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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 24 February 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “generate an attorney fee estimate by… determine… calculate… generate…”. This appears to be a typographical error of “generate an attorney fee estimate by… determining… calculating… generating…”.
Claims 8 and 9 are dependent on claim 7. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7.
Claim 18 recites “associated with the processor”. This appears to be a typographical error of “associated with the prosecutor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
receive ticket information about a ticket and an image of the ticket;
retrieve direct ticket information;
determine a jurisdiction for the ticket based upon the direct ticket information;
retrieve a plurality of jurisdiction information for the jurisdiction;
validate the ticket information by comparing the direct ticket information to the received ticket information and based upon the plurality of jurisdiction information;
generate an attorney fee based on the validated ticket information;
receive an indication of a fee payment from the user for the attorney fee;
generate an attorney client agreement based on the validated ticket information;
transmit the attorney client agreement to the user;
receive a user signature on the attorney client agreement;
generate a court entry filing for an attorney based on the validated ticket information and the plurality of jurisdiction information;
generate an initial contact request for a prosecutor based on the validated ticket information and the plurality of jurisdiction information;
submit, to the prosecutor, the initial contact request for the prosecutor;
receive, from the prosecutor, a prosecutor response; and transmit the prosecutor response to the user.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses managing and filing court documents. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is business activity of collecting fees for court filling and managing the personal interaction of filling court documents, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the at least one processor programmed; a user computer device; and a database. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of performing optical character recognition on the image of the ticket. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., OCR is a particular way to receive information) Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 8-15 and 17-18 further include(s) the additional element(s): query one or more databases (claim 2), an attorney computing device (claims 8-12, 14, and 17), a database (claim 13), a court computer device (claim 15), and a computer device associated with the prosecutor (claim 18). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2, 8-15, and 17-18 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-7, 16, and 19-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 3-7, 16, and 19-20 are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrison (US 20140074735 A1) in view of Klein (US 20150149370 A1), in further view of Guzman (US 20190236127 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Garrison teaches a court document navigation (CDN) computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, (Paragraph [0016] “a CPU, memory”)
the at least one processor programmed to:
receive, from a user computer device, ticket information about a ticket and an image of the ticket; (Paragraph [0017] “Within the app, at 102, the client is presented with an interface allowing the potential client to input information relating to their particular legal matter.”; Paragraph [0018] In one example, the potential legal matter can include a traffic ticket that the potential client has recently received. The potential client may input information such as their name, contact information, and the jurisdiction in which they received their traffic ticket. The interface, in a further example, allows the client to upload a photo of their traffic ticket.”; step 102 of Fig. 2)
generate an attorney fee based on the validated ticket information; (Paragraph [0020] “Once the information is submitted at 102, the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, […] includes information regarding a legal fee, […] the retainer agreement can be specific to a jurisdiction of the potential client's traffic ticket”; step 104 of Fig. 2)
receive an indication of a fee payment from the user for the attorney fee via the user computer device; (Paragraph [0021] “the potential client would then be prompted, at 106, to pay the legal fee outlined in the retainer. […] this involves the client entering certain payment information, such as credit card information, or some other type of web-based payment service. Upon acceptance of the retainer agreement and payment of the legal fee, a legal professional-client relationship, such as an attorney-client relationship, is created at 108.”; step 106 of Fig. 2)
generate an attorney client agreement based on the (Paragraph [0020] “Once the information is submitted at 102, the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee, and includes e-signatures of the potential client and legal professional.”; step 108 of Fig. 2)
transmit, to the user computer device, the attorney client agreement to the user; (Paragraph [0020] “the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement is capable of being accepted by the client by way of the electronic device 10”; step 104-108 of Fig. 2)
receive, from the user computer device, a user signature on the attorney client agreement; (Paragraph [0020] “the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, […] includes e-signatures of the potential client and legal professional. The retainer agreement is capable of being accepted by the client by way of the electronic device 10, in one example by the client clicking an "accept" button provided in the interface of the electronic device 10.”; step 104-108 of Fig. 2)
Garrison does not teach:
generate a court entry filing for an attorney based on the validated ticket information and the plurality of jurisdiction information;
generate an initial contact request for a prosecutor based on the validated ticket information and the plurality of jurisdiction information;
submit, to the prosecutor, the initial contact request for the prosecutor;
receive, from the prosecutor, a prosecutor response; and
transmit, via the user computer device, the prosecutor response to the user.
However, Klein teaches:
generate a court entry filing for an attorney based on the ticket information and the plurality of jurisdiction information; (Paragraph [0034] “Typically a user, or defense attorney, enters an appearance and requests a recommendation to start a case as later shown in FIG. 6. […] The user may utilized a template as at 22 to create the opening documents for a case. […] With a template filled, the document creation function renders the data into a pre selected format, as later shown in FIG. 5, into a fixed form such as a PDF file as at 23.”; Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to the clerk 13b”; Examiner notes 149d of Fig. 6 shows municipality and other ticket information is entered in Fig. 6; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein)
generate an initial contact request for a prosecutor based on the ticket information and the plurality of jurisdiction information; (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to […] the prosecutor 13c.”; Examiner notes 149d of Fig. 6 shows municipality and other ticket information is entered in Fig. 6; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein)
submit, to the prosecutor, the initial contact request for the prosecutor; (Paragraph [0052] “the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to […] the prosecutor 13c.”; Paragraph [0053] “The database then maintains the request for a prosecutor 13c to view upon logging in.”)
receive, from the prosecutor, a prosecutor response; (Paragraph [0053] “At his discretion, a prosecutor may grant a recommendation to a specific request. The prosecutor clicks upon the line of a request in the list which displays the data of a request from FIG. 6. The prosecutor then clicks a recommend button on the screen using his mouse which displays the screen shown in FIGS. 7A, 7B. FIGS. 7A, 7B show the fields a prosecutor utilizes to create a recommendation for a defendant return to his attorney for review and implementation.”; Figs. 7A and 7B) and
transmit, via the user computer device, the prosecutor response to the user. (Paragraph [0059] “The present invention sends a tickler email to an attorney user for a case and informs him of whether the prosecutor has accepted the request or alternatively rejected the request with a reason.”; Fig. 7B)
This operation of Klein is applicable to the system of Garrison as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to performing court processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garrison to incorporate generating a court entry filing and initial contact request, submitting the initial contact request, and receiving/transmitting a prosecutor response as taught by Klein. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Garrison in order to allow real time collaboration, that is, a role based work flow, between attorneys, prosecutors, and the court staff (see paragraph [0009] of Klein).
Garrison in view of Klein does not teach:
perform optical character recognition on the image of the ticket to retrieve direct ticket information;
determine a jurisdiction for the ticket based upon the direct ticket information;
retrieve, from a database, a plurality of jurisdiction information for the jurisdiction;
validate the ticket information by comparing the direct ticket information to the received ticket information and based upon the plurality of jurisdiction information;
generate an attorney client agreement based on the validated ticket information;
However, Guzman teaches:
performing optical character recognition on the image of the ticket to retrieve direct ticket information; (Paragraph [0029] “the evidence modifier 120 may be further configured to employ optical character recognition (OCR) or other image processing to determine data in the electronic document.” of Guzman)
determining a jurisdiction for the ticket based upon the direct ticket information; (Paragraph [0034] “the evidence modifier 120 may analyze an evidencing electronic document for the purchase of a hotel stay, e.g., a scanned receipt issued by the hotel. It is determined that the evidence is to be used for a VAT refund and that, based on evidencing requirements of a tax authority to which the VAT refund will be submitted (e.g., a tax authority associated with the country in which the transaction occurred), any evidence to be used for a VAT refund is required to include a transaction date.”; Fig. 3; of Guzman; Examiner notes the receipt is scanned and the requirements are gathered based on the transaction county of the transaction in the receipt.)
retrieve, from a database, a plurality of jurisdiction information for the jurisdiction; (Paragraph [0033] “When it is determined that the evidencing electronic document does not meet the evidencing requirements (e.g., if one or more of the required transaction parameters as defined in the rules is missing from the evidencing electronic document), the evidence modifier 120 is configured to retrieve a matching record of the transaction”; Paragraph [0034] “evidencing requirements of a tax authority”; Fig. 3 of Guzman)
validate the ticket information by comparing the direct ticket information to the received ticket information and based upon the plurality of jurisdiction information; (Paragraph [0033] “When it is determined that the evidencing electronic document does not meet the evidencing requirements (e.g., if one or more of the required transaction parameters as defined in the rules is missing from the evidencing electronic document), the evidence modifier 120 is configured to retrieve a matching record of the transaction and to generate a modified version of the evidencing electronic document based on the retrieved matching record of the transaction. The modified version includes the missing required parameters that are present within the matching record.”; Fig. 3 of Guzman)
Additionally, the examiner notes that recitation of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patently distinguish the claimed invention from the prior at. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets all the claim limitations. Clearly, prior art Guzman shows/discloses and has the ability to analyze a data image of a document, determine various data, and validate data against stored records via comparing. See MPEP 2144.07 "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. V. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.)"
Accordingly, this operation of Guzman is applicable to the system of Garrison as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing information received from a document. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garrison to incorporate performing OCR to receive direct ticket information, and a plurality of jurisdiction information and validating the ticket information by comparing the direct ticket information to the received ticket information and based upon the plurality of jurisdiction information as taught by Guzman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Garrison in order to managing documents to ensure compliance with jurisdictional rules (see paragraph [0009] of Guzman).
Regarding claim 4, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison in view of Klein does not teach: wherein the at least one processor (Paragraph [0029] “processor”) is further programmed to:
detect one or more differences based on the comparison of the direct ticket information and the received ticket information;
determine a fix for the one or more differences based on the comparison;
present, via the user computer device, the fix to the user for confirmation; and
upon receiving confirmation from the user via the user computer device, update the ticket information based on the fix.
However, Guzman teaches the known techniques of:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
detect one or more differences based on the comparison of the direct ticket information and the received information; (Paragraph [0032] “the evidence modifier 120 is configured to determine whether the evidencing electronic document meets one or more evidencing requirements.” of Garrison)
determine a fix for the one or more differences based on the comparison; (Paragraph [0033] “When it is determined that the evidencing electronic document does not meet the evidencing requirements (e.g., if one or more of the required transaction parameters as defined in the rules is missing from the evidencing electronic document), the evidence modifier 120 is configured to retrieve a matching record of the transaction and to generate a modified version of the evidencing electronic document based on the retrieved matching record of the transaction.” of Garrison)
present, via the user computer device, the fix to the user for confirmation; (Paragraph [0053] “At optional S370, the modified evidencing electronic document is sent to a recipient, e.g., a reissuing entity. The modified evidencing electronic document may be sent as part of a reissue request.” of Garrison) and
upon receiving confirmation from the user via the user computer device, update the ticket information based on the fix. (Paragraph [0027] “Requests received by the reissuing entity devices 150 from the evidence modifier 120 may be responded to by representatives of the respective reissuing entities via the reissuing entity devices.”; Paragraph [0025] “The data stored by the enterprise system 130 may include, but is not limited to, electronic documents (e.g., an image file; a text file; a spreadsheet file; a portable document format (PDF) file; etc.). The contents of the electronic documents may include, e.g., an invoice, a tax receipt” of Garrison)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1.
Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
detect one or more changes to information associated with the jurisdiction, wherein the one or more changes include at least one of a rules change and a calendar change; and
update the plurality of jurisdiction information associated with the jurisdiction based on the one or more changes.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
detect one or more changes to information associated with the jurisdiction, wherein the one or more changes include at least one of a rules change and a calendar change; (Paragraph [0059] “The prosecutor selects a cause date as at 169, […] assigns a court date using the adjacent calendar button 169b.”;Paragraph [0061] “The prosecutor may complete the sections or use a template and add to the recommendation again by clicking the add button 137. Once the recommendation satisfies the prosecutor, the prosecutor clicks a submit recommendation button as at 159 “; Fig. 3 and 7B) and
update the plurality of jurisdiction information associated with the jurisdiction based on the one or more changes. (Paragraph [0061] “Upon confirmation, the database 10 takes the created document 21 and emails it 24 from the prosecutor 13c to the defense attorney 13a through the messaging subsystem 11.”; Fig. 3 and 7B)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate an attorney fee estimate by:
determining one or more attorney actions based on the ticket information and the jurisdiction information; (Paragraph [0020] “the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee […] the retainer agreement can be specific to a jurisdiction of the potential client's traffic ticket, depending on the rules and laws governing legal professional-client relationships in that jurisdiction.”)
generating the attorney fee estimate to include the prices of the one or more attorney actions. (Paragraph [0020] “the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee”)
Garrison does not teach:
calculating a price for each of the one or more attorney actions;
However, Klein teaches:
calculating a price for each of the one or more attorney actions; (Paragraph [0033] “The fee calculation function determines the number of transactions by a user through the webapp to the database. Then it applies a rate, typically a fee per transaction, to the number of transactions and debits the user's account for the charge.” Paragraph [0010] “The present invention operates upon user fees charged for each transaction to defense attorneys.” of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 7. Garrison further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, to an attorney computer device, the attorney fee estimate to the attorney for approval; (Paragraph [0020] “Once the information is submitted at 102, the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee, and includes e-signatures of the potential client and legal professional.”; Paragraph [0026] “The server 12, in this example, communicates to the legal professional that new information is available regarding a potential new legal matter.”; Fig. 1; Fig. 6 shows “accept retainer”.) and
receive, from the attorney computer device, approval of the attorney fee estimate. (Paragraph [0020] “Once the information is submitted at 102, the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee, and includes e-signatures of the potential client and legal professional.”; Fig. 1; Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 9, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 8.
Garrison further teaches:
an attorney fee estimate from the attorney. (Paragraph [0020] “the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee”)
Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, from the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the attorney fee estimate from the attorney; and
update the attorney fee estimate based on the one or more changes from the attorney.
However, Klein teaches the known technique of:
receiving, from an entity computer device, one or more changes to the fee estimate from the entity; (Paragraph [0042] “the company preferences screen 114 has a portion for text related to recommendations of fine payment as at 126. […] In writing customized recommendations of a fine payment, prosecutors may have to revise text, also through the erase button 125 as described above.”) and
update the fee estimate based on the one or more changes from the entity. (Paragraph [0056] “a prosecutor may save his selections for future use by clicking the save/update box or button as at 126 generally beneath the template box 160 as shown in FIG. 7B.”)
This technique of Klein is applicable to the system of Garrison as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to collecting payments for a legal issue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the attorney fee estimate of Garrison to be changed and updated as taught by Klein. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Garrison in order to allow real time collaboration, that is, a role based work flow, between attorneys, prosecutors, and the court staff (see paragraph [0009] of Klein).
Regarding claim 10, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit, via an attorney computer device, a notification to the attorney that the fee payment has been received. (Fig. 6 shows the attorney device being notified the fee is paid. See associated paragraphs.)
Regarding claim 11, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, to an attorney computer device, the attorney client agreement to the attorney for approval; (Paragraph [0020] “Once the information is submitted at 102, the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee, and includes e-signatures of the potential client and legal professional.”; Fig. 6) and
receive, from the attorney computer device, an attorney signature from the attorney. (Paragraph [0020] “Once the information is submitted at 102, the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee, and includes e-signatures of the potential client and legal professional.”; Fig. 6 and el. 14 of Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 11.
Garrison further teaches:
an attorney client agreement from the attorney. (Paragraph [0020] “the potential client is presented with a retainer agreement at 104. The retainer agreement, in one example, explains the nature of the potential legal professional-client relationship, includes information regarding a legal fee”)
Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, via the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the attorney client agreement from the attorney; and
update the attorney client agreement based on the one or more changes.
However, Klein teaches the known technique of:
receiving, via the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the attorney client agreement from the attorney; (Paragraph [0042] “the company preferences screen 114 has a portion for text related to recommendations of fine payment as at 126. […] In writing customized recommendations of a fine payment, prosecutors may have to revise text, also through the erase button 125 as described above.”) and
updating the attorney client agreement based on the one or more changes. (Paragraph [0056] “a prosecutor may save his selections for future use by clicking the save/update box or button as at 126 generally beneath the template box 160 as shown in FIG. 7B.”)
This technique of Klein is applicable to the system of Garrison as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to collecting payments for a legal issue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the attorney client agreement of Garrison to be changed and updated as taught by Klein. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Garrison in order to allow real time collaboration, that is, a role based work flow, between attorneys, prosecutors, and the court staff (see paragraph [0009] of Klein).
Regarding claim 13, Garrison in view of Klein in view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
retrieve, from a database, jurisdiction information based on the ticket information; (Paragraph [0018] “The potential client may input information such as […] the jurisdiction in which they received their traffic ticket”; step 102 of Fig. 2)
Garrison does not teach:
retrieve court information and prosecutor information based on the jurisdiction information; and
generate the court entry filing for the attorney based on the court information and the prosecutor information.
However, Klein teaches:
retrieve court information and prosecutor information based on the jurisdiction information; (Paragraph [0051] “The user also selects a court from a drop down menu adjacent to "Court Of" in FIG. 6 as at 149d.”; of Klein Examiner notes jurisdiction information is entered in Fig. 6 of Klein which includes the court and other information to be sent to the prosecutor.) and
generate the court entry filing for the attorney based on the court information and the prosecutor information. (Paragraph [0034] “Typically a user, or defense attorney, enters an appearance and requests a recommendation to start a case as later shown in FIG. 6. […] The user may utilized a template as at 22 to create the opening documents for a case. […] With a template filled, the document creation function renders the data into a pre selected format, as later shown in FIG. 5, into a fixed form such as a PDF file as at 23.”; Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to the clerk 13b”; Examiner notes 149d of Fig. 6 shows municipality and other ticket information is entered in Fig. 6; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 13. Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, to an attorney computer device, the court entry filing to the attorney for review;
receive, from the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the court entry filing; and
update the court entry filing based on the one or more changes.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, to an attorney computer device, the court entry filing to the attorney for review; (Paragraph [0034] “Typically a user, or defense attorney, enters an appearance and requests a recommendation to start a case as later shown in FIG. 6. […] The user may utilized a template as at 22 to create the opening documents for a case.”; Fig. 6 of Klein)
receive, from the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the court entry filing; (Paragraph [0034] “Typically a user, or defense attorney, enters an appearance and requests a recommendation to start a case as later shown in FIG. 6. […] The user may utilized a template as at 22 to create the opening documents for a case.”; Fig. 6 of Klein) and
update the court entry filing based on the one or more changes. (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to the clerk 13b”; Fig. 6 of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 13. Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit, to a court computer device, the court entry filing to the court associated with the jurisdiction information.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit, to a court computer device, the court entry filing to the court associated with the jurisdiction information. (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to the clerk 13b and the prosecutor 13c.”; Paragraph [0051] “The user also selects a court from a drop down menu adjacent to "Court Of" in FIG. 6 as at 149d.” Fig. 6 and associated paragraphs of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 13. Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate the initial contact request for the prosecutor based on the ticket information and the prosecutor information.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate the initial contact request for the prosecutor based on the ticket information and the prosecutor information. (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to […] the prosecutor 13c.”; Examiner notes 149d of Fig. 6 shows municipality and other ticket information received by the prosecutor is entered in Fig. 6; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 13. Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, via an attorney computer device, the initial contact request for the prosecutor to the attorney for review;
receive, from the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the initial contact request for the prosecutor; and
update the initial contact request for the prosecutor based on the one or more changes.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, via an attorney computer device, the initial contact request for the prosecutor to the attorney for review; (Paragraph [0034] “Typically a user, or defense attorney, enters an appearance and requests a recommendation to start a case as later shown in FIG. 6. […] The user may utilized a template as at 22 to create the opening documents for a case.”; Fig. 6)
receive, from the attorney computer device, one or more changes to the initial contact request for the prosecutor; (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to […] the prosecutor 13c.”; Examiner notes 149d of Fig. 6 shows municipality and other ticket information is entered in Fig. 6; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein) and
update the initial contact request for the prosecutor based on the one or more changes. (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to […] the prosecutor 13c.”; Examiner notes 149d of Fig. 6 shows municipality and other ticket information is entered in Fig. 6; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit, to a computer device associated with the prosecutor, the initial contact request for the prosecutor.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit, to a computer device associated with the prosecutor, the initial contact request for the prosecutor. (Paragraph [0052] “Once a user has entered the information required by the screen or at the option of the user, the user clicks the "Submit Request" button as at 159 to submit the request to the database and then on to […] the prosecutor 13c.”; step 21 of Fig. 1; Fig. 5 and 6 of Klein)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive, from the prosecutor, the prosecutor response, wherein the prosecutor response includes at least one of a fine amount, court fees, and one or more required user actions.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive, from the prosecutor, the prosecutor response, wherein the prosecutor response includes at least one of a fine amount, court fees, and one or more required user actions. (Paragraph [0053] “The prosecutor then clicks a recommend button on the screen using his mouse which displays the screen shown in FIGS. 7A, 7B. […] a fine amount as at 163 also selected from a drop down menu or keyboard entry.”; Paragraph [0061] “Once the recommendation satisfies the prosecutor, the prosecutor clicks a submit recommendation button as at 159”; Fig. 7A and 7B of Klein; Examiner notes Fig. 7A includes el. 163 “fine of $” as well as other information.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 19.
Garrison further teaches:
wherein the ticket is associated with a jurisdiction. (Paragraph [0018] “The potential client may input […] the jurisdiction in which they received their traffic ticket.”; step 102 of Fig. 2)
receive, from the user computer device, a payment for the amount
and routing the payment for the fine amount to the jurisdiction associated with the ticket
Garrison does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, from the user computer device, a payment for the fine amount;
and routing the payment for the fine amount to the jurisdiction associated with the ticket.
However, Klein teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, from the user computer device, a payment for the fine amount; (Paragraph [0042] “Other matters can be dispensed with a payment of a fine by the defendant”; Paragraph [0048] “The accepted status, shown here, calls up requests where a defendant has accepted a recommendation, typically upon payment of a fine”)
and routing the payment for the fine amount to the jurisdiction associated with the ticket. (Paragraph [0007] “the prosecutor issues a recommendation for improper parking with a fine and court costs. The motorist is retains the ability to accept or to reject the recommendation. Upon acceptance, the motorist pays the fine”; Fig. 7A shows a defendant to pay court costs and fine).
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrison (US 20140074735 A1) in view of Klein (US 20150149370 A1), in further view of Guzman (US 20190236127 A1) in further view of Redmon (US 20180025454 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with claim 1.
Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
query one or more databases to determine one or more available attorneys based upon the jurisdiction of the ticket; and
select the attorney from the one or more available attorneys.
However, Redmon teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
query one or more databases to determine one or more available attorneys based upon the jurisdiction of the ticket; (Paragraph [0014] “The database 18 further stores the identities, credentials, states where licensed”; Paragraph [0018] “In response to the location of the user (i.e., jurisdiction), and possibly other criteria (e.g., ranking or rating of lawyers), one or more lawyers are selected”; Paragraph [0011] explains the system activates during a police encounter; step 40 of Fig. 2 of Redmon) and
select the attorney from the one or more available attorneys. (Paragraph [0018] “One or more responses are received from the lawyers, and one is selected, as shown in blocks 44 and 46.”; el. 46 of Fig. 2 of Redmon)
This operation of Redmon is applicable to the system of Garrison as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to handling legal actions involving attorneys and tickets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garrison to incorporate querying a databased to determine available attorneys and selecting the attorney as taught by Redmon. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Garrison in order quickly summon an attorney when a need arises to provide legal advice (see paragraph [0002] of Redmon).
Regarding claim 3, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 2. Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit one or more notifications to the one or more available attorneys;
and select the attorney based upon one or more responses.
However, Redmon teaches:
transmit one or more notifications to the one or more available attorneys; (Paragraph [0018] “alerts are transmitted to their respective computing devices, as shown in blocks 40 and 42.”; Paragraph [0016] “The first lawyer who responds first to handle the consultation session can immediately view the live-streamed video information on a computing device.”; el. 44 of Fig. 2 of Redmon)
and select the attorney based upon one or more responses. (Paragraph [0018] “One or more responses are received from the lawyers, and one is selected, as shown in blocks 44 and 46.”; Paragraph [0016] “The first lawyer who responds first to handle the consultation session can immediately view the live-streamed video information on a computing device.”; el. 44 and 46 of Fig. 2 of Redmon)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrison (US 20140074735 A1) in view of Klein (US 20150149370 A1), in further view of Guzman (US 20190236127 A1) in further view of Massand (US 20160224548 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman teaches the CDN computer device in accordance with Claim 1. Garrison further teaches:
wherein the received ticket information includes a first jurisdiction for the ticket, (Paragraph [0018] “In one example, the potential legal matter can include a traffic ticket that the potential client has recently received. The potential client may input information such as […] the jurisdiction in which they received their traffic ticket.”; step 102 of Fig. 2)
Garrison in view of Klein does not teach:
determine a second jurisdiction for the ticket based on the direct ticket information; and
However, Guzman teaches:
determine a second jurisdiction for the ticket based on the direct ticket information. (Paragraph [0034] “the evidence modifier 120 may analyze an evidencing electronic document for the purchase of a hotel stay, e.g., a scanned receipt issued by the hotel. It is determined that the evidence is to be used for a VAT refund and that, based on evidencing requirements of a tax authority to which the VAT refund will be submitted (e.g., a tax authority associated with the country in which the transaction occurred), any evidence to be used for a VAT refund is required to include a transaction date.”; Fig. 3; of Guzman; Examiner notes the receipt is scanned and the requirements are gathered based on the transaction county of the transaction in the receipt.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Garrison is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Garrison in view of Klein in further view of Guzman does not teach:
update the ticket information to include the second jurisdiction for the ticket if the first jurisdiction and the second jurisdiction are different.
However, Massand teaches the known technique of updating information to include second information if the first and second information are different. (Paragraph [0081] “In step 630, UMS server 208 may check the linked document repositories for one or more versions of the document.[…] For example, a version may comprise 10 or fewer word differences from a subject document. In some embodiments, versions may include identical content as the subject document, but have one or more of a different filename, different author, or other different metadata.”; Paragraph [0083] “If the versions are to be synced (“Yes” in step 632), then in step 634 UMS server 208 may link the document versions and updates document information for each of the versions.”)
This technique of Massand is applicable to the system of Garrison as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing documentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garrison to update the saved data with the most up to date information as taught by Massand. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Garrison in order to maintain the most recently updated information (see paragraph [0080] of Massand).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628