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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 2/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on behalf of this case on 2/14/2025 and 5/7/2025 have been considered by the Examiner. This is the first action on the merits.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of adjusting or modifying a criminal or offender’s sentence based on taking into consideration factors like type of crime, information related to other offenders, offender history, likelihood to recidivate, cost, engagement etc.
The idea of adjusting or modifying a criminal or offender’s sentence based on taking into consideration factors like type of crime, information related to other offenders, offender history, likelihood to recidivate, cost, engagement etc. includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which can be performed in the human mind and or with aid of a physical aid like pen and paper, accordingly the claims recite a mental process. Further the idea of adjusting or modifying a criminal or offender’s sentence based on taking into consideration factors like type of crime, information related to other offenders, offender history, likelihood to recidivate, cost, engagement etc. includes subject matter relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) accordingly the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activities.
Mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
The Examiner has underlined the additional elements. Limitations that are not underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
1. A criminal punishment optimization system, comprising:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a plurality of devices over a communication network;
a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes;
and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor, the process, when executed is operable to:
receive, from a device associated with a sentencing authority, a sentencing request to punish an offender convicted of a crime, the offender being associated with an offender criminal record and offender personal information;
determine a type of harm for the offender criminal record based on at least one societal harm category;
identify a group of criminal records from a criminal record database that are associated with the type of harm for the offender criminal record, each criminal record of the group of criminal records including at least data associated with a criminal behavior of a criminal;
segment the group of criminal records into a group of recidivate criminal records and a group of non-recidivate criminal records based on the data associated with the criminal behavior of the criminal for each criminal record;
determine a sentencing threshold separates the group of recidivate criminal records from the group of non-recidivate criminal records;
generate a societal engagement metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the societal engagement metric is indicative of a connection to society for the offender;
adjust the sentencing threshold based on the societal engagement metric for the offender to generate an adjusted sentence;
and deliver the adjusted sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority.
2. The criminal punishment optimization system of claim 1, wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:
generate a recidivism metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the recidivism metric is indicative of a risk of recidivate behavior by the offender;
modify the adjusted sentence based on the recidivism metric to generate an updated sentence;
and deliver the updated sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority.
3. The criminal punishment optimization system of claim 1, wherein each criminal record of the group of criminal records further includes cost of harm data, wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:
determine a cost to society value for the group of criminal records based on an aggregate of the cost of harm data associated with each criminal record of the group of criminal records;
predict a cost to administer punishment for the offender based on a comparison of the offender criminal record and the cost to society value for the group of criminal records;
and modify the adjusted sentence based on the cost to administer punishment for the offender.
4. The criminal punishment optimization system of claim 1, wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:
determine an average judicial infrastructure cost for the recidivate criminal records, and wherein the process, when executed by the processor adjust the sentencing threshold, is further operable to adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average judicial infrastructure cost.
5. The criminal punishment optimization system of claim 1, wherein the societal harm category includes at least one of a harm to people category, a harm to property category, a harm to entities category, and a harm to society category.
6. The criminal punishment optimization system of claim 1, wherein the offender personal information includes one or more of demographic information, mental health information, physical health information, family support information, housing information, community engagement information, and career information.
7. The criminal punishment optimization system of claim 1, wherein the criminal behavior data includes data associated with a criminal behavior of the criminal, including one or more of a type of the criminal behavior, a time of the criminal behavior, a date of the criminal behavior, substances involved in the criminal behavior, location of the criminal behavior, and sentencing for the criminal behavior.
8. A method for optimizing criminal sentencing comprising:
receiving, from a device associated with a sentencing authority, a sentencing request to punish an offender convicted of a crime, the offender being associated with an offender criminal record and offender personal information;
determining a type of harm for the offender criminal record based on at least one societal harm category;
identifying a group of criminal records from a criminal record database that are associated with the type of harm for the offender criminal record, each criminal record of the group of criminal records including at least data associated with a criminal behavior of a criminal;
segmenting the group of criminal records into a group of recidivate criminal records and a group of non-recidivate criminal records based on the data associated with the criminal behavior of the criminal for each criminal record;
determining a sentencing threshold separates the group of recidivate criminal records from the group of non-recidivate criminal records;
generating a societal engagement metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the societal engagement metric is indicative of a connection to society for the offender;
adjusting the sentencing threshold based on the societal engagement metric for the offender to generate an adjusted sentence;
and delivering the adjusted sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority.
9. The method for optimizing criminal sentencing of claim 8, further comprising:
generating a recidivism metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the recidivism metric is indicative of a risk of recidivate behavior by the offender;
modifying the adjusted sentence based on the recidivism metric to generate an updated sentence;
and delivering the updated sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority.
10. The method for optimizing criminal sentencing of claim 8, wherein each criminal record of the group of criminal records further includes cost of harm data, the method further comprising:
determining a cost to society value for the group of criminal records based on an aggregate of the cost of harm data associated with each criminal record of the group of criminal records;
predicting a cost to administer punishment for the offender based on a comparison of the offender criminal record and the cost to society value for the group of criminal records;
and modifying the adjusted sentence based on the cost to administer punishment for the offender.
11. The method for optimizing criminal sentencing of claim 8, further comprising
:determining an average judicial infrastructure cost for the recidivate criminal records, and wherein modifying the sentencing threshold further comprises, modifying the sentencing threshold based on the average judicial infrastructure cost.
12. The method for optimizing criminal sentencing of claim 8, wherein the societal harm category including at least one of a harm to people category, a harm to property category, a harm to entities category, and a harm to society category.
13. The method for optimizing criminal sentencing of claim 8, wherein the offender personal information includes one or more of demographic information, mental health information, physical health information, family support information, housing information, community engagement information, and career information.
14. The method for optimizing criminal sentencing of claim 8, wherein the criminal behavior data includes data associated with a criminal behavior of the criminal, including one or more of a type of the criminal behavior, a time of the criminal behavior, a date of the criminal behavior, substances involved in the criminal behavior, location of the criminal behavior, and sentencing for the criminal behavior.
15. A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to:
receive, from a device associated with a sentencing authority, a sentencing request to punish an offender convicted of a crime, the offender being associated with an offender criminal record and offender personal information;
determine a type of harm for the offender criminal record based on at least one societal harm category;
identify a group of criminal records from a criminal record database that are associated with the type of harm for the offender criminal record, each criminal record of the group of criminal records including at least data associated with a criminal behavior of a criminal;
segment the group of criminal records into a group of recidivate criminal records and a group of non-recidivate criminal records based on the data associated with the criminal behavior of the criminal for each criminal record;
determine a sentencing threshold separates the group of recidivate criminal records from the group of non-recidivate criminal records;
generate a societal engagement metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the societal engagement metric is indicative of a connection to society for the offender;
adjust the sentencing threshold based on the societal engagement metric for the offender to generate an adjusted sentence; and deliver the adjusted sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority.
16. The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, are further operable to:
generate a recidivism metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the recidivism metric is indicative of a risk of recidivate behavior by the offender;
modify the adjusted sentence based on the recidivism metric to generate an updated sentence;
and deliver the updated sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority.
17. The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein each criminal record of the group of criminal records further includes cost of harm data, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, are further operable to:
determine a cost to society value for the group of criminal records based on an aggregate of the cost of harm data associated with each criminal record of the group of criminal records;
predict a cost to administer punishment for the offender based on a comparison of the offender criminal record and the cost to society value for the group of criminal records;
and modify the adjusted sentence based on the cost to administer punishment for the offender.
18. The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, are further operable to:
determine an average judicial infrastructure cost for the recidivate criminal records, and wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor to adjust the sentencing threshold, are further operable to adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average judicial infrastructure cost.
19. The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the societal harm category includes at least one of a harm to people category, a harm to property category, a harm to entities category, and a harm to society category.
20. The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the offender personal information includes one or more of demographic information, mental health information, physical health information, family support information, housing information, community engagement information, and career information.
As per claim 1, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically receiving information, determining a type of harm, identifying groups of criminal records, segmenting groups, determining sentencing threshold, generating a societal engagement threshold, adjusting the sentencing threshold, and delivering the adjusted sentence to the sentencing authority. The additional elements that this being performed by software running on a computer specifically “ a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor, the processor, when executed is operable to:”, a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority, and multiple devices communicating over a network specifically “one or more network interfaces to communicate with a plurality of devices over a communication network”, and that information is stored in a database instead of for example a paper log, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Additionally, the additional elements that this being performed by software running on a computer “ a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor, the processor, when executed is operable to:”, a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority, multiple devices communicating over a network specifically “one or more network interfaces to communicate with a plurality of devices over a communication network”, and that information is stored in a database instead of for example a paper log, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically generate a recidivism metric based on offender personal information, modify the sentence, and deliver the sentence to the sentencing authority. The additional elements that this is performed by software running on a computer “wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:” and a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 3, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically determine a cost to society, predict a cost to administer punishment, and modify the sentence. The additional elements that this is performed by software running on a computer “wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 4, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically determine an average judicial infrastructure cost and adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average cost. The additional elements that this is performed by software running on a computer “wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:” and “by the processor” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 5, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of harm. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 6, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of offender information. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 7, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of criminal behavior information. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically receiving information, determining a type of harm, identifying groups of criminal records, segmenting groups, determining sentencing threshold, generating a societal engagement threshold, adjusting the sentencing threshold, and delivering the adjusted sentence to the sentencing authority. The additional elements that a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority, and that information is stored in a database rather than for example a paper log merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically generate a recidivism metric based on offender personal information, modify the sentence, and deliver the sentence to the sentencing authority. The additional elements that a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 10, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically determine a cost to society, predict a cost to administer punishment, and modify the sentence. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 11, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically determine an average judicial infrastructure cost and adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average cost. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 12, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of harm. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of offender information. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 14, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of criminal behavior information. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 15, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically receiving information, determining a type of harm, identifying groups of criminal records, segmenting groups, determining sentencing threshold, generating a societal engagement threshold, adjusting the sentencing threshold, and delivering the adjusted sentence to the sentencing authority. The additional elements a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority, steps being performed by software running on a computer or specifically “a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to” and that information is stored in a database rather than for example a paper log merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Additionally, the additional elements that a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority, steps being performed by software running on a computer or specifically “a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to”, and that information is stored in a database rather than for example a paper log merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 16, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically generate a recidivism metric based on offender personal information, modify the sentence, and deliver the sentence to the sentencing authority. The additional elements that a “device” is associated with the sentencing authority, and software running on a computer to perform the steps “the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 17, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically determine a cost to society, predict a cost to administer punishment, and modify the sentence. The additional element of software running on a computer to perform the steps or specifically “the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically determine an average judicial infrastructure cost and adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average cost. The additional element of software running on a computer to perform the steps “the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “by a processor” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 19, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of harm. The additional element of software running on a computer to perform the steps or specifically “the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 20, the claims recite human activities and or mental process steps specifically types of offender information. The additional element of software running on a computer to perform the steps or specifically “the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s)1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gubernick et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0032431).
As per claim 1, Gubernick et al. teaches A criminal punishment optimization system, comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: system to resolve outstanding warrants).
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a plurality of devices over a communication network; (see paragraph 0028, Examiner’s note: network interface to allow the device to communicate with other devices).
a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor, the process, when executed is operable to: (see paragraphs 0048 and 0060, Examiner’s note: method performed by software running on a computer).
receive, from a device associated with a sentencing authority, a sentencing request to punish an offender convicted of a crime, the offender being associated with an offender criminal record and offender personal information; (see paragraph 0020 and 0032, Examiner’s note: user logs into a system to resolve warrants for crimes or infractions and or judge can approve or reapprove deals through a device).
determine a type of harm for the offender criminal record based on at least one societal harm category; (see paragraphs 0022 and 0035, Examiner’s note: receiving the type of crime and payouts may be different based on different types of crimes).
identify a group of criminal records from a criminal record database that are associated with the type of harm for the offender criminal record, each criminal record of the group of criminal records including at least data associated with a criminal behavior of a criminal; (see paragraphs 0027, 0040 0046, and 0051-0052, Examiner’s note: teaches segmenting users into groups for payments (see paragraphs 0040 and 0051-0052). Further teaches populating payout matrixes from databases and the performing the present disclosure by retrieving information from a database (see paragraph 0027 and 0046)).
segment the group of criminal records into a group of recidivate criminal records and a group of non-recidivate criminal records based on the data associated with the criminal behavior of the criminal for each criminal record; determine a sentencing threshold separates the group of recidivate criminal records from the group of non-recidivate criminal records; (see paragraphs 0026 and 0051, Examiner’s note: each litigant group generally includes one or more similar situated individuals who has been assigned identical or similar rules for resolving common issues one example of a litigant group is individual with unpaid fines during a specific period (see paragraph 0051)). Further teaches based on a similar users a likelihood to perform or a likelihood to reoffend may be calculated and the sentence may be adjusted accordingly).
generate a societal engagement metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the societal engagement metric is indicative of a connection to society for the offender; adjust the sentencing threshold based on the societal engagement metric for the offender to generate an adjusted sentence; (see paragraphs 0039-0040, Examiner’s note: change be adjusted based on total number of fines or users response to different incentives over time (see paragraph 0040). Further teaches adjusting based on user characteristics where those can include things like birthdays (this is personal demographic information) (see paragraphs 0039-0040).
and deliver the adjusted sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority (see paragraph 0009 and 0032, Examiner’s note: allows users and or judges to approve or preapprove deals to the system).
As per claim 2, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to: generate a recidivism metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the recidivism metric is indicative of a risk of recidivate behavior by the offender; modify the adjusted sentence based on the recidivism metric to generate an updated sentence; (see paragraphs 0026 and 0051, Examiner’s note: each litigant group generally includes one or more similar situated individuals who has been assigned identical or similar rules for resolving common issues one example of a litigant group is individual with unpaid fines during a specific period (see paragraph 0051)). Further teaches based on a similar users a likelihood to perform or a likelihood to reoffend may be calculated and the sentence may be adjusted accordingly).
and deliver the updated sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority (see paragraphs 0022, 0041, and 0050-0051, Examiner’s note: teaches this in multiple ways one being providing different payouts for different types of warrants where a user may have multiple warrants(see paragraphs 0022 and 0041). Further alternatively teaches different results based on different answers to questions (see paragraph 0050-0051), therefore different answers to questions would result in different payouts).
As per claim 3, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein each criminal record of the group of criminal records further includes cost of harm data, wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to: determine a cost to society value for the group of criminal records based on an aggregate of the cost of harm data associated with each criminal record of the group of criminal records; predict a cost to administer punishment for the offender based on a comparison of the offender criminal record and the cost to society value for the group of criminal records; and modify the adjusted sentence based on the cost to administer punishment for the offender (see paragraphs 0052 and 0055, Examiner’s note: robbery requires jail time, therefore deals without jail time are removed (see paragraph 0055). Further teaches resolving a failure to appear nonviolent misdemeanor with a $50 performance bond (see paragraph 0052). Here the cost could be either “jail time” or for example financial cost, for example a $50 bond).
As per claim 4, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the process, when executed by the processor, is further operable to:
determine an average judicial infrastructure cost for the recidivate criminal records, and wherein the process, when executed by the processor adjust the sentencing threshold, is further operable to adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average judicial infrastructure cost (see paragraph 0026 and 0051-0052, Examiner’s note: teaches adjusting the cash payment, e.g. average judicial infrastructure cost, based on the litigant’s likelihood to perform the agreement or reoffend in the future (paragraph 0026), where this is based on the type of crime (see paragraphs 0051-0052).).
As per claim 5, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the societal harm category includes at least one of a harm to people category, a harm to property category, a harm to entities category, and a harm to society category. (see paragraphs 0052 and 0055, Examiner’s note: robbery requires jail time, therefore deals without jail time are removed (see paragraph 0055). Further teaches resolving a failure to appear nonviolent misdemeanor with a 50 performance bond (see paragraph 0052). Non-violent reads on harm to entities or harm to society categories. Further robbery reads on harm to society category. It is noted only one is required by the claim).
As per claim 6, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the offender personal information includes one or more of demographic information, mental health information, physical health information, family support information, housing information, community engagement information, and career information. (see paragraphs 0039-0040, Examiner’s note: change be adjusted based on total number of fines or users response to different incentives over time (see paragraph 0040). This could read on terms of demographic information or community engagement information as broadly recited in the claims. Further teaches adjusting based on user characteristics where those can include things like birthdays (this is personal demographic information as broadly recited in the claims) (see paragraphs 0039-0040). It is noted only one is required by the claims).
As per claim 7, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the criminal behavior data includes data associated with a criminal behavior of the criminal, including one or more of a type of the criminal behavior, a time of the criminal behavior, a date of the criminal behavior, substances involved in the criminal behavior, location of the criminal behavior, and sentencing for the criminal behavior. (see paragraphs 0040, 0051-0052, and 0055 Examiner’s note: teaches segmenting users into groups for resolving warrants (see paragraphs 0040 and 0051-0052). For example non-violent or robbery, is a type of criminal behavior, it is noted only one is required by the claims).
As per claim 8, Gubernick et al. teaches A method for optimizing criminal sentencing comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: method to resolve outstanding warrants).
receiving, from a device associated with a sentencing authority, a sentencing request to punish an offender convicted of a crime, the offender being associated with an offender criminal record and offender personal information; (see paragraph 0020 and 0032, Examiner’s note: user logs into a system to resolve warrants for crimes or infractions and or judge can approve or reapprove deals).
determining a type of harm for the offender criminal record based on at least one societal harm category; (see paragraphs 0022 and 0035, Examiner’s note: receiving the type of crime and payouts may be different based on different types of crimes).
identifying a group of criminal records from a criminal record database that are associated with the type of harm for the offender criminal record, each criminal record of the group of criminal records including at least data associated with a criminal behavior of a criminal; (see paragraphs 0027, 0040 0046, and 0051-0052, Examiner’s note: teaches segmenting users into groups for payments (see paragraphs 0040 and 0051-0052). Further teaches populating payout matrixes from databases and the performing the present disclosure by retrieving information from a database (see paragraph 0027 and 0046))
segmenting the group of criminal records into a group of recidivate criminal records and a group of non-recidivate criminal records based on the data associated with the criminal behavior of the criminal for each criminal record; determining a sentencing threshold separates the group of recidivate criminal records from the group of non-recidivate criminal records; (see paragraphs 0026 and 0051, Examiner’s note: each litigant group generally includes one or more similar situated individuals who has been assigned identical or similar rules for resolving common issues one example of a litigant group is individual with unpaid fines during a specific period (see paragraph 0051)). Further teaches based on similar users a likelihood to perform or a likelihood to reoffend may be calculated and the sentence may be adjusted accordingly).
generating a societal engagement metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the societal engagement metric is indicative of a connection to society for the offender; adjusting the sentencing threshold based on the societal engagement metric for the offender to generate an adjusted sentence; (see paragraph 0040, Examiner’s note: change be adjusted based on total number of fines or users response to different incentives over time (see paragraph 0040). Further teaches adjusting based on user characteristics where those can include things like birthdays (this is personal demographic information) (see paragraphs 0039-0040).
and delivering the adjusted sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority. (see paragraph 0009 and 0032, Examiner’s note: allows users and or judges to approve or preapprove deals to the system).
As per claim 9, Gubernick et al. teaches
further comprising: generating a recidivism metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the recidivism metric is indicative of a risk of recidivate behavior by the offender; modifying the adjusted sentence based on the recidivism metric to generate an updated sentence; (see paragraphs 0026 and 0051, Examiner’s note: each litigant group generally includes one or more similar situated individuals who has been assigned identical or similar rules for resolving common issues one example of a litigant group is individual with unpaid fines during a specific period (see paragraph 0051)). Further teaches based on a similar users a likelihood to perform or a likelihood to reoffend may be calculated and the sentence may be adjusted accordingly).
and delivering the updated sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority. (see paragraphs 0022, 0041, and 0050-0051, Examiner’s note: teaches this in multiple ways one being providing different payouts for different types of warrants where a user may have multiple warrants(see paragraphs 0022 and 0041). Further alternatively teaches different results based on different answers to questions (see paragraph 0050-0051), therefore different answers to questions would result in different payouts).
As per claim 10, Gubernick et al.teaches
wherein each criminal record of the group of criminal records further includes cost of harm data, the method further comprising: determining a cost to society value for the group of criminal records based on an aggregate of the cost of harm data associated with each criminal record of the group of criminal records; predicting a cost to administer punishment for the offender based on a comparison of the offender criminal record and the cost to society value for the group of criminal records; and modifying the adjusted sentence based on the cost to administer punishment for the offender. (see paragraphs 0052 and 0055, Examiner’s note: robbery requires jail time, therefore deals without jail time are removed (see paragraph 0055). Further teaches resolving a failure to appear nonviolent misdemeanor with a $50 performance bond (see paragraph 0052). Here the cost could be either “jail time” or for example financial cost, for example a $50 bond).
As per claim 11, Gubernick et al. teaches
further comprising: determining an average judicial infrastructure cost for the recidivate criminal records, and wherein modifying the sentencing threshold further comprises, modifying the sentencing threshold based on the average judicial infrastructure cost. (see paragraph 0026 and 0051-0052, Examiner’s note: teaches adjusting the cash payment, e.g. average judicial infrastructure cost, based on the litigant’s likelihood to perform the agreement or reoffend in the future (paragraph 0026), where this is based on the type of crime (see paragraphs 0051-0052).).
As per claim 12, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the societal harm category including at least one of a harm to people category, a harm to property category, a harm to entities category, and a harm to society category. (see paragraphs 0052 and 0055, Examiner’s note: robbery requires jail time, therefore deals without jail time are removed (see paragraph 0055). Further teaches resolving a failure to appear nonviolent misdemeanor with a 50 performance bond (see paragraph 0052). Non-violent reads on harm to entities or harm to society categories. Further robbery reads on harm to society category. It is noted only one is required by the claim).
As per claim 13, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the offender personal information includes one or more of demographic information, mental health information, physical health information, family support information, housing information, community engagement information, and career information. (see paragraphs 0039-0040, Examiner’s note: change be adjusted based on total number of fines or users response to different incentives over time (see paragraph 0040). This could read terms of demographic information or community engagement information as broadly recited in the claims. Further teaches adjusting based on user characteristics where those can include things like birthdays (this is personal demographic information as broadly recited in the claims) (see paragraphs 0039-0040). It is noted only one is required by the claims).
As per claim 14, Gubernick et al. teaches
wherein the criminal behavior data includes data associated with a criminal behavior of the criminal, including one or more of a type of the criminal behavior, a time of the criminal behavior, a date of the criminal behavior, substances involved in the criminal behavior, location of the criminal behavior, and sentencing for the criminal behavior. (see paragraphs 0040, 0051-0052, and 0055 Examiner’s note: teaches segmenting users into groups for resolving warrants (see paragraphs 0040 and 0051-0052). For example non-violent or robbery, is a type of criminal behavior, it is noted only one is required by the claims).
As per claim 15, Gubernick et al teaches A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to: (see paragraph 0060, Examiner’s note: non-transitory machine readable medium performing the components herein).
receive, from a device associated with a sentencing authority, a sentencing request to punish an offender convicted of a crime, the offender being associated with an offender criminal record and offender personal information; (see paragraph 0020 and 0032, Examiner’s note: user logs into a system to resolve warrants for crimes or infractions and or judge can approve or reapprove deals).
determine a type of harm for the offender criminal record based on at least one societal harm category; (see paragraphs 0022 and 0035, Examiner’s note: receiving the type of crime and payouts may be different based on different types of crimes).
identify a group of criminal records from a criminal record database that are associated with the type of harm for the offender criminal record, each criminal record of the group of criminal records including at least data associated with a criminal behavior of a criminal; (see paragraphs 0027, 0040 0046, and 0051-0052, Examiner’s note: teaches segmenting users into groups for payments (see paragraphs 0040 and 0051-0052). Further teaches populating payout matrixes from databases and the performing the present disclosure by retrieving information from a database (see paragraph 0027 and 0046))
segment the group of criminal records into a group of recidivate criminal records and a group of non-recidivate criminal records based on the data associated with the criminal behavior of the criminal for each criminal record; determine a sentencing threshold separates the group of recidivate criminal records from the group of non-recidivate criminal records; (see paragraphs 0026 and 0051, Examiner’s note: each litigant group generally includes one or more similar situated individuals who has been assigned identical or similar rules for resolving common issues one example of a litigant group is individual with unpaid fines during a specific period (see paragraph 0051)). Further teaches based on a similar users a likelihood to perform or a likelihood to reoffend may be calculated and the sentence may be adjusted accordingly).
generate a societal engagement metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the societal engagement metric is indicative of a connection to society for the offender; adjust the sentencing threshold based on the societal engagement metric for the offender to generate an adjusted sentence;
(see paragraph 0040, Examiner’s note: change be adjusted based on total number of fines or users response to different incentives over time (see paragraph 0040). Further teaches adjusting based on user characteristics where those can include things like birthdays (this is personal demographic information) (see paragraphs 0039-0040).
and deliver the adjusted sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority. (see paragraph 0009 and 0032, Examiner’s note: allows users and judges to approve or preapprove deals to the system).
As per claim 16, Gubernick et al teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, are further operable to: generate a recidivism metric for the offender based on the offender personal information, wherein the recidivism metric is indicative of a risk of recidivate behavior by the offender; modify the adjusted sentence based on the recidivism metric to generate an updated sentence; (see paragraphs 0026 and 0051, Examiner’s note: each litigant group generally includes one or more similar situated individuals who has been assigned identical or similar rules for resolving common issues one example of a litigant group is individual with unpaid fines during a specific period (see paragraph 0051)). Further teaches based on a similar users a likelihood to perform or a likelihood to reoffend may be calculated and the sentence may be adjusted accordingly).
and deliver the updated sentence to the device associated with the sentencing authority. (see paragraphs 0022, 0041, and 0050-0051, Examiner’s note: teaches this in multiple ways one being providing different payouts for different types of warrants where a user may have multiple warrants(see paragraphs 0022 and 0041). Further alternatively teaches different results based on different answers to questions (see paragraph 0050-0051), therefore different answers to questions would result in different payouts).
As per claim 17, Gubernick et al teaches
wherein each criminal record of the group of criminal records further includes cost of harm data, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, are further operable to: determine a cost to society value for the group of criminal records based on an aggregate of the cost of harm data associated with each criminal record of the group of criminal records; predict a cost to administer punishment for the offender based on a comparison of the offender criminal record and the cost to society value for the group of criminal records; and modify the adjusted sentence based on the cost to administer punishment for the offender. (see paragraphs 0052 and 0055, Examiner’s note: robbery requires jail time, therefore deals without jail time are removed (see paragraph 0055). Further teaches resolving a failure to appear nonviolent misdemeanor with a $50 performance bond (see paragraph 0052). Here the cost could be either “jail time” or for example financial cost, for example a $50 bond).
As per claim 18, Gubernick et al teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, are further operable to: determine an average judicial infrastructure cost for the recidivate criminal records, and wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor to adjust the sentencing threshold, are further operable to adjust the sentencing threshold based on the average judicial infrastructure cost. (see paragraph 0026 and 0051-0052, Examiner’s note: teaches adjusting the cash payment, e.g. average judicial infrastructure cost, based on the litigant’s likelihood to perform the agreement or reoffend in the future (paragraph 0026), where this is based on the type of crime (see paragraphs 0051-0052).).
As per claim 19, Gubernick et al teaches
wherein the societal harm category includes at least one of a harm to people category, a harm to property category, a harm to entities category, and a harm to society category. (see paragraphs 0052 and 0055, Examiner’s note: robbery requires jail time, therefore deals without jail time are removed (see paragraph 0055). Further teaches resolving a failure to appear nonviolent misdemeanor with a 50 performance bond (see paragraph 0052). Non-violent reads on harm to entities or harm to society categories. Further robbery reads on harm to society category. It is noted only one is required by the claim).
As per claim 20, Gubernick et al teaches
wherein the offender personal information includes one or more of demographic information, mental health information, physical health information, family support information, housing information, community engagement information, and career information. (see paragraphs 0039-0040, Examiner’s note: change be adjusted based on total number of fines or users response to different incentives over time (see paragraph 0040). This reads on terms of demographic information or community engagement information as broadly recited in the claims. Further teaches adjusting based on user characteristics where those can include things like birthdays (this is personal demographic information as broadly recited in the claims) (see paragraphs 0039-0040). It is noted only one is required by the claims).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McNair et al. (United States Patent Number: US 11,429,885) teaches a system for determining non-adherence to a treatment program and implementing an interaction plan where this may be related to criminal justice supervision programs (see abstract and column 6 lines 60-67)
McDougall Benefit-Cost analysis of Sentencing 2008 teaches evaluating the cost benefits of different sentencing options (See page 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626