Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 8 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with
`
`claims 1, 9, and 17 being the independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-11, 14, and 16-20 are sought to
`
`be amended. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for allegedly being directed to a judicial
`
`exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
`
`more. The Office Action alleges that 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.” Office Action, p. 3. The Office Action
`
`further alleges that 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.” Office
`
`Action, p. 5. Applicant traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the merits of this rejection, Applicant has amended independent
`
`claims 1, 9, and 17 to recite patentable subject matter consistent with principles set forth by the
`
`Federal Circuit and guidance set forth by the USPTO.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 8 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with
`
`claims 1, 9, and 17 being the independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-11, 14, and 16-20 are sought to
`
`be amended. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for allegedly being directed to a judicial
`
`exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
`
`more. The Office Action alleges that 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.” Office Action, p. 3. The Office Action
`
`further alleges that 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.” Office
`
`Action, p. 5. Applicant traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the merits of this rejection, Applicant has amended independent
`
`claims 1, 9, and 17 to recite patentable subject matter consistent with principles set forth by the
`
`Federal Circuit and guidance set forth by the USPTO.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 9 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`Alice Step 2A — The amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea: The USPTO
`
`has explained, “improvements in computer-related technology, including claims directed to
`
`software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A).” USPTO Memorandum, “Recent Subject Matter
`
`Eligibility Decisions” (Enfish), p. 1, May 19, 2016. And, an improvement in computer-related
`
`technology may include allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable
`
`by a computer. November 2 USPTO Memo, p. 2. One indication of an improvement to computer-
`
`related technology may include “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a
`
`desired outcome defined by claimed invention.” November 2 USPTO Memo, pp. 2-3. 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.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 10 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`Alice Step 2B: Even if they recite an abstract idea, the claims define an inventive
`
`concept. The Office Action alleges that claims 1, 9, and 17 “recite generic computer functions by
`
`reciting a server, a memory, a processor, and a signal.” Office Action, p. 7. Applicant respectfully
`
`disagrees and submits that the claims yield an inventive concept because they recite unconventional
`
`limitations and, when considered as an ordered combination, entail an unconventional technological
`
`solution (e.g., processing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (e.g., bed
`
`availability within a correctional facility). See Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. V. Opener Telecom, Inc, 841
`
`F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit held that the following claim sufficiently recited an inventive
`
`concept and was therefore patentable (emphasis added):
`
`1. A computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium
`
`for processing network accounting information comprising:
`
`computer code for receivingfrem efir‘st source afii‘sa‘ network accounting record;
`
`computer code for correiezing thefir‘st nettmrk accounting record with accounting
`
`information eveiirzelefmm a seem-tr! source; and
`
`computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network
`
`accounting record is correlated to enhance thefirst neuter}; accounting recem’.1
`
`According to the Federal Circuit, this claim was patentable under Alice step 2(b) because “this
`
`claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a
`
`technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases)”2
`
`1Ama’ocs,841F.3d at 1299—1300.
`
`21d, at 1300.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 11 -
`
`HODGE el al.
`
`Importantly, while “[t]he solution requires arguably generic components,” the limitation required
`
`the generic components to “work[] together in a distributed manner.”3
`
`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.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner reconsider
`
`and withdraw the § 101 rejection and allow the claims.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 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. (US. Patent No. 7,756,723 B2), hereinafter Rosow, in view of
`
`Wilmeth et al. (US. Publication No. 2013/0002433 A1), hereinafter Wilmeth. Applicant traverses.
`
`With regard to independent claims 1 and 9, Rosow does not disclose or render obvious at
`
`least (1) “updating an availability schedule based on the inventory update, the availability schedule
`
`including the 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,” and (2) “receiving, from a remote device located remotely from the first and
`
`second correctional facilities, a bed request, the bed request including a time period and an inmate
`
`identifier associated with an inmate” and “providing, to the remote device, the filtered bed
`
`candidates.”
`
`3 Id.,at1300-01.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 12 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`Regarding feature (1), Rosow discloses “a real-time support tool for patient bed assignments
`
`and other process in a health care facility.” Rosow, 1:24-26. Rosow’s system is limited to managing
`
`“bed assignments” within a single health care facility. In particular, there is no disclosure in Rosow
`
`of updating an availability schedule that includes the availability of a first bed associated with a first
`
`correctional facility and the availability of a second bed associated with a second correctional
`
`facility.
`
`The Office Action relies on column 13, lines 50-67 of Rosow for disclosing the previous
`
`“updating an availability schedule” limitation. But this citation merely describes “updating the
`
`patient schedule data” based on “a transfer request [that] is initiated by the bed management module
`
`38.” The Office Action is presumably relying on Rosow’s “patient schedule data” as the claimed
`
`availability schedule.” However, there is no disclosure in this cited section or elsewhere of Rosow
`
`that the patient’s schedule data includes availability information regarding a first bed associated
`
`with a first correctional facility and the availability of a second bed associated with a second
`
`correctional facility.
`
`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 (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.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 13 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`But there is no disclosure in this cited section or elsewhere of Rosow that the request is
`
`received “from a remote device located remotely from the first and second correctional facilities” as
`
`claims 1 and 9 recite. Rosow also does not disclose providing filtered bed candidates to this remote
`
`device. As noted above, Rosow is limited to management of beds within a single hospital.
`
`With regard to independent claim 17, Rosow does not disclose a second inventory update
`
`message that “is configured to cause the server to update an availability schedule based on the
`
`second inventory update message, the availability schedule including the availability of the first bed
`
`and a second availability of a second bed, wherein the bed is associated with a correctional facility
`
`and the second bed is associated with a second correctional facility,” for at least the same reasons
`
`discussed above with respect to feature (1) of claims 1 and 9.
`
`Wilmeth does not cure these deficiencies of Rosow. Wilmeth discloses a system for
`
`behavior monitoring and identification. The Office Action relies on Wilmeth for allegedly teaching
`
`tracking an inmate in a prison. Office Action, p. 10. However, Wilmeth does not disclose features
`
`(1) or (2) as described above. For example, like Rosow, Wilmeth appears to only describe
`
`deploying his system within a single facility. Wilmeth, 11 0012. In an event, Wilmeth does not
`
`disclose determining availability of a first bed associated with a first correctional facility and a
`
`second bed associated with a second correctional facility or receiving a request from a device that is
`
`remote from those correctional facilities.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 9, and 17 are allowable over the cited prior art
`
`references. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 depend on claims 1, 9, and 17, and are
`
`allowable based at least on their dependency and for their separately recited features.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 14 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`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. (US. Publication No. 2017/0235898 A1), hereinafter
`
`Coulter. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosow in
`
`view of Wilmeth further in view of Bearman et al. (US. Publication No. 2009/0265106 A1),
`
`hereinafter Bearman.
`
`Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 depend on independent claims 1 and 9 and are allowable based at
`
`least on their dependency and for their separately recited features. Nor do Coulter and Bearman cure
`
`the deficiencies described above with respect to Rosow.
`
`Coulter discloses a system for patient flow and treatment management. The Office Action
`
`relies on Coulter for allegedly disclosing coordinating the transport of a patient to a different
`
`department. Office Action, p. 19. Bearman discloses a system for determining a potential
`
`relationship between entities. The Office Action relies on Bearman for allegedly disclosing a
`
`location identifier identifying a cell block in which the first bed is located. Office Action, p. 22.
`
`However, Coulter and Bearman do not disclose features (1) or (2) as described above. For
`
`example, Coulter and Bearman do not disclose determining availability of a first bed associated
`
`with a first correctional facility and a second bed associated with a second correctional facility or
`
`receiving a request from a device that is remote from those correctional facilities.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the cited prior art references do not teach or render
`
`obvious claims 1-20. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 103 rejections is respectfully solicited.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 14, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/618,367
`
`- 15 -
`
`HODGE el a].
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of rejection have been properly traversed, accommodated, or
`
`rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider all presently
`
`outstanding rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant believes that a full and complete reply
`
`has been made to the outstanding Office Action and, as such, the present application is in condition
`
`for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that personal communication will expedite
`
`prosecution of this application, the Examiner is invited to telephone the undersigned at the number
`
`provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`/Lauren C. Schleh, Reg. No. 65,457/
`
`Lauren C. Schleh
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 65,457
`
`
`Date:W1 7
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`82746791
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3210.1460000
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
