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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites providing identifiers to a “correctional system” while the specification discloses and defines a “correctional facility system” (see paragraphs 0041-0047). This inconsistency in terminology renders the claim unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim1 is further objected to because it refers to “electronic legal documents” such as complaints and parole plans (see paragraphs 0008, 0038-0039, 0093-0095). It is unclear whether the broader term “electronic document” is intended to include non-legal documents, and the claim is therefore indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 a confirmation associated with the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual;
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;
receiving a modification to the 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 a confirmation associated with the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual;
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 a confirmation associated with the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual;
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 system; video; device associated with the one or more counsel identifiers; device associated with the one or more identifiers for the confined individual; electronic.
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 facilitates 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 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 include 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 include further additional elements with additional tasks that narrow the abstract idea: counsel device; client device; updating an administrative portal for the correctional 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 include 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 1-2, 8-9, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Trabucco (US 20120204029) in view of Brodkowitz (US 20220014582).
Claims 1, 9, and 14
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14 Trabucco 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 {A secure communications system for confidential video conferences between attorneys and incarcerated clients is disclosed (paragraph 0052).}
(claim 1) one or more processors {The server that manages verification, scheduling, and conferencing includes one or more processors to execute the described functions (paragraphs 0049).}
(claim 1) computer memory storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising {The server is described as programmed to carry out functions such as scheduling, verification, and time synchronization (i.e., instructions stored in memory and executed by processors) (paragraphs 0054, 0061).}
(claim 9) A method comprising {The disclosure is framed in terms of a method for conducting secure video conferences and describes the invention as a sequence of actions carried out (paragraphs 0057-0058).}
(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 {One or more servers are configured to carry out scheduling, verification, and secure video conferencing operations. The servers are programmed with software modules (paragraphs 0049, 0054, 0061-0062).}
providing one or more counsel identifiers and one or more identifiers for a confined individual to a correctional system; {The verification service collects attorney credentials (e.g., bar information, ID) and creates a verified attorney database, while the jail provides information of their inmates to the verification service, which is then stored on the server (paragraph 0063).}
receiving, from the correctional system, a confirmation associated with the one or more counsel identifiers and the one or more identifiers for the confined individual; {Once attorneys and inmates are verified, the jail (i.e., correctional system) provides the verification service with information about their inmates and approves dates and times for conferences, therefore confirming the identities and availability of both the attorney (i.e., counsel identifier) and inmate (i.e., confined individual identifier) (paragraph 0063).}
based on receiving the confirmation, scheduling a video conference for the confined individual; {The server uses the confirmation information from the jail and verification service to schedule a conference time for the inmate and attorney, matching identifiers with available times (paragraphs 0058, 0062).}
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; {After verification and scheduling, the server connects the attorney’s device with the inmate’s terminal at the incarceration location to begin the secure video conference (paragraphs 0057, 0060).}
Trabucco does not disclose:
providing, during the video conference, an electronic document to the client device;
receiving a modification to the electronic document;
removing access to the modified electronic document from the client device upon completion of the video conference.
However, Brodkowitz, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a document-sharing conference system, teaches:
providing, during the video conference, an electronic document to the client device; {During an active event, the system displays an active copy of the document alongside the video feed and distributes layers to other user devices (paragraphs 0039-0040, 0044-0046).}
receiving a modification to the electronic document; and {The system receives and saves customizations (e.g., highlights, notes) for a document active copy and preserves them as post-active layers (paragraphs 0031-0033, 0035, 0038).}
removing access to the modified electronic document from the client device upon completion of the video conference. {The modified document is stored as a server-side permanent display copy and supports a mode where a user copy is only accessible while connected to the server (i.e., no local storage, thereby, no access upon completion) (paragraphs 0031, 0037, 0039-0040).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the correctional facility external communications features of 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 2
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Brodkowitz further 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 Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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 8
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further discloses:
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 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).}
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Brodkowitz further 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 sown to participants (paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0046).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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 15
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Brodkowitz further teaches:
causing to provide, during the video conference, an electronic legal document to the client device; {During an active event, the system displays an active copy of the document alongside the video feed and distributes layers to other user devices (paragraphs 0039-0040, 0044-0046).}
receiving a modification to the electronic legal document; and {The system receives and saves customizations (e.g., highlights, notes) for a document active copy and preserves them as post-active layers (paragraphs 0031-0033, 0035, 0038).}
removing access to the modified electronic legal document from the client device upon completion of the video conference. {The modified document is stored as a server-side permanent display copy and supports a mode where a user copy is only accessible while connected to the server (i.e., no local storage, thereby, no access upon completion) (paragraphs 0031, 0037, 0039-0040).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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 17
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further discloses:
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).}
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Brodkowitz further 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).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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 19
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further discloses:
based on scheduling the video conference and prior to initiating the video conference, causing the 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).}
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Trabucco further discloses:
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).}
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz, in further view of Davidson (US 20140129455).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above. Brodkowitz further 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).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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).
The combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz does not teach:
determining a jurisdiction associated with the confined individual for a legal proceeding involving the confined individual.
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 Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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
Regarding claim 4, the combination of 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).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Trabucco, Brodkowitz, and Davidson 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).
Claims 5, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz, in further view of Hodge (US 20210377192).
Claims 5, 11, and 16
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 16, while the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach (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;
receiving one or more textual inputs via the messaging thread interface;
removing access to the one or more textual inputs from the client device upon the completion of the video conference.
However, Hodge, in a similar field of endeavor directed to providing presence-based communications within a controlled environment, teaches:
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 Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Trabucco, Brodkowitz, 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 include a virtual keyboard for inputting textual messages. These textual messages are received and displayed by the communication interface (paragraph 0076).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Trabucco, Brodkowitz, and Hodge to include the real time availability communication features of Hodge, to guarantee the conferencing abilities of the inmates. (See paragraph 0003 of Hodge).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz, in further view of Gongaware (US 20130263227).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, while the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
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;
receiving a request from the correctional system for the amount of time; and
transmitting the amount of time of the video conference to the correctional system.
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 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 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 Trabucco and Brodkowitz 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 Trabucco and Brodkowitz, in further view of Tucker (US 20240320774).
Claims 7 and 10
Regarding claims 7 and 10, while the combination of Trabucco and Brodkowitz teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach (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;
receiving one or more interpreter identifiers for the interpreter; and
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.
However, Tucker, in a similar field of endeavor directed to legal booking services over a network, teaches:
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 Trabucco and Brodkowitz to include the legal services booking features of Tucker, to the line of communication between the attorney and the court reporter and/or other person providing the service. (see paragraph 0007 of Tucker).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional pertinent references can be found on attached form PTO-892):
US 20120176466, which teaches: A method for creating an intelligent routing and criteria-based matching system, so that people may be matched for conferencing to each other by pre-determined matching of their characteristics and their requirements. The invention makes it possible to connect individuals who may or may not have been known to each other previously, and who may be routed to each other based on being good fits to collaborate in the stated business or social setting or other reason for dealing with another person in a video conference meeting. The invention makes it possible for suppliers of services over the video conference medium to be connected to individuals who want these services. The system takes into account the business rules and preferences of all individuals involved, so that intelligent business service collaboration may take place between parties based on pre-set criteria.
US 20130262521, which teaches: A method is presented for use in correctional facilities to manage resources. Particularly, the method includes using a scheduling engine capable of receiving scheduling requests from other systems or direct entry of scheduling data and which is equipped to provide reports that inform the facility of the schedules of all inmates, transportation requirements, and space accommodations. The method may be employed for evaluating the needs for transportation and space and may also be used to generate reports that show relationships between inmates based on activities, locations, and time.
US 20150378995, which teaches: A technique manages notes pertaining to a document during an online meeting. The technique involves, while displaying contents of the document to participants of the online meeting, accessing, by processing circuitry, public notes and private notes pertaining to the contents of the document, the public notes and the private notes having been provided by a particular participant. The technique further involves sharing, by the processing circuitry, the public notes with other participants of the online meeting. The technique further involves concealing, by the processing circuitry, the private notes from the other participants of the online meeting.
US 20240097923, which teaches: A server causes transmission of an invitation for a video conference to a device of a proposed participant of the video conference. The server receives, from the device of the proposed participant, a request for a recording of the video conference in response to the invitation. The server generates the recording based on the request and a stored setting associated with a host of the video conference. The server provides, to the device of the proposed participant after completion of the video conference, a message indicating that the recording is available.
“Digital service delivery applications in corrections: A scoping review” (NPL attached), which teaches: This study employed a scoping review method to identify and analyse 171 publications that examined digital service delivery applications used by custodial and community corrections agencies. Sampled publications were analysed to generate a typology of digital service delivery applications used by corrections agencies and to assess the nature, extent and gaps in research evidence about the use and effectiveness of technologies categorised in this typology. Our results also detail strategies used by prisons and community corrections during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop new service delivery models or adapt existing ones, using a variety of digital platforms. Synchronous digital technologies to provide telepsychiatry, telepsychology and digital education for justice-involved people have received the most research attention to date; digital service provision technologies used to provide justice-involved people with general social support, release or re-entry support or video-supported communication with friends and family have received less research attention. There are some important gaps in the research literature. Relatively few studies have evaluated the outcomes or cost-effectiveness of digital service delivery applications employed within custodial and community corrections environments. The reviewed research identifies a variety of challenges about the nexus between technology, justice-involved people and correctional agencies, with many publications foregrounding digital inequalities stemming from a lack of access to technologies and/or a lack of digital skills.
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