Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office action is in response to the application that was filed on November 28, 2003 and in response to the amendments to the claims filed on August 26, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 14 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product Claim 1 and system Claim 20. Claim 14 recites the limitations of providing a primary user interface to the first user associated with a first set of permissions, wherein the first set of permissions is unrestricted; receiving, via the primary user interface, information associated with at least one item for storage in a database, wherein the at least one item is associated with the first user’s estate, wherein the information associated with the at least one item includes data selected from the group consisting of: an item title, an item number, an item value, an item condition, an item location, a photo or video, and a story or text associated with the item; receiving, via the primary user interface, information associated with the plurality of beneficiaries for storage in the database, wherein the information associated with the plurality of beneficiaries include data selected from the group consisting of: name, relationship, address, telephone number, email address, and an association to the at least one item; providing a beneficiary user interface to the plurality of beneficiaries associated with a set of beneficiary permissions configurable by the first user via the primary user interface; wherein the primary user interface is configured to displays a suggestions view and a beneficiary view to the first user, wherein the first user is able to toggle between the suggestions view and the beneficiary view, the suggestions view is configured to receive an input including a type of distribution for the at least one item, a hypothetical value for the at least one item, and a dynamic calculator and worksheet to enable the first user to view a dynamically calculated hypothetical result in anticipation of beneficiaries’ hypothetical participation of accepting, declining, and making a counteroffer associated with the hypothetical value input by the first user in the distribution of the item; wherein the primary user interface is configured to enable the first user to toggle between the suggestions view and beneficiary view so that both views function as a dynamic worksheet allowing the first user to modify input as needed to achieve a desired division of the item among the plurality of beneficiaries; and wherein the primary user interface further includes: a media interface configured to receive media for storage in the database, the media data being selected from the group consisting of: photographs. Videos, messages, and documents; and a password vault configured to receive and store passwords of the first user, and to enable access by a designated user after the first user’s demise.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Documenting and distributing items associated with a user’s estate to a plurality of beneficiaries recites a commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The database in Claims 1, 14, and 20 and processor in Claim 20 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The primary user interface, media interface, and password vault in Claims 1, 14, and 20 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite database in Claims 1, 14, and 20 and processor in Claim 20 and the primary user interface. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0065-0070] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 14, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 14, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2 and 10 include details for distribution; Claim 3 includes the use of a calculator; Claim 4 includes a worksheet; Claims 5, 9, 10, and 16 further details a secondary user interface and auction; Claim 6 further includes details for accessing the beneficiaries view; Claim 7 further defines the use of the interface to toggle between views (as set forth in independent claims 14 and 20); Claim 8 further details receiving information; Claims 11 and 17 further details applications for the method; Claim 12, 13, 18, and 19 includes additional functionality of the interface. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-13 and 15-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 10-13) have been fully considered, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicants argue that the claimed subject matter does not fall within commercial or legal interactions between people (Remarks, pages 10-12). However, determining the division of assets, digital or otherwise, is a legal interaction as it is designating who will legally be entitled to said asset. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of record is proper as the claims are directed towards a legal interaction.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, page 12), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims of the present invention are analogous to those of McRo (Remarks, pages 12-13), are not found persuasive. In McRo, the court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists. Further, the court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process”, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Enfish and TLI Communications, (Remarks, pages 12-13), are not found persuasive. In Enfish, the court found that the inventive concept was a new type of data structure called self-referential table to improve the storing and retrieving data in memory. The court described this as an improvement in the functioning of a computer. However, the current claims do not purport to creating or improving any data structure or a computer. Hence, Enfish does not apply.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
9/5/25
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619