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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Acronyms are not spelled out in Claims 1, 12. The first occurrence of an acronym must be spelled out (SMS, MP3s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Note to Applicant
Interface is being interpreted as hardware, regarding Claim 1. However, specification states, regarding “interface” in [0019]: In another example, the method includes downloading a hardware interface. This sentence is inconsistent, as downloading implies software.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “A system for management of a secure facility, the system comprising: an interface; … “. This renders the claim unclear as to a system comprising an interface – and this interface is coupled to systems. There is no processing unit, there is no computer hardware coupled to the interface or storage coupled to the interface. It is unclear as to the system functioning, as claimed, without processing units coupled to memory and coupled to the interface.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a merge subsystem, wherein a master account is selected, followed by selecting a merged account, the merge subsystem allowing a direct review of basic toggle of balances together or you review of a more toggle, …;” This renders the claim unclear as to the meaning of the limitation. The grammar renders the antecedent basis unclear regarding “you review …”
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “and associate that with a unique inmate identifier that uniquely identifies an inmate record that can include an association to a name, …” in line 26-27. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what “that” refers back to.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “on their account” in line 28. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what “their” refers back to.
Claim 1 recites “the response” in line 4. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a response”.
Claim 1 recites “the storage medium” in lines 32 & 33. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a storage medium”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “the picture with another”. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a picture with another” and further, with another what?
Claim 1 recites “the secure facility management system” in the last limitation. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a secure facility management system”.
Claim 5 recites “the artificial intelligence monitoring system” in line 1. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “an artificial intelligence monitoring system”.
Claim 6 recites “the secure facilities requirements” in line 2. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “secure facilities requirements”.
Claim 7 recites “the assistant” in line 1. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “an assistant”.
Claim 8 recites “the financial assistant” in line 1. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a financial assistant”.
Claim 9 recites “the list” in line 2. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a list”.
Claim 11 recites “the discipline” in line 2. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a discipline”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a user to view how many SMS, emails, requests, transactions, MP3s, and liens will be transferred over to the master account”. This renders the claim unclear as to the meaning of transferring MP3s. MP3 files, MP3 players? This same rejection applies to Claim 12.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites “merging one or more accounts, allowing a user to view how many SMS, emails, requests, transactions, MP3s, and liens will be transferred over to a master account to monitor the one or more accounts under one merged account;”. This renders the claim unclear as to the meaning of the limitation. The grammar renders the antecedent basis unclear regarding “to monitor”, will the user monitor or the master account monitor? Further, “the one or more accounts under one merged account” renders the claim unclear as the one or more accounts are transferred over to a master account. For example, should the claim read “merging one or more accounts, allowing a user to view how many SMS, emails, requests, transactions, MP3s, and liens will be transferred over to a master account, wherein the merging of the one or more accounts allows the user to monitor the one or more accounts in the master account;” ?
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites “wherein the vending subsystem automatically refunds an inmate if an item from vending is out of stock.” This renders the claim unclear as to refunding if an item is out of stock. There is no purchase of an item but if the item is out of stock then the inmate receives a refund.
All dependents are also rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,004,353 B1 (Block) in view of US 9,965,746 B1 (Keiser) further in view of US 2024/0013152 Al (Allen) more in view of US 2018/0181964 A1 (Zagarese) even more in view of US 6,148,342 A (Ho).
Regarding Claim 12:
Block teaches A method for using a secure facility management system, the method comprising: processing messages through a messaging subsystem, the messaging subsystem allowing for a response by staff of approving or denying pending messages; (Col 78 ln 16-30, monitor automated banking machines for transactions involving the receipt of checks where the transaction would be declined due to the inability of the machine to accurately read indicia with a suitable level of confidence or adequately resolve or validate one or more items of data from the check. This may be done, for example, by a computer in the services cloud receiving a notification message from an automated banking machine of such a transaction. Alternatively such a transaction condition may be determined through operation of a computer in the services cloud by passing the transaction messages between the automated banking machine and a transaction processing host or other computer that is involved in approving or denying the transaction at the machine.)
monitoring a depositing subsystem, the depositing subsystem including trust deposits, a lien function, (Col 78 ln 16-18, one or more computers in the services cloud may operate to monitor automated banking machines for transactions. Col 88 ln 19-30, loan process. Col 61 ln 3-7, The customer may have a live or virtual teller assist them in any desired kind of banking transaction, such as withdrawing or depositing money, transferring money between accounts, issuing money orders, depositing checks, filling out a loan application, and the like.)
merging one or more accounts, allowing a user to view how many SMS, emails, requests, transactions, (ie. loans) will be transferred over to a master account to monitor the one or more accounts under one merged account; (FIG. 27, the customer's touch screen 784 may present an output 786 that may include a (make selection) message and virtual buttons (function keys) for selecting a function involving any of the following: fast cash 788, withdraw 790, transfer funds 792, deposit 794, ... A customer may touch the corresponding key to select the transaction function desired. Touching the withdraw key 790 may correspond to a customer selection that initiates a withdrawal of funds from one of the customer's accounts. Touching the transfer funds key 792 may present the customer with a series of screen outputs for transferring funds from one account into another account.)
enabling a facial recognition subsystem to allow an customer/user to access a kiosk without entering a pin; (Col 9 ln 38-41, In some exemplary embodiments the banking customer image may be recognized by a computer running facial or other image recognition software, and the banking customer image may be captured using a camera. Col 51 ln 50-56, Fig 7, The method begins at step 702 by identifying a banking customer. The banking customer may be recognized through image data captured by devices within the display surface of the surface computer or by image capture devices operatively connected thereto. The computer operates to determine the customer's identity and to resolve that the identified customer is to be authorized to conduct transactions through the surface computer. At step 704 access is provided that allows banking data to be accessed by the identified customer through the surface computer.)
Block teaches on view accounts/tasks/functions in one account (Fig 27,30). However, Block is silent on a bail depositing function and that the customer is an inmate.
Keiser teaches, in the same field of endeavor, methods are shown which provide processor based self-service systems for use with respect to controlled environment facilities, Abstract. Keiser also teaches on a bail depositing function and that the customer is an inmate. (Col 9 ln 50-62, the foregoing user terminal configuration may be utilized to provide a user terminal conveniently disposed to allow new residents of the controlled environment facility to retrieve information ( e.g., when particular services will be provided or are available, controlled environment facilities rules and procedures, listings for service providers such as bail bondsmen and lawyers, etcetera) and obtain services ( e.g., engage and even pay a service provider such as a bail bondsman or lawyer.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Block per Keiser to include a bail depositing function. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide flexibility in services, allowing for implementation in varied environments.
Block teaches on view accounts/tasks/functions in one account (Fig 27,30). However, Block (as modified by Keiser) is silent on MP3.
Allen teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on a platform for creating a digital environment, Abstract. Allen also teaches on MP3. ([0049] The second screen functionality also facilitates transfer of music/mp3s, artwork, games, prizes, or other event related items or purchases from a site to device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Block (as modified by Keiser) by modifying Block per Allen to include MP3. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide more variety of services in purchasing/transferring by including MP3 media files, which are widely used.
Block teaches on view accounts/tasks/functions in one account (Fig 27,30). However, Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen) is silent on an escrow function.
Zagarese teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on a method of authorizing a secure electronic payment from a payer to a payee, Abstract. Zagarese also teaches on an escrow function. ([1145] Escrow Services [1146] domain name transfers [1147] other electronic item transfers [1148] physical good transfers (e.g. City exchanges).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen) by modifying Block per Zagarese to include an escrow function. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide flexibility in services, allowing for implementation in varied environments.
Block teaches on secure different banking areas according to different groups of people or resources (Col 3 ln 63-64). However, Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese) is silent on and restricting contact information from inmates, the contact restriction featuring two levels, wherein contact data is separated into a first contract restriction level being a site level on a storage medium, and a second contact restriction level being an inmate level on a storage medium.
Ho teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on a system for managing sensitive data, Abstract. Ho also teaches on restricting contact information from inmates, the contact restriction featuring two levels, wherein contact data is separated into a first contract restriction level being a site level on a storage medium, and a second contact restriction level being an inmate level on a storage medium. (Col 2 ln 34-38, Fig 1 illustrates a secure data management system 100 used to implement one embodiment of the invention. A user inputs data into a source terminal 104. A typical user may be a doctor or other personnel with an appropriate level of access to request the needed data. Col 6 ln 37-41, The identifier database encrypts the internal ID, the privilege level, and the source terminal address in block 240 for transmission to a data request database in a separately administered subnetwork. Col 3 ln 6-13, Such information may, for example, include the last name, first name, middle name, social security number, birth date, birthplace, mother's maiden name, driver's license, street address, e-mail, file number, patient identification number, inmate identification number, account number, or name of company.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese) by modifying Block per Ho to include restricting contact information from inmates, the contact restriction featuring two levels, wherein contact data is separated into a first contract restriction level being a site level on a storage medium, and a second contact restriction level being an inmate level on a storage medium. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide further levels of security and protection of the users and their data.
Regarding Claim 13:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 12 as described.
Block teaches further comprising approving or denying a picture message under a separate section. (Col 78 ln 16-30, monitor automated banking machines for transactions involving the receipt of checks where the transaction would be declined due to the inability of the machine to accurately read indicia with a suitable level of confidence or adequately resolve or validate one or more items of data from the check. This may be done, for example, by a computer in the services cloud receiving a notification message from an automated banking machine of such a transaction. Alternatively such a transaction condition may be determined through operation of a computer in the services cloud by passing the transaction messages between the automated banking machine and a transaction processing host or other computer that is involved in approving or denying the transaction at the machine.)
Regarding Claim 14:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 12 as described.
Block teaches wherein the monitoring of the depositing subsystem involves one or more of the following deposit types: manual cash deposit, cashbox deposit, coin deposit, or a check deposit. (Col 77 ln 59-62, automated banking machines may be operated by the users whose accounts are identified through their card data or other appropriate identifying data, to deposit and/or cash checks.)
Regarding Claim 15:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 12 as described.
Block teaches further comprising running a report. (Col 8 ln 5-8, The transaction terminal may be operable to prompt a banking employee with outputs through a display that includes a summary of what needs to be accomplished to process the transaction. Col 45 ln 19-27, In some exemplary embodiments the automated banking machine 760 may utilize a voice profile and/or a photo profile of the customer in order to verify that the person attempting to use the machine is an actual customer and to prevent unauthorized transactions at the machine. For example, as also discussed herein, facial recognition software or other recognition software may be utilized to help verify that the individual is who they say they are prior to the completion of the transaction at the machine 760.)
Regarding Claim 16:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 13 as described.
Block teaches wherein the picture message can be manually approved by a staff member, or automatically screened and approved or denied by an artificial intelligence tool. (Col 78 ln 16-30, monitor automated banking machines for transactions involving the receipt of checks where the transaction would be declined due to the inability of the machine to accurately read indicia with a suitable level of confidence or adequately resolve or validate one or more items of data from the check. This may be done, for example, by a computer in the services cloud receiving a notification message from an automated banking machine of such a transaction. Alternatively such a transaction condition may be determined through operation of a computer in the services cloud by passing the transaction messages between the automated banking machine and a transaction processing host or other computer that is involved in approving or denying the transaction at the machine.)
Regarding Claim 18:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 12 as described.
Block teaches further comprising automatically replying to certain messages with an artificial intelligence response system. (Col 78 ln 16-30, monitor automated banking machines for transactions involving the receipt of checks where the transaction would be declined due to the inability of the machine to accurately read indicia with a suitable level of confidence or adequately resolve or validate one or more items of data from the check. This may be done, for example, by a computer in the services cloud receiving a notification message from an automated banking machine of such a transaction. Alternatively such a transaction condition may be determined through operation of a computer in the services cloud by passing the transaction messages between the automated banking machine and a transaction processing host or other computer that is involved in approving or denying the transaction at the machine.)
Regarding Claim 19:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 12 as described.
Block teaches further comprising a vending subsystem. (Col 4 ln 21-24, Thus resources may include, for example, an automated banking machine, an electronic kiosk, or other electronic terminal which may receive inputs from or provide outputs to the customer.)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,004,353 B1 (Block) in view of US 9,965,746 B1 (Keiser) further in view of US 2024/0013152 Al (Allen) more in view of US 2018/0181964 A1 (Zagarese) even more in view of US 6,148,342 A (Ho) even further in view of US 20240054062 A1 (Murphy).
Regarding Claim 17:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 12 as described.
Block teaches on facial recognition (Col 9 ln 38-41) and Keiser teaches on inmates (Col 9 ln 52-60). However, Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) is silent on wherein the facial recognition subsystem further comprises using an artificial intelligence tool to differentiate inmates with the same name.
Murphy teaches, in the same field of endeavor, unique specialized databasing to generate reporting, modify data, and socialize with other personas in agreed upon spaces to create control within a three-dimensional world in IoT networks, Abstract.
Murphy also teaches wherein the facial recognition subsystem further comprises using an artificial intelligence tool to differentiate people with the same name. ([0060] AI processes. [0071] it may be the case that a person shares a name with multiple other people, who might have the same first and last name and who might live in a similar area; for example, there might be many different people named “John Smith” living in the same geographical area, such as in the same major city. There might likewise be similar matches in secondary information that might be used to differentiate them; …)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) by modifying Block per Murphy to include wherein the facial recognition subsystem further comprises using an artificial intelligence tool to differentiate inmates with the same name. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide another level of accuracy and security when provided services to the customers.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,004,353 B1 (Block) in view of US 9,965,746 B1 (Keiser) further in view of US 2024/0013152 Al (Allen) more in view of US 2018/0181964 A1 (Zagarese) even more in view of US 6,148,342 A (Ho) even further in view of WO 2010048375 A1 (Adelberg).
Regarding Claim 20:
Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) teaches the invention of Claim 19 as described.
Block teaches on automatic banking machines. However, Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) is silent on wherein the vending subsystem automatically refunds an inmate if an item from vending is out of stock.
Adelberg teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a data center supporting a network system for vending products to customers and associated vending methods, Abstract.
Adelberg also teaches wherein the vending subsystem automatically refunds an inmate if an item from vending is out of stock. ([00197] In other situations, a vending store may fail to dispense any item. For example, an item may have been available for selection through the user interface, but was not physically present in the product storage compartment. In other examples, a dispensing mechanism may fail after the item has been selected. In any case, a remedial measure is invoked when a selected items is not dispensed to the customer. ... In the situations where at least one items is kept by the customer (i.e., the entire transaction is not aborted), the vending store may adjust the payment obligations accordingly (to reflect the new adjusted total amount) and/or provide a credit or refund to the user.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Block (as modified by Keiser & Allen & Zagarese & Ho) by modifying Block per Adelberg to include wherein the vending subsystem automatically refunds an inmate if an item from vending is out of stock. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to ensure that the customer(s) are not charged incorrectly when an item is not received.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion & Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights