UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/618,367
`
`06/09/2017
`
`Stephen L. HODGE
`
`32101460000
`
`4123
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW.
`WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20005
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`TUNGATE SCOTT MICHAEL
`
`ART UNIT
`3628
`
`MAE DATE
`
`04/ 12/201 8
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/618,367
`Examiner
`SCOTT M TU NGATE
`
`Applicant(s)
`HODGE et al.
`Art Unit
`3628
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 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 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f 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).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/13/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] 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 Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—20 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. 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
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D 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):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:J Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`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)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180406
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`This action is in response to the reply filed December 13, 2017.
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, and 16-20 have been amended.
`
`Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed December 13, 2017 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`6.
`
`Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following
`
`arguments:
`
`o
`
`Consistent with these principles, the claims provide a particular solution to the problem
`
`of automating the generation of bed itineraries associated with beds in one or more correctional
`
`facilities.
`
`0
`
`Providing a technological solution to this problem required consideration of a number of
`
`factors which the claimed invention addresses including determining the availability of beds in
`
`one or more correctional facilities through a novel interaction of inventory trackers and inventory
`
`messages. The technological solution is a distributed system for determining the availability of
`
`the beds which is described at, for example, at paragraphs 43-47 of the specification and is
`
`recited in the claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 3
`
`7.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A the generation of bed itineraries associated with
`
`beds in one or more correctional facilities can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a
`
`pen and paper. Implementation of the generation of bed itineraries associated with beds in one or more
`
`correctional facilities may be more efficient or faster using a computer, however performing an abstract
`
`idea more efficiently or faster does not impact the analysis under Step 2A. See Bancorp $ervs., L.L.C. v.
`
`Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.$.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Therefore, the instant claims
`
`do not address a technological problem. The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at
`
`best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the
`
`underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
`
`8.
`
`Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following
`
`arguments:
`
`o
`
`The claims are therefore not directed simply to ”organizing human activity” as
`
`generalized by the Office Action. Office Action, p. 3. Instead, the claims provide a specific
`
`technological solution to the problem of determining availability of beds that are located in one
`
`or more correctional facilities and providing that information another device located remotely
`
`from the one or more correctional facilities. The claims are therefore not directed to an abstract
`
`idea.
`
`9.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims use generic computer components in a
`
`prison management context. The court in TLI Communications LLC v. AVAutomotive, LLC. (Slip Op. p. 8)
`
`stated the use of a computer is not significantly more when, ”[the claims] are directed to the use of
`
`conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that
`
`the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” Therefore,
`
`since the claims are reciting a conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 4
`
`environment, the additional steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See
`
`Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, No. 2016-1502, slip. op. at 33 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) ([The claims] do not
`
`improve the functioning of the computer or barcode system itself. Instead, they apply those
`
`functionalities in the context of processing return mail.)
`
`10.
`
`Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following
`
`arguments:
`
`o
`
`The amended claims here are similarly directed to an inventive concept. In particular, the
`
`claims recite devices working in a distributed manner to update the inventories of beds within
`
`one or more correctional facilities and then providing that inventory information to a device
`
`located remotely from the one or more correctional facilities.
`
`11.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the instant claims do not recite a
`
`technological problem. The Amdocs decision was directed toward the technological problem of dealing
`
`with massive record flows where the previous network structure acted as a bottleneck. Therefore, by
`
`rearranging the structure of the network itself the technological problem of a bottleneck for massive
`
`record flows was solved.
`
`12.
`
`Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant presented the following
`
`arguments:
`
`0
`
`Regarding feature (2), the Office Action relies on column 10, lines 41-44 of Rosow as
`
`allegedly teaching the previous ”receiving a bed request” limitation. Office Action, p. 10. This
`
`citation describes using a user screen 104 for a ”bed assignment process” whereby ”an available
`
`bed can be identified and requested. ” Rosow, 10:39-44. Rosow's user screen 104 is part of a bed
`
`management system that is implemented within the hospital. Rosow, 3:27-35, 6:47-53
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 5
`
`(describing the bed management system as managing the performance of a health care facility).
`
`So the alleged request in Rosow's disclosure comes from a bed management system within the
`
`hospital.
`
`13.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rosow discloses that the hospital management system is
`
`accessible by personal computers via the internet (Rosow (Col. 2 Lines 5-6) hospital management data
`
`accessible directly from personal computers and/or PDAs; (Col. 4 Lines 56-58) system accessed by client
`
`computer via the internet).
`
`14.
`
`Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the remainder of Applicant’s arguments
`
`have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
`
`15.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`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.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1296—97). If the claims are not directed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 6
`
`to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where
`
`”I
`elements of the claims are considered ”individually and ’as an ordered combination to determine
`
`whether there are additional elements that
`
`transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`
`Ill
`
`application.” Id. (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. 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.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 7
`
`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 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 C0,, 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 23. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&TMobility 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 8
`
`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. The concept of
`
`”generating an inventory update based on an availability signal and transmitting the inventory update,”
`
`is described by the receiving an inventory update, detecting availability, generating an 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 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 23. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&TMobility 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 9
`
`idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step
`
`two.") (citations omitted).
`
`Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
`
`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 an inventory tracker device, an electronic device, 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 3, 5, 13, and 18, the additional elements do not amount to significantly
`
`more than the judicial exception. Claims 3, 5, 13, and 18 recite a generic computer performing generic
`
`computer functions by a generic tag used as an identifier, retrieving an itinerary from a database,
`
`transmitting an itinerary, 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 ordered combination adds nothing that is
`
`not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 10
`
`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, 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
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 11
`
`18.
`
`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, in view of Bracken et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0339040 A1),
`
`hereinafter Bracken.
`
`19.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`20.
`
`Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`Receiving, from an inventory tracker device associated with a first bed, an inventory
`
`update, the inventory update including a bed identifier associated with the bed and a
`
`notification regarding a first availability of a first bed (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. 10 Lines 31-34, Col. 11 Lines 3-6, Col. 14 Lines 34-
`
`38) telemetry monitored beds; (Col. 17 Line 52-Col. 19 Line 11) online agents 332 can monitor
`
`the capacity of monitored beds including monitoring admission and discharge profiles; (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);
`
`21.
`
`Regarding the following limitation, although Rosow discloses updating a patient schedule
`
`(Rosow (Col. 13 Lines 50-67) updating patient schedule data), Rosow does not disclose monitoring
`
`availability across a first and second facility, but Bracken does:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 12
`
`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,
`
`wherein the first bed is associated with a first correctional facility and the second bed is
`
`associated with a second correctional facility (Bracken [0027]—[0028] facility database contains
`
`updated bed capacity information for secondary facilities);
`
`22.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would monitor the capacity of nearby facilities in order to handle
`
`a maximum capacity situation at a primary facility by redirecting demand to a nearby facility with
`
`available capacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date to include bed capacity of a second facility as taught by Bracken in the system of Rosow, since
`
`the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of managing beds 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 monitor the capacity of nearby facilities in order to redirect
`
`demand when a first facility is at capacity.
`
`23.
`
`Regarding the following limitations, Rosow discloses the following limitations with a patient:
`
`0
`
`Receiving, from an electronic device located remotely from the first and second
`
`correctional facilities, a bed request, the bed request including a time period and a patient
`
`identifier associated with a patient (Rosow (Col. 2 Lines 5-6) hospital management data
`
`accessible directly from personal computers and/or PDAs; (Col. 4 Lines 56-58) system accessed
`
`by client computer via the internet; (Col. 10 Lines 41-44) after selecting a patient an available
`
`bed can be identified and requested);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 13
`
`o
`
`retrieving a patient profile based on the patient identifier (Rosow (Col. 10 Lines 16-38)
`
`providing a list of patients);
`
`24.
`
`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 features and yield predictable result of Rosow’s system with the improved
`
`functionality to monitor prisoners.
`
`25.
`
`Rosow discloses the remaining limitations:
`
`0
`
`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);
`
`0
`
`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);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 14
`
`o
`
`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, to the electronic device, the filtered bed candidates (Rosow (Col. 2 Lines 5-6)
`
`hospital management data accessible directly from personal computers and/or PDAs; (Col. 4
`
`Lines 56-58) system accessed by client computer via the internet; (Col. 8 Lines 48-54) system
`
`includes a message handler for processing messages and notifications; (Col. 11 Lines 31-35) list
`
`of beds meeting selected criteria).
`
`26.
`
`Claim 2:
`
`27.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth and Bracken teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above.
`
`Additionally, Rosow discloses identifying a facility (Rosow (Col. 6 Lines 24-25) 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 the first correctional facility (Wilmeth [0012] facility may be a prison or healthcare
`
`facility; [0032] messages include a facility identifier).
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/618,367
`Art Unit: 3628
`
`Page 15
`
`29.
`
`Claim 3:
`
`30.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth and Bracken teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above.
`
`Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`wherein the inventory tracking device is a tag that is attached to the first bed (Rosow
`
`(Col. 10 Lines 31-34, Col. 11 Lines 3-6, Col. 14 Lines 34-38) telemetry monitored beds; (Col. 17
`
`Line 52-Col. 19 Line 11) online agents 332 can monitor the capacity of monitored beds including
`
`monitoring admission and discharge profiles).
`
`31.
`
`Claim 4:
`
`32.
`
`Rosow in view of Wilmeth and Bracken teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above.
`
`Additionally, Rosow discloses:
`
`0
`
`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);
`
`33.
`
`Regarding the following limitation, Rosow discloses the following limitation with a patient:
`
`0
`
`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
`
`Wilmeth teaches an inmate can be substituted for the patient of Rosow as discussed in claim 1
`
`Rosow discloses the remaining limitation:
`
`o
`
`updating t