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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 02 December 2025. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18 and 21-23 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 5, 7-8, 15 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 are entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 7, 9-11 and 19 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 02 September 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 7, 9-11 and 19 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 02 September 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 23 December 2024 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if claim 1 recites an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), at least the above recited subject matter of claim 1 integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
I.Claim 1 Does Not Recite A Mental Process
On page 4 of the Office Action, the Office Action states that elements of claim 1 "constitute a "mental process' because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind." Applicant respectfully disagrees and further submits that claim 1 recites several elements that cannot be performed in the human mind.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." (emphasis added). The MPEP further provides several examples of claims that do not recite a mental process as the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind. These examples include:
a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the
distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites ...;
a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors
and analyzing network packets ...;
a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data . ..;
and a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
Similarly, claim 1 recites elements such as "establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks,""transmit ... one or more first encrypted signals to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility," and "transmit... one or more second encrypted signals."
Applicant respectfully submits that a human mind cannot establish network connection sessions nor transmit encrypted signals. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite a mental process.
II. Claim 1 Is Integrated Into A Practical Application
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites elements that improve "another technology or technical field."
In particular, claim 1 recites elements that improve the distribution and exchange of data during a natural disaster or other weather event that is causing a distribution to both network connections and electrical connections. For example, the inclusion of "network circuitry" within the mobile response unit provides for an independent and redundant communication interface that operates to transmit signals during periods in which internet services may be distributed at a long-term care facility (as a result of a power outage, a natural disaster, or other weather event).
Additionally, in claim 1, the mobile response unit operates to retrieve "one or more sets of structured weather alert data" and execute a machine learning model to "generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event." Each of these elements provide an improvement to route generation systems which do not take into account (when generating or updating routes) whether a destination (e.g., a long-term care facility) is also impacted by a weather.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-4, 6, and 9-14 depend from claim 1. Claims 5, 7-8, and 15 are cancelled. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection of claims 2-15.
With reference to the above discussion of claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection of claims 16 and 20. Claims 17-18 depend from claim 16. Claim 19 is cancelled. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection of claims 17-19 is requested.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims as of right now merely have a device/system that is generating a route to an alternate receiving facility for a patient to go to in the case of extreme weather. Information is obtained from users and online sources for use in the generation of the route. The results of the generated route are transmitted to devices to be displayed for users to view. The claims can be performed in the human mind as they merely involve taking collected information to generate an updated route to a receiving facility, furthermore, the inclusion of a computer/processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention, See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In addition, obtaining user input, obtaining information over a network and transmitting information over a network would be insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) or well-understood routine activities (transmitting over a network).
The improvements of “improve the distribution and exchange of data during a natural disaster or other weather event that is causing a distribution to both network connections and electrical connections” and “improvement to route generation systems which do not take into account (when generating or updating routes) whether a destination (e.g., a long-term care facility) is also impacted by a weather” are never explicitly mentioned in the currently amended claims and for the improvement to be indicative of integration into a practical application, it cannot be an improvement to an abstract idea, it must be "to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Finally, using a machine learning model, obtaining data over a network and a computer processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.04(d), The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The addition of the “machine learning model” as an additional element is not sufficient to claim a practical application or amount to significantly more than a judicial exception as the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and it can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 02 September 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “provide transmit…” should be changed to –transmit--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18 and 21-23are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are indefinite because of the recited limitations involving the “retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event”. The specification is not clear as to what the structured weather alert entails. The specification mentions weather alerts as found in [0138]” In step 2320, the weather component 1625 can receive, from the weather data source 1645, at least one weather alert. The weather alert can include information that pertains to at least one weather event. In some embodiments, the weather component 1625 can provide, to the weather data source 1645, a request for the weather alert. In some embodiments, the weather component 1625 can receive the weather alert continuously from the weather data source 1645. In some embodiments, the weather component 1625 can receive the weather alert in predetermined intervals.” It is unclear, to the Examiner, what exactly Applicant is referring to by the structured weather alert. Examiner will treat this any weather data obtained from online sources.
All dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 and 16 are directed to a mobile unit, and claim 20 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A mobile response unit, comprising:
network circuitry comprising one or more transceivers:
and a processing circuit including one or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility, wherein the request includes a location of a resident and a location of a caretaker associated with the resident;
generate, responsive to receiving the request, a route to the receiving facility, wherein the route is generated using at least one of the location of the resident, the location of the caretaker associated with the resident, or a location of the receiving facility;
establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks
transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility;
retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event;
determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event;
execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event;
provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility;
and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to:
provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event;
and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate…” and “determine…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A mobile response unit, comprising:
network circuitry comprising one or more transceivers:
and a processing circuit including one or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility, wherein the request includes a location of a resident and a location of a caretaker associated with the resident;
generate, responsive to receiving the request, a route to the receiving facility, wherein the route is generated using at least one of the location of the resident, the location of the caretaker associated with the resident, or a location of the receiving facility;
establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks
transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility;
retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event;
determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event;
execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event;
provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility;
and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to:
provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event;
and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from input systems and online databases is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 16 and 20 further recite “A mobile response unit, comprising: network circuitry comprising one or more transceivers: and a processing circuit including one or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” and “A system, comprising: a computing device associated with a receiving facility; and a mobile response unit, including a processing circuit having one or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information is a well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the data comes from simple user input and online databases, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9-14, 17-18 and 21-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional steps such as “display”, “update”, “receive”, “determine”, “provide”, “identifying”, “causing”, “retrieving”, “transmit” and “multicast” that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9-14, 17-18 and 21-23 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18 and 21-23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 9-12, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 20250224240 A1) in view of Seibel (US 20020152020 A1) in view of Perretta (US 20170161433 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20170318448 A1) in view of Resnik (US 20230078911 A1) in view of Konno (US 20230152119 A1) in view of Rosentel (US 20110095881 A1) in further view of Maus (US 20010044732 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches A mobile response unit, comprising (A computer such as a smartphone, tablet, or PC. see at least [¶05-010 & 087]):
network circuitry comprising one or more transceivers:
and a processing circuit including one or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (The computer has a processor with memory that has instructions. see at least [¶05-010, 087-091 and Claim 1]):
wherein the request includes a location of a resident and a location of a caretaker associated with the resident (The request for searching a route can include the location of the patient and their emergency attendant. (It shall be noted, that an attendant does input patient information to get routes to a hospital.) see at least [¶054-056]);
generate, responsive to receiving the request, a route to the receiving facility, wherein the route is generated using at least one of the location of the resident, the location of the caretaker associated with the resident, or a location of the receiving facility (Generating a route to a receiving facility/hospital based on the location of the patient, attendant and the location of the hospital. see at least [¶]);
Ito does not explicitly teach receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility.
However, Seibel does teach receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility (A user can input through a screen a request for directions to a receiving facility/hospital. see at least [¶019, 037 & 041]).
Seibel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route finding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito to use the technique to receiving, via a display on the mobile response unit, a user input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility as taught by Seibel. Doing so would lead to improved route generation that meets a user criterion (see at least [¶019]).
Ito and Seibel do not explicitly teach establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks, transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals.
However, Perretta does teach establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks (Establish, in response to generating a route, via a network circuit of the mobile device of the user, a network connection session to share patient information. see at least [¶0105-0109, 0169 & 0189]),
transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals (Transmit, via a network, to a computing device associated with a receiving/healthcare facility, encrypted signal with patient information. see at least [¶0100 & 0102]).
Perretta would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of healthcare applications connecting with incoming patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito and Seibel use the technique of establishing, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks, transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals as taught by Perretta. Doing so would lead to improved security when transferring patient information across networks (see at least [¶0102]).
Ito, Seibel and Perretta do not explicitly teach to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility.
However, Thomas does teach to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility (Providing to a hospital, an indication that a resident/patient and their caretaker/attendant are in route to the hospital. see at least [¶045-050]).
Thomas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of emergency response for patients and hospitals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel and Perretta to use the technique of providing, to the receiving facility, an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility as taught by Thomas. Doing so would lead to improved preparedness of hospital staff for a patient (see at least [¶032]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta and Thomas do not explicitly teach retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event; execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event.
However, Resnik does teach retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event (Retrieve, via a network circuitry found in the user device, from a weather data source, weather alerts from internet databases (using APIs) that have information on weather conditions in an area being traversed. see at least [¶031, 035, 038, 041 & 090-092]);
execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event (Execute, after determining that a route is impacted by a weather event, a machine learning model that is used to generate updates to a route to evade the weather event and that can reach a destination that is predicted to not be impacted by the weather event. see at least [¶027, 034, 037, 050-057 & 074-076]);
Resnik would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of modifying a route using weather data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta and Thomas to use the technique of retrieving, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event; execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event as taught by Resnik. Doing so would lead to improved updating of a route using weather data (see at least [¶074]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas and Resnik do not explicitly teach determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility.
However, Konno does teach determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Determine that a route is being impacted by a weather event/tornado and that a receiving facility/shelter is impacted by a weather event based on the weather data and location of shelter. see at least [¶082-087, 091 & 095]);
provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface that shows an update to the route to avoid the first receiving facility/shelter responsive to determining the first shelter is impacted by a weather event. The route is updated to include directions to a second receiving facility/shelter. see at least [¶082-089]);
indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface that shows that a receiving facility/shelter is impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶082-089]);
and identify the different receiving facility (The user interface displays an identified a second receiving facility/shelter to receive the user. (It would be obvious that the user could be a family or a resident and caretaker.) see at least [¶087-092]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas and Resnik to use the technique of determining, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik and Konno do not explicitly teach and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event.
However, Rosentel does teach and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Transmit to a facility that will be impacted by a weather event, via a network connection that is encrypted, an indication/alert that the facility will be impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶022, 030, 041 & 075]).
Rosentel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alert notification in severe weather. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik and Konno to use the technique transmitting, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event as taught by Rosentel. Doing so would lead to enhanced safety via alerts at facilities impacted by severe weather (see at least [¶022]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel does not explicitly teach and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility.
However, Maus does teach and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility (An alert to a receiving facility/hospital can include an indication that a resident and their caretaker/attendant are no longer in route to the hospital due to the hospital experiencing difficulties. see at least [¶033, 039 & 042-043]).
Maus would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of medical systems that track patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel to use the technique of having the alert includes an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer in route to the receiving facility as taught by Maus. Doing so would lead to improve hospital effectiveness before a patient arrives (see at least [¶033]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Konno teaches receive, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second input to indicate acceptance of the different receiving facility (Receive through a touch display on a mobile terminal, a user input indicating that they accept the route to a second receiving facility/shelter. see at least [¶089-092 & 0100]);
and update via the display device on the mobile response unit, the graphical user interface to include directions to the different receiving facility (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface with directions to a second receiving facility/shelter. see at least [¶089-092 & 0100]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Thomas and Roggenkamp to use the technique of receiving, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second input to indicate acceptance of the different receiving facility; and update via the display device on the mobile response unit, the graphical user interface to include directions to the different receiving facility as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Rosentel does provide transmit, via the network connection session, to a second computing device associated with the different receiving facility, one or more third encrypted signals (Transmit to a facility that will be impacted by a weather event, via a network connection that is encrypted, an indication/alert that the facility will be impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶022, 030, 041 & 075]).
Rosentel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alert notification in severe weather. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Maus to use the technique transmitting via the network connection session, to a second computing device associated with the different receiving facility, one or more third encrypted signals as taught by Rosentel. Doing so would lead to enhanced safety via alerts at facilities impacted by severe weather (see at least [¶022]).
Furthermore, Maus teaches to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the different receiving facility (Providing an indication to a second hospital via a triage report that a patient is in route to the second hospital. see at least [¶033, 039 & 042-043]).
Maus would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of medical systems that track patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel to use the technique of providing an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the different receiving facility as taught by Maus. Doing so would lead to improve hospital effectiveness before a patient arrives (see at least [¶033]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, furthermore, Konno teaches determining, based on the weather event, a plurality of receiving facilities not impacted by the weather event (Determining based on the weather even, a plurality of receiving facilities/shelters not impacted by the weather event. see at least [¶072 & 087-089]);
and identifying, based on one or more characteristics of the different receiving facility, the different receiving facility from the plurality of receiving facilities (Identifying based on characteristics, the second receiving facility/shelter from the plurality of shelters. see at least [¶087-091]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of determining, based on the weather event, a plurality of receiving facilities not impacted by the weather event and identifying, based on one or more characteristics of the different receiving facility, the different receiving facility from the plurality of receiving facilities as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, furthermore, Konno teaches wherein the one or more characteristics of the different receiving facility include at least one of: a location of the different receiving facility relative to a geographic area that includes the weather event; or one or more services provided by the different receiving facility (The characteristics of the second receiving facility includes the location of it in relative to a geographic area that includes the weather event. see at least [¶087-091]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of having the one or more characteristics of the different receiving facility include at least one of: a location of the different receiving facility relative to a geographic area that includes the weather event; or one or more services provided by the different receiving facility as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Thomas teaches display a second graphical user interface that includes the indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility (Causing a user device that is associated with the hospital to display a user interface that includes an indication that a patient and caretaker/attendant are in route to the hospital. see at least [¶040-052 & FIG 12-14]);
and update the second graphical user interface to identify at least one of the location of the resident or the location of the caretaker (Updating the user interface to include the location of the incoming patient and their attendant. see at least [¶040-052 & FIG 12-14]).
Thomas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of emergency response for patients and hospitals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of displaying a second graphical user interface that includes the indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility; and update the second graphical user interface to identify at least one of the location of the resident or the location of the caretaker as taught by Thomas. Doing so would lead to improved preparedness of hospital staff for a patient (see at least [¶032]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Seibel teaches retrieve, from a database, responsive to receipt of the input, the location of the receiving facility (Retrieving from a database/server, the location of the receiving facility/hospital after a user input. see at least [¶021, 033, 037 & 041]).
Furthermore, Thomas teaches update a record stored in the database to reflect that the resident has been assigned to the receiving facility (Updating a record stored in a database/server to show that a patient has been assigned to the receiving facility/hospital. see at least [¶034-036 & 040-050]).
Thomas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of emergency response for patients and hospitals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of updating a record stored in the database to reflect that the resident has been assigned to the receiving facility as taught by Thomas. Doing so would lead to improved preparedness of hospital staff for a patient (see at least [¶032]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ito teaches A mobile response unit, comprising (A computer such as a smartphone, tablet, or PC. see at least [¶05-010 & 087]):
a processing circuit includingone or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (The computer has a processor with memory that has instructions. see at least [¶05-010, 087-091 and Claim 1]):
wherein the request includes a location of a resident and a location of a caretaker associated with the resident (The request for searching a route can include the location of the patient and their emergency attendant. (It shall be noted, that an attendant does input patient information to get routes to a hospital.) see at least [¶054-056]);
generate, responsive to receiving the request, a route to the receiving facility, wherein the route is generated using at least one of the location of the resident, the location of the caretaker associated with the resident, or a location of the receiving facility (Generating a route to a receiving facility/hospital based on the location of the patient, attendant and the location of the hospital. see at least [¶]);
Ito does not explicitly teach receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility.
However, Seibel does teach receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility (A user can input through a screen a request for directions to a receiving facility/hospital. see at least [¶019, 037 & 041]).
Seibel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route finding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito to use the technique to receiving, via a display on the mobile response unit, a user input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility as taught by Seibel. Doing so would lead to improved route generation that meets a user criterion (see at least [¶019]).
Ito and Seibel do not explicitly teach establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks, transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals.
However, Perretta does teach establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks (Establish, in response to generating a route, via a network circuit of the mobile device of the user, a network connection session to share patient information. see at least [¶0105-0109, 0169 & 0189]),
transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals (Transmit, via a network, to a computing device associated with a receiving/healthcare facility, encrypted signal with patient information. see at least [¶0100 & 0102]).
Perretta would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of healthcare applications connecting with incoming patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito and Seibel use the technique of establishing, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks, transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals as taught by Perretta. Doing so would lead to improved security when transferring patient information across networks (see at least [¶0102]).
Ito, Seibel and Perretta do not explicitly teach to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility.
However, Thomas does teach to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility (Providing to a hospital, an indication that a resident/patient and their caretaker/attendant are in route to the hospital. see at least [¶045-050]).
Thomas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of emergency response for patients and hospitals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel and Perretta to use the technique of providing, to the receiving facility, an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility as taught by Thomas. Doing so would lead to improved preparedness of hospital staff for a patient (see at least [¶032]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta and Thomas do not explicitly teach retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event; execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event.
However, Resnik does teach retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event (Retrieve, via a network circuitry found in the user device, from a weather data source, weather alerts from internet databases (using APIs) that have information on weather conditions in an area being traversed. see at least [¶031, 035, 038, 041 & 090-092]);
execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event (Execute, after determining that a route is impacted by a weather event, a machine learning model that is used to generate updates to a route to evade the weather event and that can reach a destination that is predicted to not be impacted by the weather event. see at least [¶027, 034, 037, 050-057 & 074-076]);
Resnik would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of modifying a route using weather data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta and Thomas to use the technique of retrieving, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event; execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event as taught by Resnik. Doing so would lead to improved updating of a route using weather data (see at least [¶074]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas and Resnik do not explicitly teach determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility.
However, Konno does teach determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Determine that a route is being impacted by a weather event/tornado and that a receiving facility/shelter is impacted by a weather event based on the weather data and location of shelter. see at least [¶082-087, 091 & 095]);
provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface that shows an update to the route to avoid the first receiving facility/shelter responsive to determining the first shelter is impacted by a weather event. The route is updated to include directions to a second receiving facility/shelter. see at least [¶082-089]);
indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface that shows that a receiving facility/shelter is impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶082-089]);
and identify the different receiving facility (The user interface displays an identified a second receiving facility/shelter to receive the user. (It would be obvious that the user could be a family or a resident and caretaker.) see at least [¶087-092]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas and Resnik to use the technique of determining, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik and Konno do not explicitly teach and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event.
However, Rosentel does teach and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Transmit to a facility that will be impacted by a weather event, via a network connection that is encrypted, an indication/alert that the facility will be impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶022, 030, 041 & 075]).
Rosentel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alert notification in severe weather. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik and Konno to use the technique transmitting, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event as taught by Rosentel. Doing so would lead to enhanced safety via alerts at facilities impacted by severe weather (see at least [¶022]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel does not explicitly teach and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility.
However, Maus does teach and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility (An alert to a receiving facility/hospital can include an indication that a resident and their caretaker/attendant are no longer in route to the hospital due to the hospital experiencing difficulties. see at least [¶033, 039 & 042-043]).
Maus would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of medical systems that track patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel to use the technique of having the alert includes an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer in route to the receiving facility as taught by Maus. Doing so would lead to improve hospital effectiveness before a patient arrives (see at least [¶033]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ito teaches A system, comprising: a computing device associated with a receiving facility (A system with a computer such as a smartphone, tablet, or PC associated with a hospital. see at least [¶05-010, 034 & 080]);
and a mobile response unit, including a processing circuit having one or more processors and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (The mobile computer associated with a user has a processor with memory that has instructions. see at least [¶05-010, 087-091 and Claim 1]):
wherein the request includes a location of a resident and a location of a caretaker associated with the resident (The request for searching a route can include the location of the patient and their emergency attendant. (It shall be noted, that an attendant does input patient information to get routes to a hospital.) see at least [¶054-056]);
generate, responsive to receiving the request, a route to the receiving facility, wherein the route is generated using at least one of the location of the resident, the location of the caretaker associated with the resident, or a location of the receiving facility (Generating a route to a receiving facility/hospital based on the location of the patient, attendant and the location of the hospital. see at least [¶]);
Ito does not explicitly teach receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility.
However, Seibel does teach receive, via a display device on the mobile response unit, an input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility (A user can input through a screen a request for directions to a receiving facility/hospital. see at least [¶019, 037 & 041]).
Seibel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route finding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito to use the technique to receiving, via a display on the mobile response unit, a user input that includes a request for directions to a receiving facility as taught by Seibel. Doing so would lead to improved route generation that meets a user criterion (see at least [¶019]).
Ito and Seibel do not explicitly teach establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks, transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals.
However, Perretta does teach establish, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks (Establish, in response to generating a route, via a network circuit of the mobile device of the user, a network connection session to share patient information. see at least [¶0105-0109, 0169 & 0189]),
transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals (Transmit, via a network, to a computing device associated with a receiving/healthcare facility, encrypted signal with patient information. see at least [¶0100 & 0102]).
Perretta would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of healthcare applications connecting with incoming patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito and Seibel use the technique of establishing, responsive to generation of the route, via the network circuitry, a network connection session with one or more networks, transmit, via the network connection session, to a computing device associated with the receiving facility, one or more first encrypted signals as taught by Perretta. Doing so would lead to improved security when transferring patient information across networks (see at least [¶0102]).
Ito, Seibel and Perretta do not explicitly teach to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility.
However, Thomas does teach to provide an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility (Providing to a hospital, an indication that a resident/patient and their caretaker/attendant are in route to the hospital. see at least [¶045-050]).
Thomas would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of emergency response for patients and hospitals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel and Perretta to use the technique of providing, to the receiving facility, an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are in route to the receiving facility as taught by Thomas. Doing so would lead to improved preparedness of hospital staff for a patient (see at least [¶032]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta and Thomas do not explicitly teach retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event; execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event.
However, Resnik does teach retrieve, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event (Retrieve, via a network circuitry found in the user device, from a weather data source, weather alerts from internet databases (using APIs) that have information on weather conditions in an area being traversed. see at least [¶031, 035, 038, 041 & 090-092]);
execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event (Execute, after determining that a route is impacted by a weather event, a machine learning model that is used to generate updates to a route to evade the weather event and that can reach a destination that is predicted to not be impacted by the weather event. see at least [¶027, 034, 037, 050-057 & 074-076]);
Resnik would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of modifying a route using weather data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta and Thomas to use the technique of retrieving, via the network circuitry, from a weather data source, one or more sets of structured weather alert data through an application programming interface associated with the weather data source, wherein the one or more sets of structured weather alert data include information that pertains to a weather event; execute, responsive to determination that the route is impacted by the weather event, a machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the route to (a) avoid the weather event and (b) reach a different receiving facility for which the machine learning model predicts as not being impacted by the weather event as taught by Resnik. Doing so would lead to improved updating of a route using weather data (see at least [¶074]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas and Resnik do not explicitly teach determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility.
However, Konno does teach determine, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Determine that a route is being impacted by a weather event/tornado and that a receiving facility/shelter is impacted by a weather event based on the weather data and location of shelter. see at least [¶082-087, 091 & 095]);
provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface that shows an update to the route to avoid the first receiving facility/shelter responsive to determining the first shelter is impacted by a weather event. The route is updated to include directions to a second receiving facility/shelter. see at least [¶082-089]);
indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Display on a mobile terminal, a user interface that shows that a receiving facility/shelter is impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶082-089]);
and identify the different receiving facility (The user interface displays an identified a second receiving facility/shelter to receive the user. (It would be obvious that the user could be a family or a resident and caretaker.) see at least [¶087-092]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas and Resnik to use the technique of determining, based on the one or more sets of structured weather alert data, that i) the route is impacted by the weather event and (ii) the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; provide, via the display device, a graphical user interface that includes an alert to: identify the one or more updates to the route; indicate that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event; and identify the different receiving facility as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik and Konno do not explicitly teach and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event.
However, Rosentel does teach and transmit, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event (Transmit to a facility that will be impacted by a weather event, via a network connection that is encrypted, an indication/alert that the facility will be impacted by a weather event. see at least [¶022, 030, 041 & 075]).
Rosentel would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alert notification in severe weather. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik and Konno to use the technique transmitting, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, via the network connection session and to the computing device, one or more second encrypted signals to: provide an indication that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event as taught by Rosentel. Doing so would lead to enhanced safety via alerts at facilities impacted by severe weather (see at least [¶022]).
Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel does not explicitly teach and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility.
However, Maus does teach and indicate that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer heading to the receiving facility (An alert to a receiving facility/hospital can include an indication that a resident and their caretaker/attendant are no longer in route to the hospital due to the hospital experiencing difficulties. see at least [¶033, 039 & 042-043]).
Maus would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of medical systems that track patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno and Rosentel to use the technique of having the alert includes an indication that the resident and the caretaker associated with the resident are no longer in route to the receiving facility as taught by Maus. Doing so would lead to improve hospital effectiveness before a patient arrives (see at least [¶033]).
Claims 2-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 20250224240 A1) in view of Seibel (US 20020152020 A1) in view of Perretta (US 20170161433 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20170318448 A1) in view of Resnik (US 20230078911 A1) in view of Konno (US 20230152119 A1) in view of Rosentel (US 20110095881 A1) in further view of Maus (US 20010044732 A1) in further view of Roggenkamp (US 20210333114 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus do not explicitly teach provide, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second graphical user interface that includes the route; and update, via the display device on the mobile response unit, the second graphical user interface to include the information that pertains to the weather event.
However, Roggenkamp does teach provide, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second graphical user interface that includes the route (Display a user interface on a mobile device that includes the route on a screen. see at least [¶094-095]);
and update, via the display device on the mobile response unit, the second graphical user interface to include the information that pertains to the weather event (Update the user interface on a mobile device to include information on weather events through the display. see at least [¶094-099 & 0110]).
Roggenkamp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of dynamic routing due to weather events. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of providing, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second graphical user interface that includes the route; and update, via the display device on the mobile response unit, the second graphical user interface to include the information that pertains to the weather event as taught by Roggenkamp. Doing so would lead to an improved route that avoids weather events (see at least [¶0113]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus do not explicitly teach display, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a prompt to accept the one or more updates to the route; and receive, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second input accepting the prompt.
However, Roggenkamp does teach display, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a prompt to accept the one or more updates to the route (Display a user interface on a mobile device that has an alert/query for a user to accept a route. see at least [¶099-0103, 0115]);
and receive, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second input accepting the prompt (Receive through a user interface on a mobile device that a user has accepted the new route. see at least [¶099-0103 & 0114-0115]).
Roggenkamp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of dynamic routing due to weather events. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of displaying, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a prompt to accept the one or more updates to the route; and receive, via the display device on the mobile response unit, a second input accepting the prompt as taught by Roggenkamp. Doing so would lead to an improved route that avoids weather events (see at least [¶0113]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus do not explicitly teach update, responsive to receipt of the second input, the graphical user interface to reflect the route being updated based on the weather event.
However, Roggenkamp does teach update, responsive to receipt of the second input, the graphical user interface to reflect the route being updated based on the weather event (Update the user interface to display the updated route based on the weather event based on the user input. see at least [¶0102 & 0114-0115]).
Roggenkamp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of dynamic routing due to weather events. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of updating, responsive to receipt of the second input, the graphical user interface to reflect the route being updated based on the weather event as taught by Roggenkamp. Doing so would lead to an improved route that avoids weather events (see at least [¶0113]).
Regarding Claim 17, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus do not explicitly teach to provide the graphical user interface responsive to receipt of a second input accepting a prompt to update the route.
to provide the graphical user interface responsive to receipt of a second input accepting a prompt to update the route (Update the user interface on a mobile device to include information on weather events through the display. see at least [¶094-099 & 0110]).
Roggenkamp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of dynamic routing due to weather events. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of providing the graphical user interface responsive to receipt of a second input accepting a prompt to update the route as taught by Roggenkamp. Doing so would lead to an improved route that avoids weather events (see at least [¶0113]).
Regarding Claim 18, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, furthermore, Konno teaches determine, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, based on the weather event, a plurality of receiving facilities not impacted by the weather event (Determining based on the weather even, a plurality of receiving facilities/shelters not impacted by the weather event. see at least [¶072 & 087-089]);
and identify, based on one or more characteristics of different receiving facility, the different receiving facility from the plurality of receiving facilities (Identifying based on characteristics, the second receiving facility/shelter from the plurality of shelters. see at least [¶087-091]).
Konno would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of navigation at times of disasters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of determining, responsive to determination that the receiving facility is impacted by the weather event, based on the weather event, a plurality of receiving facilities not impacted by the weather event; and identify, based on one or more characteristics of different receiving facility, the different receiving facility from the plurality of receiving facilities as taught by Konno. Doing so would lead to finding a safe and suitable shelter for the user (see at least [¶093]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 20250224240 A1) in view of Seibel (US 20020152020 A1) in view of Perretta (US 20170161433 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20170318448 A1) in view of Resnik (US 20230078911 A1) in view of Konno (US 20230152119 A1) in view of Rosentel (US 20110095881 A1) in further view of Maus (US 20010044732 A1) in view of Rau (US 20150253144 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus do not explicitly teach wherein the weather data source includes at least one of a governmental entity or a publicly accessible weather source, and wherein the weather event includes information to identify a weather event type.
However, Rau does teach wherein the weather data source includes at least one of a governmental entity or a publicly accessible weather source, and wherein the weather event includes information to identify a weather event type (The weather source can include public government data and the weather event information includes what type of event id occurring on the roads. see at least [¶030, 035 & 043]).
Rau would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of dynamic trip modifications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of having the weather data source includes at least one of a governmental entity or a publicly accessible weather source, and wherein the weather event includes information to identify a weather event type as taught by Rau. Doing so would lead to improved avoidance of weather events (see at least [¶035]).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 20250224240 A1) in view of Seibel (US 20020152020 A1) in view of Perretta (US 20170161433 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20170318448 A1) in view of Resnik (US 20230078911 A1) in view of Konno (US 20230152119 A1) in view of Rosentel (US 20110095881 A1) in further view of Maus (US 20010044732 A1) in further view of Laird (US 20050075116 A).
Regarding Claims 21, 22 and 23, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 16 and 20 as shown above, Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus do not explicitly teach multicast, via the display device on the mobile response unit and a second computing device, a graphical presentation of the route to receiving facility.
However, Laird does teach multicast, via the display device on the mobile response unit and a second computing device, a graphical presentation of the route to receiving facility (Using multicast found in the handheld user device, a user can select a route to a desired facility and this route can be sent to a central facility for monitoring the user and their progress. see at least [¶04-05, 07, 047-050, 0123, 0226 & Fig 8]).
Laird would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of monitoring traveling users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ito, Seibel, Perretta, Thomas, Resnik, Konno, Rosentel and Maus to use the technique of multicasting, via the display device on the mobile response unit and a second computing device, a graphical presentation of the route to receiving facility as taught by Laird. Doing so would lead to improved tracking of users along a route to a destination (see at least [¶07]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights