DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 4/28/25, wherein:
Claims 57-59 and 62-76 are currently pending; and
Claims 1-56, 60, and 61 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 57-59 and 62-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 57 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 66 and 71 recite a system and a method, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The limitations of receiving a current power of attorney for the grantor; determining if the grantor requires a capacity assessment; assisting the capacity assessment by providing an interactive baseline test; assisting an undue influence assessment by determining questions that the grantor should be asked; based on results of the capacity assessment, storing the current power of attorney; and releasing the power of attorney (claims 57 and 71) and generating the POA and storing the POA (claim 66) are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim limitations include making determinations and assisting in assessments, which are mental processes. That is, other than reciting: the limitations “digitally” perform the steps of receiving and releasing the power of attorney (claim 57), “a processor including a set of modules” (claim 66), and “under the control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions” (claim 71), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Also, the limitations receiving a current power of attorney for the grantor; determining if the grantor requires a capacity assessment; assisting the capacity assessment; assisting an undue influence assessment; based on results of the capacity assessment, storing the current power of attorney; and releasing the power of attorney (claims 57 and 71) and generating the POA and storing the POA (claim 66) are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification states that the invention is directed to “managing powers of attorney,” which is a legal interaction and/or managing interactions between people. Specification 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of “digitally” performing particular steps (claim 57), “a processor including a set of modules” (claim 66) and “under the control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions” (claim 71). The computer, processor, and modules are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the “receiving,” “storing,” and “releasing” limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do 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 of using a computer to perform the receiving, determining, assisting, storing, releasing, and generating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the “receiving,” “storing,” and “releasing” limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, identifying storing information in memory as WURC, as recognized by Versata, and identifying electronic recordkeeping as WURC, as recognized by Alice). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 58-65, 67-70, and 72-76 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 57, 66, and 71 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 58-65, 67-70, and 72-76 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 58 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of determining if the grantor has an existing power of attorney, and obtaining the existing POA, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 59 and 68 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of generating questions, processing responses, and determining if grantor has capacity, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 62 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of searching a database, confirming the grantor’s identity, determining if the power of attorney meets all formalities, and storing the power of attorney, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 63 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of receiving a request and obtaining consent, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 64 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of determining if the SDMs have been authorized, confirming identification of the SDMs, and obtaining consent from the SDMs, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 65 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of alerting all the SDMs, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 67 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of determining if an individual is able to act for the grantor, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 69 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of determining if the grantor’s capacity is at high risk, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 70 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of enabling communication between the system and user devices, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 72 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of generating the new power of attorney, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 73 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of automatically completing an affidavit for witnesses, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 74 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of storing a video file, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 75 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of notifying individuals associated with the POA when it is revoked, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 76 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of receiving a copy of the new POA, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 57-59, 62-65, 71-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 57 refers to “digitally releasing the power of attorney” which is confusing. It is unclear if this is referring to the current power of attorney which is previously referenced in the claims, or if this refers to a different power of attorney. For the purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes that this is referring to the previously referenced current power of attorney. Claims 71 includes a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons. The remaining claims are rejected as dependent on claim 57 or claim 71.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 57-59, 63-65, 71, 72, 74, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgoub et al. (US 20150228039), in view of Ryan (US 20150269692), and further in view of Hatter et al. (US 20120036081).
Referring to claim 57:
Mahgoub discloses a method of managing substitution decision documentation for a power of attorney for a grantor comprising: digitally receiving a current power of attorney for the grantor {Mahgoub [0040] [0048][0049]; The DPOA when invoked may be accessed (e.g., downloaded) either directly by mobile device 20 or non-mobile computing device 21 [0040] where the device receives the DPOA when it is accessed};
based on results of the capacity assessment, storing the current power of attorney {Mahgoub [0048]; DPOA issuer 32 may store the DPOA in a secure memory directly accessible by DPOA issuer 32 [0048] and where the limitation is a contingent limitation which may not occur and therefore, receives little patentable weight – see MPEP 2111.04}; and
releasing the power of attorney {Mahgoub [0053]; the grantee is allowed access to the grantor's digital asset [0053]}.
Mahgoub discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub does not disclose determining if the grantor requires a capacity assessment; administering the capacity assessment; and administering an undue influence assessment.
However, Ryan discloses a similar system for creating an electronic contract (abstract). Ryan discloses determining if the grantor requires a capacity assessment {Ryan [0030]-[0032][0041][0047][0051] and Fig. 1; an electronic device determines or verifies that the legal elements of the contract include one or more of mutual assent (such as willful offer and acceptance), intention to be legally bound, consideration (such as something bargained for and received by the two persons), capacity (such as soundness of mind and age capacity), and legality (lawfulness of the contract) [0032] and where Fig. 1 shows that consent must be received before capacity is verified, and as such, it is determined that a capacity assessment is required};
assisting the capacity assessment by providing an interactive baseline test {Ryan [0043]-[0045]; An example embodiment analyzes an image, video, and/or audio of a person to determine whether the person is under an influence of alcohol and/or drugs [0044] and Facial recognition can also be coupled with or used in conjunction with other methods and apparatus. For example, a GPS location of a person provides an indication or factor as to the capacity of the person (such as determining whether or how long the person was in a bar, club, or establishment that serves alcohol). As another example, an electronic device includes a built-in breathalyzer or communicates with a breathalyzer to determine or estimate blood alcohol content [0045] where the user interacts with the facial recognition, breathalyzer, or other testing methods}; and
assisting an undue influence assessment {Ryan [0030]-[0032][0041][0047] [0051] and Fig. 1; an electronic device determines or verifies that the legal elements of the contract include one or more of mutual assent (such as willful offer and acceptance), intention to be legally bound, consideration (such as something bargained for and received by the two persons), capacity (such as soundness of mind and age capacity), and legality (lawfulness of the contract) [0032] and the two people want to ensure that the encounter is legal and voluntary and is not subject to duress, mistake, undue influence, fraud, or a factor that would jeopardize consent [0051]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system disclosed in Mahgoub to incorporate determining if a capacity assessment is needed, and administering the capacity assessment and an undue influence assessment as taught by Ryan because this would provide a manner for verifying legal documents as being legally formed (Ryan [0031]), thus aiding the user by ensuring the legal document is enforceable.
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, does not disclose assisting an undue influence assessment by determining questions that the grantor should be asked.
However, Hatter discloses a similar system for a using a web based Notary Public (abstract). Hatter discloses assisting an undue influence assessment by determining questions that the grantor should be asked {Hatter claim 1; an assessment screening survey requiring said potential employee to answer questions and or provide information regarding their said employer, identity, volition, duress, and awareness to execute the signing of an I-9 document [claim 1]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system disclosed in Mahgoub and Ryan to incorporate determining questions that a grantor should be asked as taught by Hatter because this would provide a manner for determining that the signer/grantor is in compliance (Hatter claim 1), thus aiding the user by ensuring the legal document is enforceable.
Referring to claim 58:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses wherein obtaining the current power of attorney comprises: determining if the grantor has an existing power of attorney; and obtaining the existing power of attorney as the current power of attorney if one is found or generating a new power of attorney as the current power of attorney {Mahgoub [0044]-[0048]; where authenticating the grantor to determine if they are the actual grantor is determining if the grantor has a POA and where the POA is sent to the user device once the grantor is authenticated}.
Referring to claim 59:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses wherein determining if the grantor requires a capacity assessment comprises: generating a set of questions for the grantor to answer; processing responses to the set of questions; and determining if grantor has capacity based on responses to the set of questions {Ryan [0021][0041]-[0046]; An example embodiment verifies capacity of the parties to enter into the contract [0041] and By way of example, image and/or voice analysis looks for, recognizes, detects, or determines glassy eyes, dilated pupils, red eyes, watery eyes, frequent or continuous squinting, slow reflexes, slurred speech, slow movements or responses to questions [0044]}.
Referring to claim 63:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses receiving a request from a requestor for the current power of attorney {Mahboub [0050]; the purported grantee may request to use the DPOA [0050]}; and obtaining consent from the grantor or all substitute decision makers (SDMs) to provide the current power of attorney to the requestor {Mahgoub [0045][0046][0053]; If the evaluation is positive, then control of process 300 passes to step 313 at which the grantee has permission to use the DPOA, e.g., the grantee is allowed access to the grantor's digital asset, or allowed to exercise control within the authority of the DPOA [0053]}.
Referring to claim 64:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses wherein obtaining consent from the SDM comprises: determining if all the SDMs have been authorized by the grantor to make a decision on behalf of the grantor; confirming identification of all the SDMs; and obtaining consent from all the SDMs to provide the current power of attorney {Mahgoub [0050]-[0053]; Control of process 300 may transition to step 309 at which the purported grantee may request to use the DPOA. Next, control of process 300 may transition to step 310 at which the purported grantee will recall the DPOA from a memory and present the DPOA to a digital service (e.g., an electronic interface of a bank or custodian such as financial institution 40, or an electronic interface of a health care provider, etc.). The presentation will ordinarily be via a communication network such as internet 28. The request includes identification credentials of the purported grantee [0050] where the fact that the grantee is requesting to use the DPOA indicates consent}.
Referring to claim 65:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses determining if all the SDMs have been authorized comprises: alerting all the SDMs that the request for the current power of attorney has been received {Mahgoub [0031][0048]; If the DPOA is determined to be both valid and effective, then the grantee and/or the digital data store may be notified that the DPOA may be used by the grantee [0031]}.
Referring to claim 71:
Claim 71 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 57, with the following additions:
Mahgoub discloses under the control of one or more computer systems configured with instructions {Mahgoub [0012][0021]-[0025][0037]-[0039]; storing and/or providing instructions to a processor for execution [0025]}.
Referring to claim 72:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses generating the new power of attorney via a virtual or electronic methodology or via hardcopy printout and signature {Mahgoub [0048]; create a DPOA and transmit the DPOA to a user device [0048]}.
Referring to claim 74:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses storing a video file associated with the new power of attorney {Ryan [0025][0030][0044][0084]; other data concerning the contract can also be stored. Such other data includes, but is not limited to, metadata, personal information about the parties to the contract, photographs, images, and video of the parties to the contract [0084]}.
Referring to claim 76:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses wherein generating the new power of attorney further comprises: receiving a digitally signed copy of the new power of attorney or receiving a digital copy of an uploaded hardcopy of the new power of attorney {Mahgoub [0028]-[0030]; An electronic DPOA may consist of digital signature of the issuer and/or other information [0029]}.
Claims 66-67 and 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgoub et al. (US 20150228039), in view of Ryan (US 20150269692).
Referring to claim 66:
Mahgoub discloses a system for managing a power of attorney (POA) for a grantor comprising: a processor including a set of modules for managing a POA {Mahgoub [0012][0021]-[0025][0037]-[0039]; storing and/or providing instructions to a processor for execution [0025]}, the set of modules including:
an intake module {Mahgoub [0021]-[0025][0040]; a grantor using mobile device 20 or non-mobile computing device 21 may register with the DPOA issuer [0040] and further, the description of the module as an “intake module” is merely descriptive, does not further narrow the scope of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight};
a medical information module {Mahgoub [0034][0045][0055]; the DPOA issuer 32 may be in communication with one or more repositories of sensitive information such as a financial institution 40 where the users of the mobile devices 20 and/or non-mobile devices 21 may have a relationship of some sort, such as business or health care [0034] and further, the description of the module as an “medical information module” is merely descriptive, does not further narrow the scope of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight};
a POA generation module for generating the POA {Mahgoub [0048]; create a DPOA and transmit the DPOA to a user device [0048]}; and
a POA database for storing the POA {Mahgoub [0048]; DPOA issuer 32 may store the DPOA in a secure memory directly accessible by DPOA issuer 32 [0048]}.
Mahgoub discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub does not explicitly disclose a cognitive screening module; and a capacity assessment module.
However, Ryan discloses a similar system for creating an electronic contract (abstract). Ryan discloses a cognitive screening module; and {Ryan [0030]-[0032][0041][0047][0051] and Fig. 1; an electronic device determines or verifies that the legal elements of the contract include one or more of mutual assent (such as willful offer and acceptance), intention to be legally bound, consideration (such as something bargained for and received by the two persons), capacity (such as soundness of mind and age capacity), and legality (lawfulness of the contract) [0032] and where the description of the module as a “cognitive screening module” or a “capacity assessment module” is merely descriptive, does not further narrow the scope of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight} a capacity assessment module providing an interactive baseline test {Ryan [0043]-[0045]; An example embodiment analyzes an image, video, and/or audio of a person to determine whether the person is under an influence of alcohol and/or drugs [0044] and Facial recognition can also be coupled with or used in conjunction with other methods and apparatus. For example, a GPS location of a person provides an indication or factor as to the capacity of the person (such as determining whether or how long the person was in a bar, club, or establishment that serves alcohol). As another example, an electronic device includes a built-in breathalyzer or communicates with a breathalyzer to determine or estimate blood alcohol content [0045] where the user interacts with the facial recognition, breathalyzer, or other testing methods}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system disclosed in Mahgoub to incorporate a capacity assessment module and a cognitive screening module as taught by Ryan because this would provide a manner for verifying legal documents as being legally formed (Ryan [0031]), thus aiding the user by ensuring the legal document is enforceable.
Referring to claim 67:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, discloses a substitute decision maker (SDM) verification module for determining if an individual is able to act for the grantor {Mahgoub [0053]; Next, control of process 300 transitions to step 312, at which the DPOA issuer/validation is evaluating the authenticity and effectiveness of the DPOA in order to verify that the DPOA is genuine, that the DPOA is currently effective, and/or that the grantee is requesting control and/or access that is within the scope of the DPOA [0053]}.
Referring to claim 69:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, discloses a cognitive screen module, capacity assessment module and medical information module to determine if the grantor's capacity is at high risk {Ryan [0041]-[0046]; An example embodiment verifies capacity of the parties to enter into the contract. Capacity includes, but is not limited to, one or more of having an appropriate or legal age, having or not having a mental condition (such as being insane or having a mental deficiency to prevent entering into a contract), being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, being bankrupt or another physical or mental state that would affect the ability to enter into a legally binding agreement, having a disability that would affect an ability to enter into a contract, acting beyond your power (such as ultra vires) [0041]}.
Referring to claim 70:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, discloses a communication module for enabling communication between the system and user devices {Mahgoub [0033]-[0038] and Fig. 1; A communications interface 80 permits communications with a cellular network for voice and data [0038]}.
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgoub et al. (US 20150228039), in view of Ryan (US 20150269692), and further in view of Singhal (US 20070024454).
Referring to claim 68:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, discloses wherein the capacity testing module [generates questions for the interactive baseline test] and processes responses to the questions to determine if the grantor has capacity {Ryan [0021][0041]-[0046]; An example embodiment verifies capacity of the parties to enter into the contract [0041] and By way of example, image and/or voice analysis looks for, recognizes, detects, or determines glassy eyes, dilated pupils, red eyes, watery eyes, frequent or continuous squinting, slow reflexes, slurred speech, slow movements or responses to questions [0044] where Ryan does not explicitly disclose generating questions for the test (the portion of the claim in the brackets)}.
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, does not disclose wherein the capacity testing module generates questions for the interactive baseline test.
However, Singhal discloses a similar system for mental impairment determination using a reaction time test (abstract). Singhal discloses wherein the capacity testing module generates questions for the interactive baseline test {Singhal [0060]-[0062]; a temporary mental impairment determination system that has a device that generates an aural stimulus in the form of a question to be heard by a subject and that requires a response from the subject [0060]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system, including the capacity assessment as disclosed in Mahgoub and Ryan to incorporate generating questions for the capacity test as taught by Singhal because this would provide a manner for determining whether the user is temporarily mentally impaired (Singhal [0060]), thus aiding the user by verifying the user’s capacity.
Claims 62 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgoub et al. (US 20150228039), in view of Ryan (US 20150269692), in view of Hatter et al. (US 20120036081), and further in view of Cornett et al. (US 20070214365).
Referring to claim 62:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses wherein obtaining the existing power of attorney comprises: confirming that the grantor is same as individual associated with the existing power of attorney {Mahgoub [0044]-[0048]; authenticating the grantor};
determining if the existing power of attorney meets all jurisdictional formalities {Ryan [0037]; determine that the contract includes consideration, complies with legality [0037]}; and
storing the existing power of attorney as the current power of attorney {Mahgoub [0048]; DPOA issuer 32 may store the DPOA in a secure memory directly accessible by DPOA issuer 32 [0048]}.
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, does not disclose searching a database for the existing power of attorney; and revoking authority of conflicting powers of attorney.
However, Cornett discloses a similar system for a document repository (abstract). Cornett discloses searching a database for the existing power of attorney {Cornett [0022][0027]; storing in an independent repository electronic versions of documents used to grant authority for one person to perform on behalf of another person the actions specified in such documents so that such electronic versions may be later retrieved by authorized personnel . . . an online filing system for documents, which can be retrieved upon request [0022] }; and revoking authority of conflicting powers of attorney {Cornett [0026][0050]; receiving a notice from the principal that the FPOA is revoked [0050]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system disclosed in Mahgoub, Ryan, and Hatter to incorporate searching a database and revoking conflicting powers of attorney as taught by Cornett because this would provide a manner for effectively revoking an authorizing document, thereby reducing the risk to the principal that a third party will act upon a revoked authorizing document (Cornett [0012]).
Referring to claim 75:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, does not disclose notifying individuals associated with the current power of attorney when it is revoked.
However, Cornett discloses a similar system for a document repository (abstract). Cornett discloses notifying individuals associated with the current power of attorney when it is revoked {Cornett [0022][0027][0050]; notifying the third party or the fourth party that the FPOA has been revoked [0050]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system disclosed in Mahgoub, Ryan, and Hatter to incorporate notifying individuals when a POA is revoked as taught by Cornett because this would provide a manner for handling an authorizing document, thereby reducing the risk to the principal that a third party will act upon a revoked authorizing document (Cornett [0012]).
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgoub et al. (US 20150228039), in view of Ryan (US 20150269692), in view of Hatter et al. (US 20120036081), and further in view of Twining et al. (US 20130173482).
Referring to claim 73:
Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan and Hatter, discloses a system for a power of attorney service (abstract). Mahgoub, as modified by Ryan, does not disclose automatically completing an affidavit for witnesses.
However, Twining discloses a similar system for facilitating transactions between parties including creating an electronic document (abstract). Twining discloses
automatically completing an affidavit for witnesses {Twining [0096][0097]; The application or embeddable frame creates a completed electronic agreement [0096] and Note that the completed electronic agreement can be a legally binding document (e.g., notice, bill of sale, deed, affidavit, declaration, sworn statement, power of attorney, last will and testament, or other legal document) that is prepared by a first party (e.g., lawyer, government official, corporate officer, etc.) and executed by a second party (e.g., client, employee, witness, etc.) alone or in combination with one or more witnesses [0097]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legal document system disclosed in Mahgoub, Ryan, and Hatter to incorporate completing an affidavit for witnesses as taught by Twining because this would provide a manner for facilitating a transaction between parties (Twining [0008]), thereby benefitting the user by providing witnessed legal documentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended subject matter relating to “assisting the capacity assessment” and “assisting an undue influence assessment.” Remarks 7. Examiner has included new art with respect to the undue influence assessment (see Rejection, supra). As to the limitation regarding assisting the capacity assessment by providing an interactive baseline test, Applicant only argues that the prior art does not disclose the interactive baseline test. However, an interactive baseline test is broad and may include any sort of test with which a user interacts. Ryan states, “Facial recognition can also be coupled with or used in conjunction with other methods and apparatus. For example, a GPS location of a person provides an indication or factor as to the capacity of the person (such as determining whether or how long the person was in a bar, club, or establishment that serves alcohol). As another example, an electronic device includes a built-in breathalyzer or communicates with a breathalyzer to determine or estimate blood alcohol content.” Ryan ¶45. The user interacts with the facial recognition, breathalyzer, and/or other testing methods.
Applicant then argues that, as to claim 68, Ryan does not disclose generating questions for the interactive baseline test. Examiner has provided new art which addresses this limitation explicitly (see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights