DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names.
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
Notice of Pre-AIA AIA Status
The present application, filed on after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first invent to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
While the claims’ recitation of determination of death (e.g., “determine the client has died” could raise 112 enablement issues as doctors and medical equipment determine actual death, not financial software which instead determines an indication of death, not death itself, examiner has objected to this language in the claims, as Examiner believes one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the phrase “determine the client has died” as not implying an physical determination of death.
Restriction/Election
While Claim 15 appears to be patentably distinct from Claims 1, 12, and their dependents under the criteria of MPEP 806.05(h) Product and Process for Using the product, Examiner did not believe that the criteria for a search burden were met. However, Examiner recognizes that Applicant may not wish to have two separate potential inventions in the same application, as this might not align with Applicant’s patent portfolio goals. If Claim 15 and its dependents are withdrawn or cancelled herein and refiled in a continuing application Examiner will not issue a double patenting rejection on those claims.
Claim Interpretation 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination
may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
recital of
structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be
construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
The terms “notifier interface”, “notifier processor”, “notifier memory”, (Claims 1 and 12) does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as all three prongs of a means plus function claim are not met. These terms do not invoke “means” or a similar nonce term (prong A). The language following them “coupled” and “configured to include” are not functions of the structure (prong B). The absence of prong A or Prong B is fatal to the existence of a means plus function claim. Because this claim limitation(s) is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Note that Braun’s processors and memory are substantially identical in structure to a “processor” in the claims herein (essentially a computer chip). The chips in the claims are “configured to” which is another way of saying “programmed” or “implements software “ for given functions. The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). In this case any server that can process location information will do. Ergo, Braun’s processors and memory are identical to Applicant’s processors, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
It should be emphasized that “apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art.” MPEP 2114. In re Danly, 263 F. 2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959) it was held that apparatus claims must be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In Hewlett-Packard Co. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does” (emphases in original). To emphasize the point further, the court added: “An invention need not operate differently than the prior art to be patentable, but need only be different” (emphases in original).
It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
MPEP 707.07(f) states:
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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. In the instant case, representative method claim 1 (and mirrored in claims 12 and 15) is directed towards facilitating tracking whether someone has died to notify entities of that death. Claims 1, 12, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the existing commercial practice which is often performed by Wills, Trusts, and Estate Law Firms (e.g., tracking if clients have died to take after death steps for estate management) determine death and notify an appropriate entity about said death. in prong one of step 2A. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea. A concept popularized from Star Trek when Dr. McCoy took a crewmember’s pulse or some other bio-recording with a tricorder and said “He’s dead Jim.”1 2 While the claims’ recitation of determination of death could raise 112 enablement issues as doctors and medical equipment determine actual death, not financial software3 which instead determines an indication of death, not death itself, examiner has objected to this language in the claims.
Any possible judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “notifier processor”, “notifier memory”, “recipient record”, and “notifier programming” and similar claims elements represent the use of non-specific, non-specialized computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the existing commercial practice of monitoring for a client’s death, determining if said death appears to have occurred, and notifying the appropriate parties afterward.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of monitoring for a client’s death, determining if said death appears to have occurred, and notifying the appropriate parties afterward using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claims 1, 12, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 12 as they are both systems with the same components and similar steps. Claim 12 adds some steps in terms of notifying multiple entities as opposed to one notification. This slight change does not affect the abstract idea analysis. Therefore, the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 12 accordingly. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 15 in terms of a method. Therefore, the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 12 accordingly.
Furthermore, independent Claim 15 and its dependents can be practiced with pencil and paper. Furthermore this is nothing more than the rather old and abstract concept of going to an estate planning attorney, having the attorney draft a will for you, paying a service fee for the attorney and/or their staff to monitor obituaries, and upon determining that you died, implementing steps to notify executors and/or next of kin, and implementing steps to eventually have your will executed and or probated.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity – – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1-14 are written in both product and method form. There are written from the perspective of what occurs when the programming is executed, to wit “notifier programming in the notifier memory, wherein execution of the notifier programming by the notifier processor configures the all companies deceased notification system to implement functions, including”. Describing actually steps taken is not appropriate for a system claim. This creates a hybrid claim and is forbidden under Ex Parte Lyell 17 USPQ2d 1548 (BPAI 1990). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) which states in part:
“II. PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).”
For the purposes of examination, the claims were interpreted to read that the system of Claim 1 had a memory capable of storing any of these instructions, which aligns with ¶¶48, 65, 66, and 69 of Applicant’s Specification).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by
“Execution of Life Insurance Policy Via Smart Contract on Blockchain” by Braun and Johnsen US2025/0054069A1 which claims priority to US Provisional Application 63/518,830 filed 8/10/2023 (“Braun”)
Special Note regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections.
MPEP 2124.01(I) states:
“The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 14, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011) provides that for purposes of evaluating an invention for novelty and nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, any strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability (hereinafter "tax strategy"), whether known or unknown at the relevant time, shall be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art. As a result, applicants will no longer be able to rely on the novelty or non-obviousness of a tax strategy embodied in their claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Any tax strategy will be considered indistinguishable from all other publicly available information that is relevant to a patent’s claim of originality. This provision aims to keep the ability to interpret the tax law and to implement such interpretation in the public domain, available to all taxpayers and their advisors.
The term "tax liability" is defined for purposes of this provision as referring to any liability for a tax under any federal, state, or local law, or the law of any foreign jurisdiction, including any statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance that levies, imposes, or assesses such tax liability.”
Applicant’s specification at ¶¶3,4 states:
“[0003] The proliferation of digital solutions for record-keeping and financial instruments held in diversified investment portfolios, bank accounts, trusts, ownership structures, and personal accounts have allowed users control over their assets and information. However, this proliferation can complicate a person's estate following death. Historically, upon one's death, a person's financial assets, they would likely be located at a single bank (checking and savings account, mortgages or assets kept in a safe deposit box) and may be at a brokerage for stocks. The executor of that decedent's estate would be able to make one or two physical visits, such as to the bank/brokerage and the courthouse, to acquire all of the decedent's financial records.
[0004] Today, however, a person may have dozens of bank accounts, investment portfolios, and real properties. If social media or web service accounts are added to the tally, a person may have hundreds of accounts requiring access by the executor. Further, by design, these accounts may all be intentionally decentralized, in order to diversify assets, as well as management of those assets, and visibility by third-parties into those assets. Thus, the task of an executor of a decedent's estate has in many instances become incredibly more complicated before the proliferation of digital solutions. In carrying out their functions, an executor typically must (1) locate and identify all of the accounts of the decedent, which may be difficult considering that some accounts may be deliberately hidden; and (2) contact each of those institutions, in the manner in which those institutions elect to be contacted, to inform the institution that their client has died. This process often needs to be performed relatively quickly, because in some cases such as life insurance policies or retirement accounts, the institution itself must identify the beneficiaries in order to disburse or transfer funds, funds which may be needed to maintain the remainder of the estate by paying levies or taxes. Additionally, different institutions take different amounts of time to transfer or retitle property, and low-priority assets may ultimately take the most time to effect transfer, which can delay processing the estate.” (emphasis added).”
¶8 states in part:
“[0008] Hence, there is room for improvement in the systems and methods for determining the death of a person, and upon determination subsequently notifying parties such as governments, creditors, heirs, and beneficiaries, of that death. The systems and methods of the present invention allow for the creation of a repository of clients and institutions, where the clients enter information relevant to accessing or transferring their client accounts at their institutions to a third-party, such as a beneficiary or an executor.”
Thus the claims relate to creating the notifications to “maintain the remainder of the estate by [i.e., through the facilitation of paying] levies or taxes.”, which is a strategy to reduce the tax burden on the estate quickly, and falls within the ambit of MPEP 2124.01.
Thus the claims relate to a tax strategy, albeit not a complex one, but a tax strategy nonetheless. Per MPEP 2124.01, the cited relevant art below, per se reads on the claims.
Prior Art Rejection
With respect to Claims 1 and 15, Braun discloses, an all companies deceased notification system (And related method), comprising:
a notifier interface (Braun at ¶¶30, 76 where there is a system with a death notice tracking system. Also see Fig 4 elements 118 and 406 );
a notifier processor, coupled to the notifier interface (Braun at ¶¶30, 76 and Fig 4 elements 408);
a notifier memory coupled to the notifier processor, the notifier memory configured to include: a recipient record (Braun at ¶¶30, 76 and Fig 4 elements 404, and 406),
the recipient record associated with a client and including a recipient interface address, a notification instruction, the notification instruction configured to be sent to the recipient interface address, and a decedent record, the decedent record referencing the notification instruction (See Braun ¶¶30, 73, and 74. Examiner notes that this portion of the limitation contains non-functional material. This is data that is stored in the memory but does not change the structure of the system);
and notifier programming in the notifier memory, wherein execution of the notifier programming by the notifier processor configures the all companies deceased notification system to implement functions,
including functions to: determine the client has died; send the notification instruction to the recipient interface address included in the recipient record associated with the client (Braun at ¶¶30, 73, 74).
With respect to Claim 2, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 1, further comprising a recipient interface, wherein the sent notification instruction is displayed on the recipient interface (Braun at ¶¶ 26, 62).
With respect to Claim 3, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 2, further comprising: a notifier network interface, coupled to the notifier interface and configured to communicate over a network; and a recipient network interface, coupled to the recipient interface and configured to communicate over the network; wherein: the notification instruction sent to the recipient interface address is sent from the notifier network interface to the recipient network interface via the network (Braun at ¶¶80, 81 where the system has multiple communication interfaces).
With respect to Claim 4, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 3, wherein the recipient interface is configured to receive digital signals and analog signals, and the notification instruction sent to the recipient interface address from the notifier network interface is sent only as a digital signal (Braun at ¶¶82-84, computer speakers receive analog signals. Keyboards are analog interfaces, touchscreens are digital.).
With respect to Claim 5, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 3, wherein the recipient interface is configured to receive digital signals in a non-human-readable format, and to receive analog signals or digital signals in a human-readable format, and the notification instruction sent to the recipient interface address from the notifier network interface is sent only as a digital signal in a non-human readable format (Braun at ¶¶82-85 where the peripherals can communicate with each other in machine-readable formats. Text on an LCD display is a human readable format.)
With respect to Claims 6 and 16, Braun discloses the all companies deceased notification system of claim 1 (and related method), wherein the function to determine the client has died further includes comparing death certificate information from a death certificate to client information associated with the client (Braun at ¶¶29, 30. A death notice from a government record repository is synonymous with death certificate).
With respect to Claims 7 and 17, Braun discloses, the the all companies deceased notification system of claim 1 (and related method), wherein the function to determine the client has died further includes comparing a recorded identifier in an identifier death database to a client identifier associated with the client (Braun at ¶46).
With respect to Claim 8, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 7, wherein the identifier death database is included within the notifier memory (Braun at ¶46 where the database is part f the Policy Management System and other “Modules and Data”).
With respect to Claim 9, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 1, further comprising: a client interface; a client processor, coupled to the client interface; a client memory coupled to the client processor; and client programming in the client memory, wherein execution of the client programming by the client processor configures the all companies deceased notification system to implement functions, including functions to: create or modify the notification instruction (Braun at ¶¶46-49 where the system .creates notifications to specific destinations.)
With respect to Claim 10, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 1, wherein the notification instruction includes credentials associated with the client at a recipient associated with the recipient interface address (Braun at ¶¶48-50 and 36-39 where blockchain addressing is used.)
With respect to Claim 11, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 1, wherein: the recipient interface address is associated with a recipient; the client is associated with a client account held by the recipient; the notification instruction includes a credentialing prerogative, the credentialing prerogative instructing the recipient to associate the client account to a third-party credential (Braun at ¶¶30-31).
With respect to Claim 12, Braun discloses, an all companies deceased notification system, comprising:
a notifier interface; a notifier processor, coupled to the notifier interface (Braun at ¶¶30, 76 where there is a system with a death notice tracking system. Also see Fig 4 elements 118 and 406 );
a notifier memory coupled to the notifier processor (Braun at ¶¶30, 76 and Fig 4 elements 404, and 406),, the memory configured to include: a first recipient record of a plurality of recipient records, the first recipient record associated with a client and including a first recipient interface address of a plurality of recipient addresses, a first notification instruction of a plurality of notification instructions, the first notification instruction configured to be sent to the first recipient interface address, a second recipient record of the plurality of notification instructions, the second recipient record associated with the client and including a second recipient interface address of the plurality of recipient addresses, a second notification instruction of the plurality of notification instructions, the second notification instruction configured to be sent to the second recipient interface address, and a decedent record, the decedent record configured to reference the plurality of notification instructions (See Braun ¶¶30, 73, and 74. Examiner notes that this portion of the limitation contains non-functional material. This is data that is stored in the memory but does not change the structure of the system);
and notifier programming in the notifier memory, wherein execution of the notifier programming by the notifier processor configures the all companies deceased notification system to implement functions, including functions to: determine the client has died (Braun at ¶¶30, 73, 74).;
send the plurality of notification instructions to the plurality of recipient interface addresses included in the plurality of recipient records associated with the client (Braun at ¶¶39-43).
With respect to Claim 13, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of notification instructions is all sent to the plurality of recipient interface addresses included in the plurality of recipient records associated with the client in response to a single physical interaction at the notifier interface (Braun at ¶¶39-43).
With respect to Claim 14, Braun discloses, the all companies deceased notification system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of notification instructions is all sent to the plurality of recipient interface addresses included in the plurality of recipient records associated with the client in response to the determination that the client has died and zero physical interactions at the notifier interface .
With respect to Claim 18, Braun discloses, the method of claim 15, further comprising sending a plurality of notification instructions to a plurality of recipient interface addresses included in a plurality of recipient records associated with the client (Braun at ¶¶39-43)..
With respect to Claim 19, Braun discloses, the method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of notification instructions to the plurality of recipient interface addresses included in the plurality of recipient records associated with the client are all sent in response to a single physical interaction (Braun at ¶¶39-43).
With respect to Claim 20, Braun discloses, the method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of notification instructions to the plurality of recipient interface addresses included in the plurality of recipient records associated with the client are all sent in response to the determination that the client has died (Braun at ¶30).
Documents Considered but not relied upon
The following references read substantially if not completely on Claim 1.
Selective Online Content Removal Based on Activity History US 12,675,833B2
Systems and Methods for Automated Distribution of Digital Assets, US2020/0349663A1
Death Notification System, Method, and Computer Program, JP6,751,176B1
Protection of Rights of Bequeathers And Beneficiaries, US2018/0101920A1
Deceased Notification System And Method, US2017/0132736A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3at_Ev2kOoI&feature=youtu.be
2 https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/He%27s_dead,_Jim
3 To paraphrase Dr. McCoy, “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a tax professional.”
Prosecution Insights