DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on December 8, 2025.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant describes the problem that is being solved and asserts that “Applicant found a practical application using cooperating software/user-interfaces that implement security protocol.” Remarks at 11. Applicant further argues that “Applicant’s solution includes two distinctly-designed front-end modules or ‘dashboards’ that cooperate, one for correctional staff and one for law offices and other privileged mail senders.” Id. Applicant continues to describe the claimed invention and asserts that “[t]he very fact that different computers each running specific software modules are cooperating to accomplish numerous tasks automatically is a technological improvement in the claimed context and forecloses any conclusion that this is an abstract idea.” Id. at 12. However, although Applicant may be solving an important problem, the alleged improvement is to the abstract idea and not to the technology. Applicant is applying existing technology to implement an abstract idea.
Applicant further points to the “first remote prescreening application running on a remote computing device” and the “second remote prescreening application running on a correctional facility computing device.” Remarks at 13. However, these devices are programmed general purpose computing devices. Applicant has not shown that the technology has been improved.
Applicant further describes features of claim 14 and states that “[t]his is inherently not something that merely mimics what humans do to search for information, but is expressly a computer-implemented security protocol that adds a new second layer of protection to what security staff does to screen privileged information.” Remarks at 14. However, this is not the standard per MPEP 2106.
Applicant further argues that “[t]he record is devoid of any evidence that the italicized claim elements are well-understood, routine or conventional activity as posited by the Examiner.” Remarks at 14. However, the rejection does not assert that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and for the same reasons claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-16 were previously designated as novel and non-obvious.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to for the following reason: Claim 2 recites “using bar code scanner.” This limitation includes a typographical error. It appears that Applicant intended to include “a” prior to “bar code scanner.” 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 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-13, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 14-16, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence to incarcerated individuals, comprising:
a server network hosted by an application service provider (ASP) comprising at least one server computer and a secure database management system including a master database containing an inmate record of inmate identification data and inmate location data, and a privileged mail sender record of privileged mail sender identification data and authentication documents; and
a plurality of client applications running locally on remote client computing devices and configured to communicate with said ASP server network, said client applications at least including,
a privileged sender application running on a first remote client computing device and comprising computer instructions stored on non-transitory media configured to present a privileged sender dashboard that requires privileged senders including attorneys, public officials, and educators to pre-register and pre-authenticate themselves by uploading authentication documents, and thereafter send privileged mail both online and through the U.S. postal service (USPS) to incarcerated individuals, whereby selecting to send a privileged mail piece through the USPS automatically generates an encrypted QR code uniquely identifying said mail piece, associates a fixed expiration with the generated QR code, prompts said privileged mail sender to attach said QR code to said privileged mail piece, upload an image of said mail piece with QR Code attached, and deposit said mail piece with the USPS for delivery;
a remote prescreening application running on a second remote client computing device and comprising software instructions configured to scan the QR Code attached to a USPS-delivered mail piece, automatically decrypt, compare and validate that said USPS-delivered mail piece matches the QR Code attached to the mail piece deposited with the USPS for delivery, that the QR Code is not expired, and display the uploaded image of said mail piece with QR Code attached for manual visual comparison and validation.
2. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 1, wherein the second remote client computing device comprises a desktop computer, and the remote prescreening application running on said second remote client computing device desktop computer comprises software instructions configured to scan the QR Code attached to the USPS-delivered mail piece using bar code scanner attached to said second remote client computing device.
3. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 1, wherein the second remote client computing device comprises a smart phone, and the remote prescreening application running on said second remote client computing device smart phone comprises software instructions configured to scan the QR Code attached to the USPS-delivered mail piece using an integrated camera attached to said second remote client computing device.
4. A system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence to incarcerated individuals, comprising:
a server network hosted by an application service provider (ASP) comprising at least one server computer hosting a secure database management system including a master database containing an inmate record of inmate identification data and inmate location data, and a privileged mail sender record of privileged mail sender identification data and authentication documents; and
a first client computing device in communication with said ASP server network and running a privileged sender client application comprising computer instructions stored on non-transitory media configured to present a privileged sender dashboard that implements the steps of,
pre-registering privileged senders including attorneys, public officials, and educators
pre-authenticating said privileged senders by uploading authentication documents,
generating a QR code encrypting a unique identifier;
associating with the generated QR Code a predetermined expiry, a particular inmate identification code, and inmate location data;
printing said QR code, and
prompting the privileged sender to attach the printed QR code to the privileged mail piece;
a second client computing device in communication with said ASP server network and running a pre-screening client application comprising computer instructions stored on non-transitory media configured to present a remote pre-screening client application comprising computer instructions stored on non-transitory media configured to present a remote prescreening application that validates a USPS-delivered mail piece by implementing the steps of,
scanning the QR Code attached to the delivered mail piece,
automatically decrypting the unique identifier from said scanned QR code and deriving the associated expiry, the particular inmate identification code, and inmate location data;
automatically validating that the unique identifier decrypted from said scanned QR code matches the QR Code attached to het sent mail piece and that the associated expiry of said QR Code is not expired.
5. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 4, wherein the privileged sender client application comprising computer instructions that implement the step of providing a selection to privileged-mail senders to choose whether to send via electronic mail or a hard copy mail piece through the U.S. postal service.
6. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 5, wherein the privileged sender client application comprising computer instructions that implement the step of prompting privileged-mail senders to upload an image of said mail piece with QR Code attached.
8. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 6, wherein the pre-screening client application comprises computer instructions that implement the steps of scanning the QR Code attached to the mail piece, and displaying the uploaded image of said mail piece with QR Code attached for manual visual comparison and validation.
9. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 6, wherein said QR Code comprises a multi-digit non-encrypted alpha-numeric code that is human-readable.
10. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 6, wherein said QR Code includes privileged-sender profile data, a list of authentication documents uploaded by said privileged sender, and a link to access said authentication documents.
11. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 10, wherein said second client computing device client application allows QR Code customization of at least the following parameters: a timeframe over which said QR Code is valid; and an association to one or more correctional facilities.
12. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 6, further comprising a file locking mechanism invoked when privileged mail is sent electronically.
13. The system for screening and secure distribution of privileged correspondence according to claim 4, wherein said ASP server network maintains an audit trail of actions taken by said first client computing device.
14. A process for screening and secure distribution of privileged mail correspondence to incarcerated individuals, comprising the steps of:
an application service provider (ASP) providing a server computer with secure database management system including a database containing an inmate record of inmate identification data and inmate location data, and a privileged mail sender record of privileged mail sender identification data and authentication documents;
said application service provider (ASP) providing a remote prescreening application running on a remote computing device and comprising software instructions configured to enable privileged senders including attorneys, public officials, and educators to complete the substeps of,
pre-registering,
uploading authentication documents,
selecting to send a privileged mail piece through the U.S. postal service,
automatically generating a QR code encrypting a unique identifier and associating therewith a predetermined expiry, a particular inmate identification code, and inmate location data,
printing said QR code,
prompting said privileged sender to attach the printed QR code to the privileged mail piece, and
uploading an image of said privileged mail piece with QR Code attached;
said application service provider (ASP) providing a remote prescreening application running on a remote computing device and comprising software instructions configured to complete the substeps of
scanning the QR Code attached to the mail piece,
automatically decrypting the QR Code,
automatically comparing said decrypted QR Code of said USPS-delivered mail piece QR Code attached to the sent mail piece and validating that the unique identifier matches and the associated predetermined expiry is not expired, and
displaying the uploaded image of said privileged mail piece with QR Code attached for visual comparison and validation.
15. The process for screening and secure distribution of privileged mail correspondence to incarcerated individuals according to claim 14, wherein said step of uploading an image of said privileged mail piece with QR Code attached further comprises uploading an image of a sender holding an authentication document and said sender privileged mail piece with QR Code attached.
16. The process for screening and secure distribution of privileged mail correspondence to incarcerated individuals according to claim 14, wherein said step of automatically generating a QR code further comprises the substeps of, generating a unique code for each mail piece that identifies the sender, receiver, correctional institution, and expiration, and encrypting said unique code as a QR Code; and said step of automatically generating said QR code includes printing said QR Code with unencrypted character string appearing beneath the QR Code that uniquely identifies an institution and inmate therein.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to distributing privileged mail to incarcerated individuals. This type of method of organizing human activity is a commercial or legal interaction such as legal obligations and business relations and it is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as social activities and following rules or instructions. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process (i.e., only one or more programmed general purpose computing devices are needed to provide a way for privileged senders to register and authenticate themselves, to generate QR codes, to scan QR codes, and to upload documents). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 4.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references (in addition to those previously cited in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection) are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Thomasson et al., U.S. Patent Number 12,101,359 B1. This reference teaches systems for permitting, establishing, monitoring, and controlling calls based on messages from outside parties, outside party availability information, institution’s call restriction information, and/or account holder preferences.
Parampottil et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,829,427 B1. This reference teaches a database configured to store digital versions of physical or electronic items received at a controlled-environment facility.
Shipman, Jr., U.S. Patent Number 11,784,952 B1. This reference teaches rule based postal mail communication system.
Logan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0103701 A1. This reference teaches a method and system for maintaining privacy in private postal mail at a correctional facility.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693