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 CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 2, 3 have been added via preliminary amendments.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The Examiner asserts that provisional application 62/588014, filed on November 17, 2017, non-provisional parent application 15/996360, filed on June 1, 2018, and non-provisional parent application 16/686608, filed on 11/18/2019, do not provide support for the following limitation found in claim 1 and, in addition to those discussed above, non-provisional application 17/693675 filed on March 14, 2022 does not provide support for claims 2, 3:
Specifically:
Claim 1:
a computer server comprising a memory storing user data corresponding to more than one cloud storage accounts having digital assets aggregated in the memory of the server, wherein the user data includes login credentials, and storing legacy representative data including legacy representative login credentials
a computer server comprising a memory storing user data corresponding to the more than one cloud storage accounts having digital assets aggregated in the memory of the server, wherein the user data includes login credentials, and storing legacy representative data including legacy representative login credentials;
a user computing device operable by a legacy representative coupled to the computer server, the computer server programmed to
receive from the user computing device a signal indicating a person associated with the user data is deceased, wherein the signal is sent without confirming documentation of the death of the person associated with the user data
receive a signal from the user computing device a signal to access aggregated cloud storage accounts, wherein the user computing device operates to save the files to a different storage location, except the portions of the digital assets transferred to the specified individuals
Claim 2:
the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed with artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze smart data to determine an online presence or digital profile of the deceased user and automatically scrub the online presence or digital profile
Claim 3:
the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed with artificial intelligence algorithms to smart data to determine an online presence or digital profile of the deceased user and automatically recommend how to scrub the online presence or digital profile
(emphasis added)
Accordingly, the applicant’s earliest effective priority date is to the filing date of the application 17/693675 filed on March 14, 2022 for claim 1, while claims 2 and 3 have an effective filing date of the instant application filed on August 13, 2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because with the exception of certain limitations, terms, or phrases not found in the instant application, the claims are, otherwise, identical. That is, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,635 fully discloses the entirety of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second “a signal” in the first line of the last limitation should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that the term “analyze” is missing in the second line between “algorithms to” and “smart data” based on the similarity it shares with claim 2 and because the claim does not make sense with how it is currently presented. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 2, 3, the Examiner asserts that there is no support in the specification for “artificial intelligence”. Although ¶ 42, 28 recite “algorithms”, this is insufficient and not equivalent to support “artificial intelligence”.
In regards to claims 2, 3, the phrase “smart data” has not been defined. One of skill in the art would be unable to determine what the applicant was in possession of and, consequently, how to perform claims 2, 3. That is to say, because the specification does not define “smart data”, one of skill in the art would be unable to determine how the artificial intelligence would be able to determine, automatically scrub, or recommend how to scrub the online presence or digital profile. There is no guidance in the specification to allow one of skill in the art to determine what the applicant was in possession of with respect to “smart data” or how it is being utilized by artificial intelligence.
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, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 1:
storing user data corresponding to more than one cloud storage accounts having digital assets, wherein the user data includes login credentials, and storing legacy representative data including legacy representative login credentials;
receive from the first user a signal including the login credentials for the more than one cloud storage accounts and the legacy representative data including the legacy representative login credentials;
send selectable elements corresponding to the more than one cloud storage accounts;
receive and store instructions to transfer portions of the digital assets stored in the more than one cloud storage accounts to specified individuals in the event of the user's death and limits the legacy representative's access to the portion of the digital assets transferred;
receive a signal indicating the user associated with the user data is deceased, wherein the signal is sent without confirming documentation of the death of the person associated with the user data;
automatically process the signal received and retrieve the stored user data;
automatically transfer the portions of the digital assets to the specified individuals; and
receive a signal to access aggregated cloud storage accounts, save the files to a different storage location, except the portions of the digital assets transferred to the specified individuals.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of asset management after end of life, which corresponds to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by humans, e.g., having a human who is not deceased to create an end-of-life plan that dictates how their accounts should be handled when they have passed, in this case, providing instructions and the necessary information to dictate which content should be given to which beneficiary after they have passed.
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
storing user data corresponding to more than one cloud storage accounts having digital assets, wherein the user data includes login credentials, and storing legacy representative data including legacy representative login credentials;
receive from the first user a signal including the login credentials for the more than one cloud storage accounts and the legacy representative data including the legacy representative login credentials;
send selectable elements corresponding to the more than one cloud storage accounts;
receive and store instructions to transfer portions of the digital assets stored in the more than one cloud storage accounts to specified individuals in the event of the user's death and limits the legacy representative's access to the portion of the digital assets transferred;
receive a signal indicating the user associated with the user data is deceased, wherein the signal is sent without confirming documentation of the death of the person associated with the user data;
automatically process the signal received and retrieve the stored user data;
automatically transfer the portions of the digital assets to the specified individuals; and
receive a signal to access aggregated cloud storage accounts, save the files to a different storage location, except the portions of the digital assets transferred to the specified individuals,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server. That is, other than reciting a generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server in the context of this claim encompasses a service provider of the now deceased to receive a notification that their client has passed and, in response, execute an end-of-life plan that encompasses bequeathing the deceased’s assets to specified beneficiaries, which is based on the abstract idea of collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium and cloud-based system, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server to communicate, store, and display information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform with the aid of pen and paper or simply by having a conversation between two or more humans, i.e. a first human informing a second human/service provider that a client of the provider has passed away and referring to an end-of-life plan that includes the directives established before the client’s death and following those directives, such as, transferring assets to a beneficiary. The generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server can perform the extra solution steps of communicating and storing information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic first computer, a generic second computer, and a generic server.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium and cloud-based system to perform the steps of:
storing user data corresponding to more than one cloud storage accounts having digital assets, wherein the user data includes login credentials, and storing legacy representative data including legacy representative login credentials;
receive from the first user a signal including the login credentials for the more than one cloud storage accounts and the legacy representative data including the legacy representative login credentials;
send selectable elements corresponding to the more than one cloud storage accounts;
receive and store instructions to transfer portions of the digital assets stored in the more than one cloud storage accounts to specified individuals in the event of the user's death and limits the legacy representative's access to the portion of the digital assets transferred;
receive a signal indicating the user associated with the user data is deceased, wherein the signal is sent without confirming documentation of the death of the person associated with the user data;
automatically process the signal received and retrieve the stored user data;
automatically transfer the portions of the digital assets to the specified individuals; and
receive a signal to access aggregated cloud storage accounts, save the files to a different storage location, except the portions of the digital assets transferred to the specified individuals,
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.
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it encompasses a human searching for and identifying information regarding the user’s public presence or digital profile and scrubbing the information. Additionally, the claim recites generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it encompasses a human searching for and identifying information regarding the user’s public presence or digital profile and providing a recommendation of how to handle (scrub) the identified information. Additionally, the claim recites generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for managing assets of a deceased individual. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allinson et al. (US PGPub 20170091887 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Allinson discloses a digital asset management system comprising:
a computer server comprising a memory storing user data corresponding to more than one cloud storage accounts having digital assets aggregated in the memory of the server, wherein the user data includes login credentials, and storing legacy representative data including legacy representative login credentials (¶ 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 48, 54, 61 wherein a central cloud-based system storing information corresponding to, at least, social media platforms, user data, user login credentials, and legacy representative credentials is disclosed);
a first user computer device operable by a user coupled to the computer server (¶ 14, 21, 22 wherein a user accesses the central system to establish after death instructions with respect to how their digital content, e.g., digital accounts, digital photographs, email, and etc., should be managed, as will be discussed in more detail below); and
a second user computing device operable by a legacy representative coupled to the computer server, the computer server programmed to (Fig. 1, 4; ¶ 17, 48, 74 wherein a legacy computing device is coupled to the central system and operably by a legacy representative, e.g., the user’s/deceased’s attorney):
receive from the first user computing device a signal for accessing the system and coupling the first user computing device to the server (¶ 14, 23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 48 wherein the user accesses the system to generate and manage an account that includes the necessary information to facilitate their after-death requests);
receive from the first user computing device a signal including the login credentials for the more than one cloud storage accounts and the legacy representative data including the legacy representative login credentials (¶ 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 48, 54, 61 wherein a central cloud-based system storing information corresponding to, at least, social media platforms, user data, user login credentials, and legacy representative credentials; ¶ 14, 23, 28, 21, 29, 32, 34, 48 wherein configuration of this information is initiated and managed via the user’s computing device using their login credentials, i.e. user identifier and password of the account holder);
send for display on the first user computing device selectable elements corresponding to the more than one cloud storage accounts (¶ 14, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 48, 56, 70, 76 wherein the user’s device displays the various selectable elements that correspond to their cloud storage accounts, e.g., Twitter, Facebook, personal user site, and etc., to allow the user to select and instruct the system as to which content or access levels a beneficiary will have access to);
receive and store from the first user computing device instructions for the server to transfer portions of the digital assets stored in the more than one cloud storage accounts to specified individuals in the event of the user's death and limits the legacy representative's access to the portion of the digital assets transferred (¶ 14, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 48, 54, 56, 70, 76 wherein the user and system establish rules and sub-keys that allow for different levels of access for the user’s beneficiaries, as well as limiting the legacy representative’s access of the digital assets);
receive from the second user computing device a signal indicating the user associated with the user data is deceased, wherein the signal is sent without confirming documentation of the death of the person associated with the user data (¶ 48 wherein the central system receives, from the legacy representative, a signal indicating that the user associated with the user data is deceased and wherein the signal is sent without confirming documentation of the death);
automatically process the signal received from the second user computing device and retrieve the stored user data (¶ 14, 23, 32, 48 wherein, in response to receiving the signal that the user is deceased, the central system retrieves stored user data and executes after life actions);
automatically transfer the portions of the digital assets to the specified individuals (¶ 14, 23, 28, 32, 48, 54. 56 wherein, in accordance to the access rules established by the user, the system transfers the digital assets to their respective/corresponding beneficiaries); and
receive a signal from the second user computing device a signal to access aggregated cloud storage accounts, wherein the user computing device operates to save the files to a different storage location, except the portions of the digital assets transferred to the specified individuals (¶ 32, 48, 56 wherein the user can distribute a sub-key to the legacy representative, which grants the representative access to transfer digital assets, e.g., electronic mail, photographs, or etc., to their respective computing device. That is to say, the sub-key assigned to the user’s beneficiaries, including the user’s legacy representative, grants the beneficiaries to access the user’s digital assets that has been assigned to them, e.g., the user’s digital photographs, social media account, blogs, or etc., to do with what they wish, e.g., view, delete, save, or etc. By granting access to the user’s digital assets after their death to a specified beneficiary, the beneficiary is effectively now the new owner of the digital asset(s)).
______________________________________________________________________
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US PGPub 2017/0091887 A1) in view of Lacher et al. (US PGPub 20230401661 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Allinson discloses a system and method for managing a user’s digital assets after their death. Although Allinson discloses a wide range of services that can be performed in accordance with directives established by the user in their end-of-life plan and that a search is performed for accounts identified by the user before their death, Allinson fails to disclose all possible services that can be performed, such as, but not limited to, using artificial intelligence to search for or determine the user’s online presence or digital profile after their death and scrubbing their presence or profile.
To be more specific, Allinson fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed with artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze smart data to determine an online presence or digital profile of the deceased user and automatically scrub the online presence or digital profile
As best understood, in light of the rejection provided under 35 USC 112(a), Lacher, which is also directed towards managing digital assets after a user’s death, further teaches that it would have obvious to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) with managing a deceased’s online presence or digital content as this allows for the system to analyze digital content to identify private content and/or objectionable, explicit, or otherwise undesirable content prior to memorializing, downloading, deleting, or transferring ownership of the digital content. This allows for the system to selectively delete or modify the digital content after the user has passed away, which the Examiner asserts is equivalent to scrubbing the user’s online presence or digital profile.
(For support see: ¶ 54, 55, 59, 60)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the after-death digital asset management system and method of Allinson, with the ability to utilize AI to determine the deceased’s online presence or digital profile and scrub their presence or profile, as taught by Lacher, as this allows for the system to selectively delete or modify private content and/or objectionable, explicit, or otherwise undesirable content prior to memorializing, downloading, deleting, or transferring ownership of the digital content after the user has passed away.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allinson (US PGPub 2017/0091887 A1) in view of Lacher et al. (US PGPub 20230401661 A1) in further view of McKendrick et al. (AI Isn’t Ready to Make Unsupervised Decisions).
In regards to claim 3, Allinson discloses a system and method for managing a user’s digital assets after their death. Although Allinson discloses a wide range of services that can be performed in accordance with directives established by the user in their end-of-life plan and that a search is performed for accounts identified by the user before their death, Allinson fails to disclose all possible services that can be performed, such as, but not limited to, using artificial intelligence to search for or determine the user’s online presence or digital profile after their death and scrubbing their presence or profile.
To be more specific, Allinson fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed with artificial intelligence algorithms to smart data to determine an online presence or digital profile of the deceased user and automatically recommend how to scrub the online presence or digital profile
As best understood, in light of the rejection provided under 35 USC 112(a), Lacher, which is also directed towards managing digital assets after a user’s death, further teaches that it would have obvious to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) with managing a deceased’s online presence or digital content as this allows for the system to analyze digital content to identify private content and/or objectionable, explicit, or otherwise undesirable content prior to memorializing, downloading, deleting, or transferring ownership of the digital content. This allows for the system to selectively delete or modify the digital content after the user has passed away, which the Examiner asserts is equivalent to scrubbing the user’s online presence or digital profile.
(For support see: ¶ 54, 55, 59, 60)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the after-death digital asset management system and method of Allinson, with the ability to utilize AI to determine the deceased’s online presence or digital profile and scrub their presence or profile, as taught by Lacher, as this allows for the system to selectively delete or modify private content and/or objectionable, explicit, or otherwise undesirable content prior to memorializing, downloading, deleting, or transferring ownership of the digital content after the user has passed away.
The combination of Allinson and Lacher discloses a system and method for managing a user’s digital assets after their death and utilizing AI to scrub the user’s online presence or digital profile prior to memorializing, downloading, deleting, or transferring ownership of the digital content after the user has passed away. Although the combination of Allinson and Lacher discloses utilizing AI to determine and analyze the user’s online presence or digital profile to scrub their online presence or digital profile prior to memorializing, downloading, deleting, or transferring ownership of the digital content after the user has passed away, the combination of Allinson and Lacher fails to explicitly disclose whether it would have been obvious for AI to recommend an action.
To be more specific, the combination of Allinson and Lacher fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed with artificial intelligence algorithms to smart data to determine an online presence or digital profile of the deceased user and automatically recommend how to scrub the online presence or digital profile
However, McKendrick teaches that although, “artificial intelligence designed to assist with decision-making when the data, parameters, and variables involved are beyond human comprehension. For the most part, AI systems make the right decisions given the constraints. However, AI notoriously fails in capturing or responding to intangible human factors that go into real-life decision-making — the ethical, moral, and other human considerations that guide the course of business, life, and society at large.”
Consequently, McKendrisk teaches, “There are three levels of machine-driven or enhanced decision-making, as delineated by Gartner analyst Patrick Long in The Future of Decisions: higher-level decision support, in which decisions are primarily made by humans, “based on principles and ethics, experience and bias, logic and reasoning, emotion, skills and style;” augmented machine support, in which machines an AI “generate recommendations, provide diagnostic analytics for human validation and exploration;” and highly automated settings, in which there is still a need for “guard rails or a humanin-the-loop for exceptional cases.”
“A degree of human involvement is called for in all scenarios involving AI-based decisions. Business and technology leaders need to ensure that their AI systems have the necessary checks and balances — along with consistent human oversight — to ensure that AI is ethical and moral.”
“Keep humans in the loop. It must be easy and practical to override AI decisions. Many managers and executives already working with AI admit they have had to intervene in their systems due to delivery of erroneous or unfair results. One in four executives responding to a survey conducted by SAS, Accenture Applied Intelligence, Intel, and Forbes say they have had to rethink, redesign, or override an AI-based system due to questionable or unsatisfactory results. Among this group, 48% said the reason was the solution was not used / applied as intended/expected. Another 38% said their model outputs were inconsistent or inaccurate, while 34% said their solution was deemed unethical or inappropriate.”
“In our view, AI still has a long way to go in making the ultimate decisions in real-world life situations that require more holistic, subjective reasoning. It still is merely a factual engine that acts based on probabilities and scores, mostly based on historical data, with no context of the implications of the information it is delivering. AI may make the right decisions based on facts, but may lack the empathy that needs to be part of those decisions. We still need humans in the middle to assess the value of insights and decisions to the welfare of humans, businesses and communities. AI can help with providing decision-making points, but humans must still be involved in making that decision – ultimately, it needs to be augmented intelligence instead of pure artificial intelligence.”
(For support see: Pages 1 – 9)
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and beneficial to modify the combination of Allinson and Lacher to allow for human intervention, as taught by McKendrick, as a deceased’s online presence or digital profile is one that has great importance or effect upon the deceased and/or their loved ones, friends, and the like. McKendrick teaches that AI can provide or assist as user with a decision, but that a human should be involved in that decision making because there may be content that is subjective and its removal or scrubbing can have a long-lasting effect on those who knew the deceased. As a non-limiting example, scrubbing the deceased’s online presence or digital profile without having a human first review the content or be provided with the opportunity to approve the removal of the content could lead the AI to remove photographs of a newborn or babies because the AI system may have been configured with strict rules that state that “children images” are improper content and because newborn and baby pictures fall under this rule this would result in the deceased’s spouse forever losing precious pictures of their children.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the digital asset management system and method of the combination of Allinson and Lacher with the ability to have AI recommend an action rather than taking an action on its own, as taught by McKendrick, because AI is not perfect and still requires humans to be left in the loop with important decision-making situations. McKendrick teaches that it would have been beneficial for AI to assist a user in a decision-making process rather than make a decision on its own as this can prevent unwanted results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
McMillen (US PGPub 2025/0245763 A1); Amante (AU 2017101945 A4); Nayshtut et al. (US PGPub 2016/0182240 A1); Benucci et al. (US PGPub 2017/0034182 A1); Micklitz et al. (I hereby leave my email to... Data Usage Control and the Digital Estate); Bahri et al. (What Happens to My Online Social Estate When I Am Gone An Integrated Approach to Posthumous Online Data Management); Holt et al. (From Personal Data to Digital Legacy_ Exploring Conflicts in the Sharing, Security and Privacy of Post-mortem Data); Petkovic et al. (Digital Inheritance of Personal and Commercial Content Using DRM) – which are directed towards end-of-life/estate planning and execution and discuss the various services that can be performed after a user has passed away, such as, but not limited to, digital data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/9/2025