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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action.
Claims [1-20] are currently pending and have been examined based on their merits.
Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended see REMARKS July 31, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 01, 2026, has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 recite a method (i.e. a process such as an act or series of steps) and Claims 11-20 recite a device, therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 1 and 11 recite: A method comprising: detecting, a new workflow request from an enterprise; in response to the new workflow request, accessing public safety agencies and based on a determined location of the enterprise, retrieving a list of available local public safety agencies and providing a selectable list of the identified available local public safety agencies; receiving, a proposed workflow build, the proposed workflow build including a trigger and one or more responsive actions, the one or more responsive actions including an assistance action from a selected local public safety agency from the selectable list of available local public safety agencies; retrieving administration definitions comprising conditions and resource deployment restrictions specific for the selected local public safety agency; responsive to the responsive action including the assistance action, validating, that the trigger and the one or more responsive actions of the proposed workflow build satisfy the conditions and resource deployment restrictions of the selected local public safety agency based on the retrieved administration definitions; and in response to successfully validating the proposed workflow build deploying the validated workflow build for execution at the enterprise to enable monitoring for occurrence of the trigger and, upon detecting the trigger, automatically initiating the one or more responsive actions including the assistance action in the validated workflow build.
The claims recite a mental process. The examiner finds the claims to merely recite a method for creating a response plan to an emergency by retrieving a list of available public safety agencies, a proposed workflow build including triggers and one or more responsive actions, validating the proposed workflow, and executing the workflow. The claims are found to merely recite a series of steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a simple tool such as pen and paper. As the claim limitations recite steps to create a workflow or an emergency response plan by pre-determining factors such as potential triggers and the responses to those triggers, getting the plan approved, and executing the plan. Merely creating, approving, and executing a plan is found to be similar to concepts the courts have defined as a mental process including observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions.
Alternatively, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. As the claims recite managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people. The claims are a method for creating, approving, and executing an emergency response plan. The claims merely recite organizing and planning the behavior of individuals according to a proposed plan.
Therefore, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite additional elements, including;
Claim 1: A workflow server, a computing device associated with an enterprise, display at the computing device, electronically encoded administration definitions, and a database.
Claim 11: A device comprising: a network interface, and a processor, a computing device associated with an enterprise, display at the computing device, electronically encoded administration definitions, and a database.
The additional elements of a computing device and a plurality of generic computer elements are directed to merely reciting instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations.
The claim limitations recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea of receiving workflow information to be validated and deployed to create and execute an emergency response plan.
Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As the claims merely recite a generic computing device to perform basic functions of receiving information to perform the abstract idea.
Furthermore, a method for transmitting, receiving, and processing information does not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c).
Accordingly, the 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. As the claims are merely directed to utilizing a computer to perform the steps of detecting a new workflow request, retrieving a list of available local public safety agencies and providing the list, receiving a proposed workflow build, retrieving administration definitions, validating the trigger and the one or more responsive actions, and deploying the validated workflow for execution, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?):
As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of a system comprising generic computer elements are not directed to an improvement in a technology or technical field but are merely used to perform the abstract idea of receiving, validating, and deploying a workflow. Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further narrow the abstract idea of building and managing a workflow plan for an emergency response plan for an organization as recited in the independent claims 1 and 11
The dependent claims do not recite any additional elements that have not been discussed in the above analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed July 31, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Representative argues that the currently amended claim limitations are directed to a practical application as the claims recite a server to monitor for the occurrence of a trigger and automatically initiate a response as well as electronically encode agency specific deployment conditions. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite a method of detecting a new workflow request; in response identifying available local public safety agencies; provide a selectable list of available agencies; receiving a proposed workflow build including a trigger and one or more responses; retrieving administration definitions comprising conditions and resources deployment restrictions specific to the selected agencies; validating the workflow that the trigger satisfy the conditions; and deploying the validated workflow. Merely allowing a user to create a workflow or plan for an emergency response by providing a list of available local public safety agencies; allowing a user to select a trigger and a response; validating that the trigger and responses satisfy or align with conditions or restrictions of the desired local public safety agency; and deploying the emergency response plan recites an abstract idea. The claims recite a mental process as a person is capable of mentally, or with simple tools such as pen and paper, constructing and verifying an emergency response plan with a series of trigger conditions and responses including the activities of local agencies as well as verifying the rules or restrictions of the agencies align with the desired plan. Alternatively, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as they merely recite a method for creating an emergency response plan or workflow comprising a plurality of triggers and response actions. The examiner finds the additional elements of a server, a computing device, and a database directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements merely recite automating or having a computer perform the abstract idea functions of storing and retrieving information as well as “monitoring for occurrence of a trigger and initiating a response.” However, the claim limitations do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely using generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of creating and deploying an emergency response plan.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 2-10 and 12-20 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1 and 11 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed July 31, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewett (US 2007/0015506) in view of Zink (US 2010/0023484) further in view of Dilbeck (US 2010/0188205) are persuasive.
Claims 1 and 11: The representative further argues that the current combination of prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations.
Upon an initial review the examiner finds that the current combination of prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations of retrieving electronically encoded administration definitions comprising conditions and resource deployment restrictions specific to the selected local public safety agency.
The closest prior art Hewett (US 2007/0015506) discloses a system of creating an emergency management plan supported by a digital architecture. Hewett further discloses a system of allowing a plurality of organizations such as emergency responders and local entities to be organized and synchronized in an emergency response by agreeing upon action and plans based on a trigger event. And implementing a software tool to help coordinate users.
The second closest prior art Zink (US 2010/0023484) teaches a method for generating personalized emergency response plans by gathering information about available public resources and allowing a user to select and add resources or entities such as first responders to a plan based on predetermined trigger events.
The third closest prior art Dilbeck (US 2010/0188205) teaches a system of managing resources during an emergency. Dilbeck further teaches allowing a user to build and execute an emergency response plan and receiving information from a plurality of sources to identify the status of an emergency.
The forth closest prior art Gomez (US 2012/0260313) teaches a system of building an emergency and disaster plan. Gomez further teaches hosting on a computer system a module for a user to authenticate connections and set active alerts for all users triggered by a specific emergency. As well as a system for connecting a plurality of users such as first responders in case of a disaster.
However, the examiner does not find that the current combination of prior art does not appear to specifically disclose the amended claim limitation of conditions and resource deployment restrictions specific to the selected public safety agency.
Therefore, the examiner finds claims 1 and 11 allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1 and 11. Therefore, they are also allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Smith (US 2017/0215044) System and method for integrated emergency notification.
Piett (US 2013/0203039) Location-based information for emergency management.
Scott (US 2010/0190467) Method of integrating emergency information in a mobile device.
Sigrist (US 2016/0027139) System and method for preparing and implementing emergency response plans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights