“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/618,367
`
`06/09/2017
`
`Stephen L. HODGE
`
`3210.1460000
`
`4123
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`TUNGATE, SCOTT MICHAEL
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3628
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`09/ 14/2017
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/618,367 HODGIE ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`Scott Tu ngate $22” 3628
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/09/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above cIaim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_120 Is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`I/'/\WIIW.USOI.O. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgto.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)IXI The drawing(s) filed on 06/09/2017is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170822
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`2.
`
`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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or
`
`an abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`The Supreme Court set forth a framework “for distinguishing patents that claim
`
`laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
`
`eligible applications of [these] concepts.” Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
`
`132 s. Ct. 1289 (2012)).
`
`The first step in this analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
`
`directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” ld. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
`
`1296—97). If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends.
`
`Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where elements of the claims are
`
`considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination to determine whether there
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`are additional elements that
`
`transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” ld. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297).
`
`The Court acknowledged in Mayo that “all inventions at some level embody, use,
`
`reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo,
`
`132 S. Ct. at 1293. We, therefore, look to whether the claims focus on a specific means
`
`or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or
`
`effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and
`
`machinery. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A:
`
`Claims 1 and 9 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving bed inventory
`
`schedules and bed request characteristics, determining bed candidates by comparing
`
`the request to the inventory, and providing candidate beds, which is both a method of
`
`organizing human activity and an idea of itself. While the claims do not recite “receiving
`
`bed inventory schedules and bed request characteristics, determining bed candidates
`
`by comparing the request to the inventory, and providing candidate beds,” the concept
`
`of “receiving bed inventory schedules and bed request characteristics, determining bed
`
`candidates by comparing the request to the inventory, and providing candidate beds,” is
`
`described by the receiving an inventory update, updating an availability schedule,
`
`receiving a bed request, retrieving an inmate profile, comparing time periods,
`
`determining a candidate bed, generating filtered bed candidates, and providing the
`
`candidates.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`With regards to Claims 4 and 12, the limitations further describe the above-
`
`identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by receiving a bed confirmation,
`
`generating a bed itinerary, and updating the availability schedule.
`
`This idea of receiving bed inventory schedules and bed request characteristics,
`
`determining bed candidates by comparing the request to the inventory, and providing
`
`candidate beds can be described at different levels of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v.
`
`Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can
`
`generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the
`
`claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or
`
`generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another
`
`location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification,
`
`taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.”) At one level of abstraction,
`
`receiving bed inventory schedules and bed request characteristics, determining bed
`
`candidates by comparing the request to the inventory, and providing candidate beds
`
`can also be described as collecting bed information, analyzing it, and displaying a
`
`filtered list as a result of the collection and analysis, which is both a method of
`
`organizing human activity and an ideal of itself similar to the idea of collecting
`
`information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis
`
`found by the courts to be abstract in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d
`
`1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). At another level of abstraction, receiving
`
`bed inventory schedules and bed request characteristics, determining bed candidates
`
`by comparing the request to the inventory, and providing candidate beds can also be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`described as creating a schedule, and using that schedule to search for and retrieve
`
`available beds, which is a method of organizing human activity similar to the idea of
`
`creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data found by the
`
`courts to be abstract in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315,
`
`121 U.S.P.Q.2d 1928 (Fed Cir. 2017). At the levels of abstraction described above, the
`
`claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract
`
`idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 28. See BASCOM Global Internet v.
`
`AT&TMobi/ity LLC, No. 2015-1763, slip. op. at 13 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) ("The
`
`Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously
`
`directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and
`
`their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they
`
`are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific
`
`claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
`
`Claim 17 is directed to the abstract idea of generating an inventory update based
`
`on an availability signal and transmitting the inventory update, which is an idea of itself.
`
`While the claims do not recite “generating an inventory update based on an availability
`
`signal and transmitting the inventory update,” the concept of “generating an inventory
`
`update based on an availability signal and transmitting the inventory update,” is
`
`described by the detecting availability, generating an update, determining whether to
`
`transmit the update and transmitting the update.
`
`This idea of generating an inventory update based on an availability signal and
`
`transmitting the inventory update can be described at different levels of abstraction. See
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract
`
`idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has
`
`done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a
`
`computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second
`
`menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in
`
`the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.”) At one level
`
`of abstraction, generating an inventory update based on an availability signal and
`
`transmitting the inventory update can also be described as generating a second
`
`inventory based on a first inventory and transmitting the second inventory which is an
`
`idea of itself similar to the idea of generating a second menu from a first menu and
`
`sending the second menu to another location found by the courts to be abstract in
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016). At the level of abstraction
`
`described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are
`
`directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 28. See
`
`BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, slip. op. at 13 (Fed. Cir.
`
`June 27, 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were
`
`unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast,
`
`the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one
`
`finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our
`
`consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations
`
`omitted).
`
`Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
`
`amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements
`
`amount to nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer function.
`
`The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a
`
`server, a memory, a processor, and a signal. The claims recite generic computer
`
`functions by reciting sending, receiving, processing, storing, and providing information.
`
`Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
`
`above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
`
`ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the
`
`elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements
`
`improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their
`
`collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
`
`With regards to Claims 5, 13, and 18, the additional elements do not amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5, 13, and 18 recite a generic
`
`computer performing generic computer functions by retrieving an itinerary from a
`
`database, transmitting an itinerary, receiving a bed identifier, and not receiving an
`
`inmate identifier using the computer's ordinary ability to store, retrieve, receive, and
`
`transmit data. Claims 5 and 13 recite well-understood, routine, and conventional
`
`activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality by
`
`generating a transport itinerary using the computer's ordinary ability to generate data.
`
`Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
`
`above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the
`
`elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements
`
`improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their
`
`collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
`
`Remaining Claims:
`
`With regards to Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20, these claims merely
`
`add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding
`
`additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter.
`
`Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
`
`above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
`
`ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the
`
`elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements
`
`improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their
`
`collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore,
`
`the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Rosow et al. (U.S. 7,756,723 B2), hereinafter Rosow, in
`
`view of Wilmeth et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0002433 A1), hereinafter Wilmeth.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`receiving an inventory update, the inventory update including a bed
`
`identifier and a notification regarding a first availability of a first bed associated
`
`with the bed identifier (Rosow Fig. 6A Unique ID; Fig. 12 Item 98; (Col. 7 Lines 8-
`
`12) database is updated by the database server throughout in response to
`
`requests; (Col. 10 Lines 8-11) clicking the update list button a user request is
`
`transmitted to the server computer and the system performs a search of the
`
`database and returns a list of all patients meeting the specified criteria; (Col. 12
`
`Lines 65-67) once assigned a bed the patient bed management module initiates
`
`requests to update the database; (Col. 13 Lines 7-15) update patient status to
`
`reflect the occupied status; (Col. 14 Lines 1-20) database can be merged with
`
`ADT system to maintain accurate records in the bed management system);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`o
`
`updating an availability schedule based on the inventory update, the
`
`availability schedule including the first availability of the first bed and a second
`
`availability of a second bed (Rosow (Col. 13 Lines 50-67) updating patient
`
`schedule data);
`
`8.
`
`Regarding the following limitations, Rosow discloses the following limitations with
`
`a patient:
`
`.
`
`receiving a bed request, the bed request including a time period and a
`
`patient identifier associated with a patient (Rosow (Col. 10 Lines 41 -44) after
`
`selecting a patient an available bed can be identified and requested);
`
`.
`
`retrieving a patient profile based on the patient identifier (Rosow (Col. 10
`
`Lines 16-38) providing a list of patients);
`
`9.
`
`However, Rosow does not disclose an inmate. Wilmeth teaches tracking an
`
`inmate in a prison (Wilmeth [0012] facility may be a prison or healthcare facility; [0013]-
`
`[0014] individuals are monitored using RFID tags; [0017] RFID incudes an individual’s
`
`name and assigned identifier number). Since each individual element and its function
`
`are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or
`
`function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the inmate of
`
`Wilmeth for the patient of Rosow. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in
`
`the art of tracking individuals in a facility for another producing a predictable result
`
`renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`features and yield predictable result of Rosow’s system with the improved functionality
`
`to monitor prisoners.
`
`10.
`
`Rosow discloses the remaining limitations:
`
`.
`
`comparing the time period to the availability schedule (Rosow (Col. 6
`
`Lines 20-45) status information is stored in the database; (Col. 7 Lines 1-7)
`
`patient schedule table; (Col. 12 Lines 2-36) color coded display of bed availability
`
`including indication of how many hours remain until a patient is scheduled to be
`
`transferred or discharged; (Col. 13 Lines 34-44) patient schedule data stored in
`
`the database;);
`
`.
`
`determining at least one bed candidate based on the comparing, the at
`
`least one bed candidate associated with a bed profile (Rosow (Col. 11 Lines 31 -
`
`35) list of beds meeting selected criteria);
`
`.
`
`generating filtered bed candidates based on comparing inmate information
`
`in the inmate profile and bed information in the bed profile (Rosow (Col. 10 Line
`
`45 - Col. 11 Line 17) number of available beds); and
`
`0
`
`providing the filtered bed candidates (Rosow (Col. 11 Lines 31-35) list of
`
`beds meeting selected criteria).
`
`11.
`
`Claim 2:
`
`12.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses identifying a facility (Rosow (Col. 6 Lines 24-25)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`facility itself is identified), however Rosow does not disclose the following limitation, but
`
`Wilmeth does:
`
`0
`
`wherein the inventory update further includes a facility identifier, the facility
`
`identifier indicating a correctional facility in which the first bed is located (Wilmeth
`
`[0012] facility may be a prison or healthcare facility; [0032] messages include a
`
`facility identifier).
`
`13.
`
`Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit
`
`shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and
`
`the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination
`
`itself. That is in the substitution of the prison of Wilmeth for the hospital of Rosow. Thus,
`
`the simple substitution of one known element in the art of tracking individuals in a facility
`
`for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be
`
`required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Rosow’s system
`
`with the improved functionality to monitor prisoners.
`
`14.
`
`Claim 3:
`
`15.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`wherein the inventory update is received from a remote device associated
`
`with the correctional facility (Rosow (Col. 2 Lines 5-6) PDAs; (Col. 8 Lines 48-54)
`
`system includes a message handler for processing messages and notifications).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`16.
`
`Claim 4:
`
`17.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`.
`
`receiving a bed confirmation selection that includes a selected bed
`
`candidate from the filtered bed candidates (Rosow (Col. 9 Lines 60-65) user
`
`assigns a patient to an appropriate bed in the facility to select an available bed
`
`that meets the specific needs of an individual patient);
`
`18.
`
`Regarding the following limitation, Rosow discloses the following limitation with a
`
`patient:
`
`.
`
`generating a bed itinerary that includes the selected bed candidate, the
`
`patient identifier, and the time period (Rosow (Col. 11 Lines 36-52) name of the
`
`patient is confirmed, the expected timing, and the expected arrival time); and
`
`19. Wilmeth teaches an inmate can be substituted for the patient of Rosow as
`
`discussed in claim 1 above.
`
`20.
`
`Rosow discloses the remaining limitation:
`
`.
`
`updating the availability schedule based on the bed itinerary (Rosow (Col.
`
`11 Lines 36-52) once a patient is assigned a bed the system is updated).
`
`21.
`
`Claim 6:
`
`22.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`0
`
`wherein the inmate profile includes a security requirement associated with
`
`the inmate (Rosow Fig. 6D SecurityPrecaution; Fig 14 Item 108; (Col. 10 Lines
`
`16-38) indicate if the patient is a security risk; (Col. 18 Lines 54-58) placing rival
`
`gang members near one another increases security risk),
`
`.
`
`the bed profile includes a security criteria of a correctional facility in which
`
`the first bed is located (Rosow Fig. 6A SecurityPrecautions indicates if security is
`
`available for a bed; Fig. 17; (Col. 6 Lines 37-38) if a room has security;), and
`
`0
`
`wherein the comparing inmate information in the inmate profile and bed
`
`information in the bed profile further comprises comparing the security
`
`requirement and the security criteria (Rosow (Col. 18 Lines 54-58) placing rival
`
`gang members near one another increases security risk).
`
`23.
`
`Claim 7:
`
`24.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 6, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses wherein the security requirement includes at least
`
`one of:
`
`.
`
`.
`
`a security level required for the inmate,
`
`a gang affiliation associated with the inmate (Rosow (Col. 18 Lines 54-58)
`
`placing rival gang members near one another increases security risk),
`
`0
`
`.
`
`a flight risk associated with the inmate,
`
`a violence level associated with the inmate.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`25.
`
`Claim 9:
`
`26.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 9, as shown above
`
`in claim 1. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`.
`
`a memory configured to store a bed profile and an inmate profile (Rosow
`
`(Col. 4 Lines 45-55) database); and
`
`.
`
`a processor coupled to the memory (Rosow (Col. 4 Lines 45-55) server),
`
`the processor configured to:
`
`27.
`
`Claim 10:
`
`28.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 10, as shown
`
`above in claim 2.
`
`29.
`
`Claim 11:
`
`30.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown
`
`above in claim 3.
`
`31.
`
`Claim 12:
`
`32.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 12, as shown
`
`above in claim 4.
`
`33.
`
`Claim 14:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`34.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown
`
`above in claim 6.
`
`35.
`
`Claim 15:
`
`36.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 15, as shown
`
`above in claim 7.
`
`37.
`
`Claim 17:
`
`38.
`
`Regarding the following limitations, Rosow discloses the following limitation with
`
`a patient:
`
`0
`
`detecting, based on a received signal comprising a patient identifier, an
`
`availability of a bed within the correctional facility, wherein the detecting includes
`
`determining whether a received signal comprises a patient identifier associated
`
`with a patient and a bed identifier associated with the bed (Rosow (Col. 11 Lines
`
`5-6) monitored beds including hardwired monitors and telemetry monitors; (Col.
`
`15 Lines 59-63) the data mining and reporting module monitors patient
`
`occupancy and throughput);
`
`.
`
`generating an inventory update message based on the detecting the
`
`availability of the bed, the inventory update message including at least one of the
`
`bed identifier associated with the bed, the patient identifier, and a notification
`
`regarding the availability of the bed (Rosow (Col. 12 Lines 15-36) the bed
`
`management system can effectively alert the appropriate personnel);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`39. Wilmeth teaches an inmate can be substituted for the patient of Rosow as
`
`discussed in claim 1 above.
`
`40.
`
`Rosow discloses the following limitations:
`
`.
`
`determining whether to transmit the inventory update message to a server
`
`(Rosow (Col. 12 Lines 15-36) 23 hour threshold for outpatient status); and
`
`.
`
`transmitting the inventory update message to the server based on the
`
`determining (Rosow (Col. 12 Lines 15-36) the bed management system can
`
`effectively alert the appropriate personnel).
`
`41.
`
`Claim 18:
`
`42.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`receiving, from an inventory tracker associated with the bed, the bed
`
`identifier (Rosow (Col. 11 Lines 18—30) available beds are profiled); and
`
`43.
`
`Rosow does not disclose the following limitation, but Wilmeth does:
`
`0
`
`failing to receive, from the inventory tracker, the inmate identifier
`
`associated with the inmate (Wilmeth [0043] if the subsequent input of arrival is
`
`not received prior to expiration then performance of the action of the at least one
`
`behavior analytic rule is triggered).
`
`44.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date to include a failed signal response as taught by Wilmeth in the system of
`
`Rosow, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`tracking individuals in a facility, and in the combination each element merely would have
`
`performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering
`
`would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of
`
`Rosow’s system with the improved functionality to provide more accurate tracking
`
`information.
`
`45.
`
`Claim 19:
`
`46.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`wherein the determining whether to transmit the inventory update
`
`message to the server includes detecting a predetermined time for an inventory
`
`tracker associated with the bed to transmit the inventory update message to the
`
`server (Rosow (Col. 12 Lines 15-36) 23 hour threshold for outpatient status).
`
`47.
`
`Claim 20:
`
`48.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`wherein the determining whether to transmit the inventory update
`
`message includes detecting a mobile update parameter that indicates that the
`
`inventory update is generated by a mobile device separate from the bed (Rosow
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`(Col. 11 Lines 5-6) monitored beds including hardwired monitors and telemetry
`
`monitors; (Col. 12 Lines 15-36) 23 hour threshold for outpatient status).
`
`49.
`
`Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Rosow in view of Wilmeth further in view of Coulter et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub.
`
`2017/0235898 A1), hereinafter Coulter.
`
`50.
`
`Claim 5:
`
`51.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown
`
`above. Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`o
`
`retrieving another bed itinerary from a database (Rosow (Col. 11 Line 53 -
`
`Col. 12 Line 36) patient information can be viewed in a dynamic an interactive
`
`unit detail - floor plan mode, which includes information on transfers);
`
`52.
`
`Regarding the following limitation:
`
`.
`
`generating a transport itinerary based on comparing the bed itinerary and
`
`the another bed itinerary, wherein the transport itinerary includes a transport
`
`route for transporting a first inmate associated with the bed itinerary and a
`
`second inmate associated with the another bed itinerary; and
`
`53.
`
`Rosow discloses monitoring multiple bed itineraries at the same time for
`
`transferring patients (Rosow (Col. 11 Line 53 - Col. 12 Line 36)), however Rosow does
`
`not disclose coordinating the transport of patients. Coulter teaches coordinating the
`
`transport of a patient to a different department (Coulter [0067]). It would have been
`
`

`

`Applicati