compared to prior "conventional systems", other than a mere allegation and unsubstantiated, conclusory statement that the instant invention improves existing systems and is significantly more than using rules to identify options. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features of the claimed invention (i.e. location based alerts) does not represent an improvement, it is merely performing operations with a device. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is significantly more or provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The claims recited a specific combination of features… that are not a well understood, routine and conventional combination of features in the relevant field at the priority date of the presently claimed invention.
In combination, the steps disclose a sequence of operations that include storing data, receiving an input, retrieving stored data in response to the input and displaying the retrieved data. The only arguable inventive aspect of this set of steps is the particulars of the information processed. Apart from such particulars as is known of those of ordinary skill , the claimed combination of operations amounts to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system. Further the combination of operations of analyzing data using one or more artificial intelligence techniques is recited at a high level of generality and does not transform the claims. Without the high level generically cited recitation of artificial intelligence methods, these steps could be performed by human analog. A human could make the determination that if there were a camp fire, the location of the fire should not be used for 3-5 days and generate that new safety instruction.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor does any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of systems or processors cited as performing the steps.
Accordingly, Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Paragraph [0020] of Wang describes that" ... the location identifier is used to identify location of the user and alert the user during the user's presence within a customizable predefined radius of locations with accidents history .... " (emphasis added).A user is only alerted to any accidents by the system of Wang when they are already at or -within the vicinity of a particular location.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and has updated the rejection above to place focus on the previously cited paragraph [0060] that states ““The accident information comprises a plurality of reasons, accident locations availed from the unified database for current location of the user or for a location requested by the user.”
Applicant Argues: The system and method of Wang is not configured to enable users to enter a particular geographic area or location of interest, and accordingly, would not solve at least the problem associated with individuals lacking awareness of any prohibition or restriction regarding activities or any additional emergencies that may be active or expected/predicted to occur in the particular area or location of interest when seeking to, for example, camp, hike, swim, or engage in some other recreational activity in the particular geographical area or location of interest.
Examiner agrees and has relied on Baekkelund for the teaching of granting access to permitted activities.
Applicant Argues: Baekkelund also fails disclose a system and method that enables users to enter a particular geographic region or location of interest for which they seek to obtain information regarding any recorded or potential hazards.
Examiner agrees and has relied on Wang for the teaching of a system and method for identifying the locations of increased danger.
Conclusion
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626