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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's RCE submission filed on 08/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 9 to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer storage media (i.e., machine or manufacture). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
providing one or more counsel identifiers and one or more identifiers for a confined individual;
receiving in response to providing the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual, a confirmation indicating that legal counsel identified by the one or more counsel identifiers represents or is offering to represent the confined individual identified by the one or more identifiers;
based on receiving the confirmation, scheduling a video conference for the confined individual;
initiating the conference between a counsel and a client;
providing, during the conference, a[n] document to the client, wherein the document is a[n] legal document;
receiving a modification to the document that causes generation of a modified document; and
removing access to the modified document from the client upon completion of the conference.
The abstract idea of claim 9 is:
providing one or more legal counsel identifiers and one or more identifiers for a confined individual;
receiving in response to providing the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual, a confirmation indicating that legal counsel identified by the one or more counsel identifiers represents or is offering to represent the confined individual identified by the one or more identifiers;
based on the confirmation, transmitting a request to the correctional facility system to schedule a parole interview video conference for the confined individual;
based on transmitting the request, scheduling the parole interview for the confined individual; and
initiating the parole interview conference between at least one parole board member and confined individual, wherein the parole interview is initiated based on the one or more identifiers for the confined individual and one or more identifiers for the at least one parole board member.
The abstract idea of claim 14 is:
providing one or more legal counsel identifiers and one or more identifiers for a confined individual;
receiving in response to providing the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual, a confirmation indicating that legal counsel identified by the one or more counsel identifiers represents or is offering to represent the confined individual identified by the one or more identifiers;
based on receiving the confirmation, scheduling a video conference for the confined individual;
causing initiation of the video conference between a legal counsel and a client.
The abstract idea steps italicized above involves managing legal interactions and organizing administrative and/or legal activities of confined individuals, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by paragraph [0036] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to scheduling, determining participants, and confirming eligibility or identity, which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraph [0037] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: A secure communications system; one or more processors; computer memory storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising; correctional facility system; video; device associated with the one or more counsel identifiers; device associated with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual; electronic; by a permission control of the secure communications system.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: correctional facility system; video conference; client device corresponding to at least one.
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements: non-transitory computer storage media; processor; correctional facility system; device associated with the one or more legal counsel identifiers; device associated with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs [0096] – [0109] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with generic machine learning models. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with generic machine learning models. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claim 2 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: wherein the modification to the electronic document is received from the client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 3 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: electronic; to a user interface of the counsel device; client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 4 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: wherein the one or more of the electronic legal resources are transmitted to the client device prior to the completion of the video conference. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 5 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: providing a messaging thread interface to the client device and the counsel device during the video conference between the counsel device and the client device; via the messaging thread interface; client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 6 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: automatically storing an amount of time of the video conference, upon the completion of the video conference, within a data store associated with the secure communications system; correctional facility system. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 7 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: counsel device; a computer device associated with the one or more interpreter identifiers. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 8 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: counsel device; client device; updating an administrative portal for the correctional facility system. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 10 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: video conference; computer device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 11 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: providing a messaging thread interface during the parole interview video conference; via the messaging thread interface; client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 12 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 13 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: video conference; electronic; device corresponding to the one or more legal counsel identifiers; device corresponding to the confined individual. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 15 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: electronic; client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 16 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: causing to provide a messaging thread interface to the client device and the legal counsel device during the video conference between the legal counsel device and the client device; via the messaging thread interface from one or more of the client device and the legal counsel device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 17 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: digital. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 18 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: electronic. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 19 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: correctional facility system. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 20 includes further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: video conference; legal counsel device; client device; camera of the client device. Similar to above, these additional elements do no more than apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). When viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 8-9, and 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rubery (US 20240144680) in view of Agrawal (US 20190073490) in further view of Trabucco (US 20120204029).
Claims 1, 9, and 14
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14 Rubery discloses (Examiner notes that while the claims organize the features differently, given that said features substantially overlap, examiner has grouped them together to streamline the analysis, claim 1 being representative.):
(claim 1) A secure communications system comprising: one or more processors; and computer memory storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: {“ [0201] Referring now to FIG. 17, FIG. 17 shows an example computing device 1700 suitable for use in example systems or methods providing an incident identification system. The example computing device 1700 includes a processor 1710 which is in communication with the memory 1720 and other components of the computing device 1700 using one or more communications buses 1702. The processor 1710 is configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the memory 1720 to perform one or more methods for providing an incident identification system”}
(claim 9) A method comprising: {“ [0201] Referring now to FIG. 17, FIG. 17 shows an example computing device 1700 suitable for use in example systems or methods providing an incident identification system.”}
(claim 14) One or more non-transitory computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising: {“[0201] Referring now to FIG. 17, FIG. 17 shows an example computing device 1700 suitable for use in example systems or methods providing an incident identification system. The example computing device 1700 includes a processor 1710 which is in communication with the memory 1720 and other components of the computing device 1700 using one or more communications buses 1702. The processor 1710 is configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the memory 1720 to perform one or more methods for providing an incident identification system”}
providing one or more counsel identifiers and one or more identifiers for a confined individual to a correctional system; {User identification is provided from client devices to a system (i.e., video conference provider or identity provider). (paragraph 0044)}
based on receiving the confirmation, scheduling a video conference for the confined individual; {After identity verification, the system proceeds to create (i.e., schedule) a meeting using provided information such as date and time. (paragraph 0038, 0046)}
initiating the video conference between a counsel device associated with the one or more counsel identifiers and a client device associated with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual; {The system supports initiating a video conference and admitting users (i.e., client devices) associated with respective identities to participate in the meeting. (paragraphs 0039 – 0040)}
Rubery does not disclose, however, Agrawal, in a similar field of endeavor directed to contextually sharing information during a video conference, teaches:
providing, during the video conference, an electronic document to the client device, wherein the electronic document is an electronic legal document; {Content is provided (e.g., documents, application windows, or files) within a shared space to receiving participant devices during a video conference. (paragraphs 0028, 0042)}
receiving a modification to the electronic document that causes generation of a modified electronic document; and {The system supports receiving updates to shared content and modifying what is presented during the video conference. (paragraph 0048)}
removing, by a permission control of the secure communications system, access to the modified electronic document from the client device upon completion of the video conference. {Participant access to shared content is controlled via sharing parameters or credentials and content is restricted based on permissions. (paragraphs 0014, 0029, 0050)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the user identification during video conferences features of Rubery to include the collaboration during video conferences features of Agrawal, to improve and protect the confidentiality of users’ personal devices content shared during video conferences. (See paragraphs 0002 – 0003 of Agrawal).
The combination of Rubery and Agrawal does not teach, however, Trabucco, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a video conference method and system involving inmates and their attorney's, teaches:
receiving, from the correctional facility system and in response to providing the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual, a confirmation indicating that legal counsel identified by the one or more counsel identifiers represents or is offering to represent the confined individual identified by the one or more identifiers; {The system supports receiving from the jail information identifying inmates that “match with verified attorneys”, where the attorney previously provides identifying information and identifies inmate clients with proof of the attorney-client relationship. (paragraph 0063)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Rubery and Agrawal to include the video conferencing features of Trabucco, to improve the security and confidentiality of attorney-client information exchange. (See paragraph 0008 of Trabucco).
Claim 8
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further teaches:
based on scheduling the video conference between the counsel device associated with the one or more counsel identifiers and the client device associated with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual, updating an administrative portal for the correctional facility system to include a date and time of the video conference, an expected duration of the video conference, and at least one of the one or more identifiers for the confined individual. {After scheduling a video conference, the server notifies the jail (i.e., correctional system) of the scheduled conference time, inmate identity, and logistical details. This notification function as an update to the jail’s scheduling system (i.e., administrative portal). Conferences are normally for a specific length of time or a no-later-than end time (paragraphs 0051, 0044, 0058-0059).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Trabucco is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 15
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above. Agrawal further teaches:
causing to provide, during the video conference, an electronic legal document to the client device; {Content is provided (e.g., documents, application windows, or files) within a shared space to receiving participant devices during a video conference. (paragraphs 0028, 0042)}
receiving a modification to the electronic legal document that causes generation of a modified electronic legal document; and {The system supports receiving updates to shared content and modifying what is presented during the video conference. (paragraph 0048)}
removing access to the modified electronic legal document from the client device upon completion of the video conference. {Participant access to shared content is controlled via sharing parameters or credentials and content is restricted based on permissions. (paragraphs 0014, 0029, 0050)}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Agrawal is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 17
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further teaches:
wherein the one or more identifiers for the confined individual include a digital image of the confined individual and an alphanumeric identifier. {Inmates can be verified by biometric identification such as facial recognition (i.e., digital image). Inmates may be assigned codes for ID’s for signing into the system (i.e. alphanumeric identifier). The server stores information of jails and inmates in a database for scheduling and verification (paragraphs 0050, 0053, 0062-0063).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Trabucco is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 19
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further teaches:
based on scheduling the video conference and prior to initiating the video conference, causing transmission of a notification to the correctional facility system, the notification including a date and time of the video conference and at least one of the one or more identifiers for the confined individual. {Once an attorney schedules a video conference, the server notifies the jail of date and time of the scheduled conference and the identity of the inmate who is to participate. This occurs after the scheduling and before the video conference begins, so that the jail can arrange for the inmate to be brought to the terminal (paragraphs 0051, 0058-0059).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Trabucco is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 20
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further teaches:
wherein the video conference between the legal counsel device and the client device is initiated based on comparing facial features of the confined individual from a camera of the client device with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual including a photo identifier of the confined individual. {The system uses facial recognition software to ensure that the correct parties are attending the confidential privileged video conference, and that the inmate may be identified by face recognition or the like at the conference terminal (i.e., compare inmate’s facial features capture by the camera of the client device against a photo identifier of the inmate) (paragraphs 0050, 0053, 0062).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Trabucco is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 2, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco, in further view of Brodkowitz (US 20220014582).
Claim 2
While the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Brodkowitz, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a document-sharing conference system, teaches:
wherein the modification to the electronic document is received from the client device. {Users can modify documents on their client devices, those devices send the modification to the server, and the system receives and saves that customization (paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0031, 0038, 0040.)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco to include the electronic documentation management features of Brodkowitz, to improve the efficiency of sharing and editing documents while keeping its integrity throughout the process. (see paragraph 0002 of Brodkowitz).
Claim 13
While the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Brodkowitz, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a document-sharing conference system, teaches:
based on scheduling the parole interview video conference for the confined individual and prior to initiating the parole interview video conference, identifying electronic legal resources corresponding to the parole interview and an associated jurisdiction; {Legal resources specific to a jurisdiction are identified and are made available before an active event for preparation (paragraphs 0027, 0039, 0046).}
providing the electronic legal resources to a legal counsel device corresponding to the one or more legal counsel identifiers; and {The UI shows a user-specific document (e.g., outline, questions, quotes from external documents) to the attorney during the event (paragraphs 0044, 0046).}
transmitting, prior to initiating the parole interview video conference, one or more of the electronic legal resources to the client device corresponding to the confined individual based on providing the electronic legal resources to the legal counsel device. {When counsel selects or activates the materials shown in its UI during the event, the system treats them as an active layer that is sent by a user device and distributed to additional user devices (e.g., client device), with an active copy shown to participants (paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0046).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Brodkowitz is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 18
While the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Brodkowitz, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a document-sharing conference system, teaches:
further comprising automatically populating an electronic legal document of a legal proceeding corresponding to the confined individual. {The system can automatically generate or supplement legal documentation or resources using OCR and AI/ML. It also can automatically label or assign metadata and inset master layers during certification (i.e., auto-population of document fields) (paragraphs 0026-0027, 0032-0033, 0046).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Brodkowitz is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rubery Agrawal, Trabucco, and Brodkowitz, in further view of Davidson (US 20140129455).
Claim 3
While the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Brodkowitz, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a document-sharing conference system, teaches:
identifying electronic legal resources corresponding to the jurisdiction and the legal proceeding; {The analyzation/creation application identifies and draws from legal resources (e.g., case law, transcripts) and tailors outputs to the jurisdiction or court (paragraph 0027).}
providing the electronic legal resources to a user interface of the counsel device; and {The UI shows a user-specific document (e.g., outline, questions, quotes from external documents) to the attorney during the event (paragraphs 0044, 0046).}
transmitting one or more of the electronic legal resources to the client device based on providing the electronic legal resources to the counsel device. {When counsel selects or activates the materials shown in its UI during the event, the system treats them as an active layer that is sent by a user device and distributed to additional user devices (e.g., client device), with an active copy sown to participants (paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0046).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Brodkowitz is the same as set forth previously.
The combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco, does not teach, however, Davidson, in a similar field of endeavor directed to the calculation of sentence durations, good time credits, release dates, predicate offender status and jail time credits for individuals subject to incarceration in a specified or selected jurisdiction, teaches:
determining a jurisdiction associated with the confined individual for a legal proceeding involving the confined individual; {Jurisdiction of an inmate is determined by requiring user input of the jurisdiction associated with the prisoner and by providing calculators and menus specific for a jurisdiction (paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0039, 0041, 0114-0115).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco to include the incarnation calculation features of Davidson, to aid attorneys, judges, prison officials and others that need an easy, fast and accurate way to calculate the impact of sentences (imposed or proposed) and jail time credits on the release dates of those persons subjected to them. (See paragraph 0004 of Davidson).
Claim 4
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, Trabucco, Brodkowitz, and Davidson teaches the limitations set forth above. Brodkowitz further teaches:
wherein the one or more of the electronic legal resources are transmitted to the client device prior to the completion of the video conference. {During the active event, materials activated by counsel are treated as active layers that are sent by a user device and distributed to additional user devices, with an active copy shown to participants during the session (i.e., before the conference ends) (paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0046).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Brodkowitz is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 5, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco, in further view of Hodge (US 20210377192).
Claims 5, 11, and 16
While the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Hodge, in a similar field of endeavor directed to providing presence-based communications within a controlled environment, teaches (Examiner notes that while the claims organize the features differently, given that said features substantially overlap, examiner has grouped them together to streamline the analysis, claim 5 being representative):
providing a messaging thread interface to the client device and the counsel device during the video conference between the counsel device and the client device; {The system includes a communication interface that includes a chat messaging interface or an email messaging interface when textual communication is selected (i.e., a messaging interface during a video conference) (paragraph 0075-0076).}
receiving one or more textual inputs via the messaging thread interface; and {The chat or email messaging interface includes a virtual keyboard allowing user to input textual messages, which are displayed as messages sent and/or received (paragraph 0076).}
removing access to the one or more textual inputs from the client device upon the completion of the video conference. {Once the termination conditions are met (e.g., video conference ends), the system ends the communications by hiding the textual GUI, which prevents the user from submitting additional messages (paragraphs 0108, 0111).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco to include the real time availability communication features of Hodge, to guarantee the conferencing abilities of the inmates. (See paragraph 0003 of Hodge).
Claim 12
The combination of Rubery, Agrawal, Trabucco, and Hodge teaches the limitations set forth above. Hodge further teaches:
wherein the one or more textual inputs is received from the client device corresponding to the confined individual. {A confined individual using a facility communication device can interact through a chat messaging interface, which includes a virtual keyboard for inputting textual messages. These textual messages are received and displayed by the communication interface (paragraph 0076).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Hodge is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco, in further view of Gongaware (US 20130263227).
Claim 6
While the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Gongaware, in a similar field of endeavor directed to determining whether a communication session is authorized, teaches:
automatically storing an amount of time of the video conference, upon the completion of the video conference, within a data store associated with the secure communications system; {the audio/video platform automatically logs and records details of communications in secure facilities, including the length of communications such as calls and video conferences. These logs are stored in resident records at the processing center, which functions as the data store associated with the secure communications system (paragraphs 0071, 0127-0128).}
receiving a request from the correctional facility system for the amount of time; and {Correctional system administrators and investigators can access logs (i.e., request) of communications through the administrative web interface of the processing center, including communication time data (paragraphs 0071-70072, 0127-0128).}
transmitting the amount of time of the video conference to the correctional facility system. {Session information including the length of video conferences is logged at the processing center and made available for review by administrative staff through an interface (i.e., transmitted) (paragraphs 0071, 00127-0128).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco to include the communications authentication and logging features of Gongaware, to reduce costs while maintaining security standards associated with inmate-visitor communications. (see paragraph 0003 of Gongaware).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco in further view of Tucker (US 20240320774).
Claims 7 and 10
While the combination of Rubery Agrawal, and Trabucco teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Tucker, in a similar field of endeavor directed to legal booking services over a network, teaches (Examiner notes that while the claims organize the features differently, given that said features substantially overlap, examiner has grouped them together to streamline the analysis, claim 7 being representative.):
receiving, from the counsel device, an indication to include an interpreter for the video conference; {An indication to include an interpreter can be received from the user’s device. The booking information includes the need for an interpreter and the language, and the booking UI provides a selector for “interpreter” (paragraphs 0072, 0089).}
receiving one or more interpreter identifiers for the interpreter; and {The UI provides a list for user selection and service provider records include name and identification information. Interpreters are expressly among the service providers (paragraphs 0076, 0089).}
based on the indication to include the interpreter and based on the one or more interpreter identifiers, providing a computer device associated with the one or more interpreter identifiers access to the video conference. {The system provides the interpreter’s device access to the video conference by delivering virtual attendance details and communicating assignments with all necessary details for virtual engagements (paragraphs 0074, 0106, 0110).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Rubery, Agrawal, and Trabucco to include the legal services booking features of Tucker, to improve the line of communication between the attorney and the court reporter and/or other person providing the service. (see paragraph 0007 of Tucker).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Here, examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea (Examiner notes that while the claims organize the features differently, given that said features substantially overlap, examiner has grouped them together to streamline the response, claim 1 being representative): “providing one or more counsel identifiers and one or more identifiers for a confined individual; receiving in response to providing the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual, a confirmation indicating that legal counsel identified by the one or more counsel identifiers represents or is offering to represent the confined individual identified by the one or more identifiers; based on receiving the confirmation, scheduling a video conference for the confined individual; initiating the conference between a counsel and a client; providing, during the conference, a[n] document to the client, wherein the document is a[n] legal document; receiving a modification to the document that causes generation of a modified document; and removing access to the modified document from the client upon completion of the conference.” The “secure communications system; one or more processors; computer memory storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising; correctional facility system; video; device associated with the one or more counsel identifiers; device associated with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual; electronic; by a permission control of the secure communications system” are considered additional elements, which are merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than computing systems.
Applicant’s reliance on McRO is also not persuasive. Unlike McRO, the claims do not recite specific technological rules that improve an existing computing process. The asserted benefits of preventing unauthorized conferences or continued document access result from applying the recited legal and access policies, rather than an improvement to computer functionality.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the first argued recited feature challenged in the argument.
Regarding the second argued recited feature, Applicant argues that Agrawal only teaches general permission settings and does not teach removing access to the modified electronic document when the video conference ends. This argument is not persuasive. Agrawal teaches controlling a participant’s access to shared content based on sharing parameters and credentials as seen in paragraphs [0014] and [0029]. Agrawal also teaches that access may be temporary and limited to “the period of the present of the video conference” [0035]. Thus, Agrawal teaches or at least suggests that access depending on permission ends when the video conference ends. Further, the claim does not require the separate “affirmative” operation or “session-bound document lifecycle” argued by Applicant.
Regarding any arguments concerning the dependent claims, Examiner notes that they are predicated on the independent claims. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130198654 A1, which teaches: A method for monitoring and controlling a conference interface includes receiving a request indicating that a notification of an event associated with the conference interface is desired, determining occurrence of the event, sending the notice to a computing device that initiated the request, receiving an out-of-conference communication from the computing device and in response thereto, modifying a characteristic of the conference interface. A system includes computing devices coupled to a conferencing platform via one or more networks. The conference platform operates a web server that publishes a graphical user interface associated with an identified subscriber. A computing device associated with the identified subscriber is provided an application that enables the computing device to communicate a request for notification of an event in their conference interface without being present in the conference interface. The application enables the computing device to receive notification of the event and to respond to the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights