DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 5/29/2026.
Claims 1-2, 8-13, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous objections thereto; therefore, these objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The previous 112(f) interpretation of “a memory storage system” of Claim 1 was addressed in the present Remarks under the title “112 Rejections.” Examiner clarifies that interpretation under 112(f) is not in and of itself a rejection, and in this case did not result in further rejection under 112(a) or 112(b) standards. That said, Examiner agrees that the present amendments to Claim 1 obviate this interpretation by providing sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform the functions associated with this memory storage system; thus, this interpretation is presently withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejection of Claims 1, 8, and 15 related to the language “to enhance the personalization and emotional impact” of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item,” the present claim amendments do not address this issue as relates to Claims 1 and 15. However, based on Applicant’s acknowledgement and acceptance in the present Remarks of the previous Office Action’s interpretation of this language as intended use/intended result, and consequent lack of patentable weight afforded to this language (said interpretation carried forward presently), these rejections of Claims 1 and 15 are withdrawn. Examiner notes that should this enhancing of personalization and emotional impact be re-drafted as an active step at some point (e.g., similar to the presently amended “sentiment analysis” of Claim 8) rather than intended use/intended result, this issue will need to be revived.
Regarding this same issue as applies to presently amended Claim 8, the removal of the “to enhance the personalization and emotional impact” therein obviates this issue, and therefore this rejection is withdrawn. Examiner notes that, in isolation, the newly claimed “sentiment analysis” would represent a subjective term in similar manner (ie: while this analysis is “based on objective, defined inputs” as argued in the present Remarks, this falls short of an “objective standard” as described in MPEP 2173.05(b)). However, as the specification provides such objective standards for this analysis as relate to these newly claimed recipient engagement metrics (see Paragraph 0030 as filed), this amended language need not be similarly rejected under 112(b).
The present amendments to the claims obviate all other previous 112(b) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant begins the 101 arguments of the present Remarks on the standards of Step 2A, Prong One. Before addressing the merits of these arguments, Examiner notes foundational misapprehensions of these standards found throughout these arguments (and even in the title of this section), which causes foundational failures throughout these arguments. Particularly, Applicant variously and repeatedly asserts that the previous Office Action characterizes the claims as “directed to” the abstract categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes,” and argues that the claims are not “directed to” these categories. Firstly, Step 2A, Prong One is concerned with whether a claim “recites” judicial exceptions (including abstract ideas). What a claim is “directed to” has particular meaning within the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, and is the purview of Step 2A, Prong Two rather than Prong One. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(II) and the various Examples of the Guidance. Secondly, regarding the standards of Step 2A, Prong Two, a claim need not be directed to a particular category of abstract idea (e.g., the argued categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”) to be directed to an abstract idea; rather, under Prong Two standards, any recited abstract ideas (even of different categories) are not parsed but are considered together as a singular abstract idea. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(II)(B). Thirdly, Step 2A, Prong One is performed on a limitation-by-limitation basis, not “as a whole” as argued by Applicant (though Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B do consider the claim as a whole). See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and the various subsections thereof, as well as the various Examples of the Guidance which illustrate such limitation-by-limitation consideration of recitation of abstract ideas under Prong One. As such, Applicant’s analyses and arguments here misapprehend and misapply Prong One standards. With these misapprehensions in mind, Examiner addresses the remaining relevant content of Applicant’s Prong One arguments below in relation to the actual standards of Step 2A, Prong One rather than as explicitly argued.
While the claims may be said to recite a “concrete technological system comprising defined structural components” (or rather, at least Claims 1, 15, and the dependents thereof do; Claim 8 merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing programming executable by a processor), this in no way prevents the recitation of abstract ideas. The notion that the performance of abstract steps may be considered non-abstract simply by way of high-level execution on computer elements was rejected by the Supreme Court in the seminal Alice, and generally, that is what is claimed presently: a sequence of abstract steps claimed at a high level as being executed on computer components. Applicant’s argument that the claims require “specific technical functions that require sophisticated machine processing and cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper” is simply untrue, and is not supported by anything in these Remarks or the original disclosure so far as Examiner can see. Rather, which very few exceptions, every claimed step is “drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings, Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Indeed, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (entitled “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”) is entirely devoted to refuting this erroneous notion.
To provide various non-exhaustive examples, there is nothing inherently technological about verifying a death based on cross-referencing a database (e.g., the elsewhere-argued government records or social media), communicating such a verification of death, transmitting or receiving a unique encryption key (e.g., as vaguely claimed at present, this could simply be a one-time password or the like to verify a recipient’s identity), sending messages or delivering items in response to receipt of such a key, determining or receiving instructions for delivery times, dynamically adjusting delivery schedules based on recipient availability or feedback, or performing a “sentiment analysis” on such feedback. Drafting these steps as occurring by way of computer elements as presently claimed does nothing to make this otherwise. None of these underlying functions “require[] computational infrastructure, real-time data processing, and machine-executed decision logic operating at a speed and scale that exceeds human cognitive capacity;” rather, these functions are merely claimed at a high level as being performed via computer elements. To be clear, said computer elements themselves and the arrangement thereof constitute non-abstract additional elements, and must be considered as such under Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B (e.g., as in the previous and present 101 rejections), but this does not prevent the claimed steps from reciting abstract ideas. The caselaw support that computer-based effectuation of abstract data processing, analysis, communications, and display of results are nonetheless abstract in nature are myriad (see, e.g., the aforementioned Beteiro, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019), etc.).
Particularly regarding the argued speed of cognitive capabilities of a human, no such particular speed of execution is embodied in the claims as presently drafted, nor would such hypothetical details prevent recitation of mental processes if it were. Speed of execution is not a consideration of the mental process standard, merely practical possibility. So long as the human mind is capable of performing a step, regardless of how long such a step might take, the step recites a mental process. Such speed requirements speak to the scalability of a step, not practical possibility.
Finally on the topic of recitation of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One, assertions in the original disclosure that steps cannot be carried out in the human mind are irrelevant to this analysis. Rather, this analysis is performed based on the claimed step itself, with consideration of the original disclosure relevant to understanding that step, not for either reading in details not presently claimed or for taking this analysis out of an examiner’s hands entirely (which appears to be what Applicant is arguing should occur here). Indeed, if an applicant could simply say that a step doesn’t recite an abstract idea (or other judicial exception) because it says so in the specification, this would lead to any number of clearly ludicrous results. Further and relatedly, that a specification might say that performance of particular steps “necessitate sophisticated machine processing” does not make it so (see Step 2B analysis below for more information).
Applicant next presents arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong Two. To this end, Applicant first presents arguments under the theory that the claims embody an improvement to computers and/or computer functionality; however, what Applicant describes in these arguments are not improvements to computer functionality or technology but rather improvements to an abstract concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), an improvement to a technology is “a technological solution to a technological problem,” and further that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” What Applicant describes as a “technological problem,” specifically “how to reliably, securely, and adaptively deliver personalized posthumous digital and physical content over extended periods of time-potentially spanning years or decades-with precision, security, and sensitivity to recipient context,” is an abstract business and logistics problem, not a technological one. Indeed, other than the content to be delivered including digital content (in the context of the claims as a whole, constituting a field of use limitation), Applicant’s asserted “technological problem” has nothing whatsoever to do with technology. That Applicant chooses to effectuate the present invention via computer elements does not make this otherwise. Courts have long recognized that merely effectuating abstract processes on computers does not provide a technological improvement. See, e.g., the aforementioned Alice, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
o Applicant’s first assertion to this effect, that “the claims recite a multi-layered death verification system that integrates biometric data with third-party API gateways cross-referencing external databases, such as government records and social media platforms, to authenticate death before any content is released (see par. [0026], [0035], Fig. 3; claim 15 as amended),” is simply untrue in view of the claims in multiple ways. No claim as presently drafted performs this death verification in a “multi-layered” manner, with Claims 8 and 15 merely requiring a single metric each for this verification, and Claim 1 merely reciting a Markush group of two potential means for this verification. Additionally, Applicant here attempts to improperly read unclaimed limitations from the specification into the claim scope (biometric sensors; APIs); however, as the claims do not embody these features as presently drafted, these features are not required by the claims and thus are irrelevant to the analysis of the claims as presently drafted.
Even if the claims did reflect what is argued here, this does not constitute an improvement to technology as argued. Arguing that this improves “automated event-triggering systems” merely cloaks this broader, abstract improvement in technological language), and there is nothing inherently technological about double-checking information against a plurality of sources, something which does not require technological implementation at all, and merely reciting its effectuation in the specification (if not the claims) via technological means (biometric sensors; API calls to outside databases) merely constitutes the use of these technological features as tools to perform a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the purported “unreliability” of manual confirmation processes does not flow from what is argued here or described in the specification. As the same external information such as government records and social medial platforms would exist regardless of whether they were accessed electronically via API calls or manually perused by an individual, there is no distinction in reliability here. While biometric scanners might hypothetically provide a better match in certain circumstances, e.g., comparison of captured iris patterns against recorded iris patterns, this is not always the case, and nothing in the extremely vague description of this functionality in either the claims or the original disclosure supports the claiming of any such embodiment. The breadth of biometric comparisons is such that this might merely indicate that, for example, the eye or hair color of a body matches that of the person whose death is being verified, which is no more reliable electronically than manually. Even if Applicant did have sufficient description of this biometric functionality such that one such hypothetical scenario as noted above would be properly supported if amended into the claims (which, to be clear, the original disclosure does not provide such support), this functionality long pre-dates Applicant’s date of filing, and thus this could not reasonably be considered an improvement to technology in the present invention.
Applicant’s second assertion to this effect, that “the claims recite a real-time sentiment analysis feedback loop that dynamically modifies delivery schedules based on defined engagement metrics-including access duration, emotional response data, and recipient-selected feedback indicators” in Claim 8, likewise does not constitute an improvement to a technology, as “a specific technical data processing improvement” or otherwise. The “sentiment analysis” described in the original disclosure, e.g., deciding to provide deliveries more or less frequently, or to stop such deliveries altogether, based on human-perceptible variables such as how long a particular recipient spends looking at already delivered content, whether said recipient sends this already delivered content to others, or explicit requests from such recipients. This does not improve the way computers function, but merely claims an abstract, human-performable analysis as occurring by way of a computer. Even if this purported improvement were directed to a technology rather than an abstract concept (which, to be clear, it does not), as demonstrated by the presence of this functionality in at least the cited Scanlon reference, this argued functionality pre-dates the present application, and thus cannot be considered an improvement as of Applicant’s effective filing date. Examiner notes that the Applicant-cited Paragraph 0059 does not apply to the argued functionality of Claim 8, as that paragraph instead describes the adjustment of scheduling based on either recipient availability or different types of feedback than those found in Claim 8 and argued in the remainder of this argument (though Examiner notes for the record that this embodiment is no less abstract than the presently argued functionality of Claim 8).
Applicant’s analogy to McRO, essentially boiling down the reasoning and holding in that case to computer-based execution of rules, is erroneous, and indeed if this were the case, the inventions of Alice and innumerable other judicially rejected inventions (which could generally likewise be described as computer-based execution of rules) would have been found eligible as well. Rather, the invention of McRO applied rules to improve the process of computer facial animation automation (an undeniably technological process, contrary to the present abstract, commercial endeavor of scheduling the delivery of messages and items posthumously) to achieve improved results which were previously only achievable manually (ie: then-prior art methods of computer facial animation automation were only capable of providing unrealistic results, invoking the uncanny valley, and realistic facial animation was then only achievable via manual human computer-based animation). Applicant’s attempted analogy here strips the McRO decision of all context, and attempts to unreasonably broaden the standards set forth therein to the point of being essentially meaningless. This is clearly not in keeping with the actual content of McRO.
Applicant’s second assertion to this effect, that “the claims recite a per-release, one-time-use, recipient-specific encryption key architecture (see par. [0028], [0037]; claim 12) that is specifically tailored to the technical security requirements of posthumous content delivery” having “a self-destruct protocol that activates upon multiple failed access attempts,” similarly both cloaks a broader, abstract concept in technological language and argues features which are not embodied by the claim language. Even considering the most specific embodiment of this key captured in the claims (ie: as in dependent Claim 12), the argued self-destruct protocol is nowhere to be found. Regarding what is actually claimed, there is nothing inherently technological about a per-release, one-time-use, recipient-specific password or passkey. Such passkeys, whether used for specific users overall or more narrowly in relation to specific deliveries/orders/jobs, may and indeed have been used absent any technological implementation whatsoever, since long-prior to the advent of computers at all. As such, this cannot be said to be an improvement to a technology at all, much as of Applicant’s filing date. Even if Examiner were to solely consider technological computer implementation of such passwords (which, to be clear, would be improper in this context), such single-use passwords or passcodes were extremely well-trod ground as of Applicant’s filing date (e.g., single-use account recovery codes; identity verification codes).
Even ignoring the reference to Step 2B standards (“non-conventional, non-routine”) which do not apply to the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, both Applicant’s present Remarks and the referenced content of the specification admit that this argued feature is not inventive, as stating that this is “a feature uncommon in standard data scheduling systems” also admits that this is nonetheless a prior art feature (ie: Applicant has not invented this, but rather merely chooses to use this pre-existing feature in the present application’s field of use). Even considering this functionality in relation to Step 2B, the specification’s assertion that this is “uncommon” in system security is simply untrue. There are myriad websites which will lock a user’s account and force an identity verification and password reset after a certain number of failed attempts. Indeed, in Examiner’s experience, this is an extremely common feature provided in computer-based account security for any number of contexts (e.g., email, online shopping, social media, etc.). Even were this actually embodied in the claims as presently drafted, how Applicant can reasonably conclude that this constitutes either an improvement to a technology or other than a well-understood, routine, and conventional feature as of Applicant’s 2024 filing date is quite beyond Examiner’s understanding.
Applicant additionally presents Step 2A, Prong Two arguments under the theory that the claims embody a particular machine. Examiner disagrees. All presently recited computer elements are exceedingly generic (e.g., systems and user terminals comprising processors and memory storing programs executable by processors), as are the claimed arrangements of said elements (e.g., a computer system and a terminal device communicatively coupled, presumably over some form of network connection). Further, the abstract steps claimed as being effectuated by this arrangement of generic computing devices require no more than the most basic and ubiquitous technological functionings of such computing devices (e.g., storing, processing, and transmitting/receiving information). While much of what is argued in this section is not embodied in the claims as presently drafted and is therefore irrelevant (e.g., APIs, biometric scanners, digital clocks, data files (in this case, single-use keys) programmed to self-destruct), all such elements themselves as well as the specific purposes they serve in the specification (though, as noted, not the claims as presently drafted) were also exceedingly commonplace at Applicant’s time of filing (e.g., data transmission between different computer elements, reading biometrics, maintaining/synchronizing time, self-deletion upon a triggering condition). Rather, Applicant merely buries these elements under piles of jargon in these Remarks, seemingly in an attempt to hide the well-established nature of these elements well-prior to Applicant’s filing date. Further, that Applicant applies these long pre-existing computer elements to a particular field (here, posthumous messaging/deliveries) of use likewise does not render them a particular machine or otherwise capable of integrating the claims into a practical application (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(h)).
These generic computer elements do not evidence a particular machine within the meaning of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See also In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Reciting generic computer components, functioning in their normal method of operation (as explained above), does not constitute a particular machine under MPEP 2106.05(b). Rather, what MPEP 2106.05(b) states in this regard is that one factor in this determination is the “particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines).” The claimed computer elements are generic, and are not identified in the claims at the level of granularity required to demonstrate a particular machine rather than a generic one (see at least the discussion of Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939) in this section of the MPEP and the discussion of Example 44 in the October 2019 PEG Update). As further stated in MPEP 2106.05(b), “mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept” and “[m]erely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.”
Finally on this topic, MPEP 2106.05(b) states that “[i]t is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility.” As explained further in said section, the machine or transformation test is a consideration in Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B, but is not an individual test for eligibility. As such, even if Applicant’s argument that the present invention utilizes a particular machine was correct (which, for the reasons discussed above, it is not), this alone would not be sufficient to show integration into a practical application.
Lastly regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant additionally presents arguments under the theory that the claims produce a concrete, real-world result beyond the abstract idea itself. This, however, is not a consideration of Step 2A, Prong Two. Applicant particularly cites to MPEP 2106.05(e) as support for this standard, but this is not what is set forth in MPEP 2106.05(e). That an invention have a concrete, real-world result relates instead to the separate 101 requirement of utility, and as the claims were not previously and are not presently rejected under this requirement, these arguments are irrelevant. Even if the claims did indeed produce a concrete, real-world result beyond the abstract idea itself (something Examiner disputes; the claims merely result in the scheduling and delivery of messages and items, which is a purely abstract, commercial endeavor), this is simply not a standard of integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Further, “posthumous communication” is not a technology or technical field within the meaning of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis (instead representing an abstract, commercial field), and merely claiming its effectuation on computer elements does not make this otherwise. Applicant’s arguments here regarding the conventionality of the claimed invention does not belong under Step 2A, Prong Two, but rather under Step 2B (and indeed, this argument is reiterated and expanded in relation to Step 2B in the present Remarks). As such, this will be addressed in relation to Step 2B where it belongs.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that various non-embodied features of the original disclosure (e.g., biometric scanners, third-party APIs) as well as various abstract concepts recited in the claims (e.g., death verification, including in an unclaimed multi-layered manner; the sentiment analysis/dynamic delivery scheduling adjustment feedback loop, single-use password/key functionality) in combination variously provide an inventive concept and constitute non-conventional functionality. These arguments, as well as Applicant’s accusation that the previous Office Action does not provide Berkheimer-type evidence of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, misapprehends the standards of Step 2B writ large as well as misapprehends the particular well-understood, routine, and conventional standard, including when and to what it applies. Regarding Step 2B writ large, MPEP 2106.05 makes clear that an invention may only be found eligible under this standard by way of any recited additional elements or the combination thereof: “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’ Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” This already renders a large part of Applicant’s argued functionality irrelevant to the Step 2B analysis, as they represent abstract ideas rather than additional elements.
Particularly regarding the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration, a finding that an element or combination of elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is only required for claim elements categorized as additional elements and further sub-categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity (see, e.g., the Step 2B analyses of Example 46, Claim 1 of the October 2019 PEG Update, and of Example 47, Claim 2 and Example 48, Claim 1 of the July 2024 PEG Update). As no claim element is presently so-categorized, no finding of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (and, consequently, the argued Berkheimer-type evidence which would be necessary for such a finding) is required. Further and relatedly, whether the recited abstract ideas of the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional is entirely irrelevant to this analysis.
Additionally, as noted in multiple instances above, the argued features which are not presently embodied in the claims are entirely irrelevant at this point in time. Even ignoring that no claimed element is presently categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity (which, to be clear, would be improper), the scant additional elements recited in the claims (essentially, two highly generic computing devices each having processors and memory, in digital communication with one another, used for the delivery of digital content or physical items) constitutes such a commonplace and ubiquitous arrangement of elements that there is no reasonable way to conclude that they are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Again, that the specification articulates particular features in a certain way (here, as “non-conventional”) does not make it so. Applicant may not strip the Office of the ability (or, indeed, the statutory mandate) to perform such analyses itself simply because Applicant says so in the specification.
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s vague and unexplained reference to the prior art applied under 103, has nothing to do with subject matter eligibility under 101, including in relation to Step 2B. Subject matter eligibility and obviousness are entirely separate standards having entirely separate requirements, and should not be improperly
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant first argues against the disclosure of the claimed “recipient-specific encryption key transmitted by the recipient” functionality in the previous 103 rejections. However, Applicant does so in an improper and unpersuasive manner. Regarding the argued content, Applicant solely argues against the Austin limitation in isolation, wherein the previous Office Action cites combinations of Austin with Scanlan and MyWishes to disclose functionality in question. Applicant argues that Austin does not disclose pieces of these limitations for which Scanlan or MyWishes were cited, essentially arguing that Austin does not disclose details for which it was never cited. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Regarding the same functionality, Applicant also argues against the rationale to combine Austin with Scanlan and MyWishes (Examiner notes that Applicant correctly identifies the rationale relied upon in the previous Office Action as a “motivation”), though this argument also unpersuasive. Applicant’s assertion that the previous Office Action “has not identified a clear problem in Scanlan or MyWishes that Austin’s token specifically solves” is irrelevant, as a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine may be shown by way of such a problem but does not require one (see, e.g., MPEP 2143). Applicant’s assertion that “[t]he Office Action does not include an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would look to [Austin] when designing a posthumous memory-sharing platform” is untrue. Specifically, Austin constitutes analogous art because both Austin and the present invention relate to the field of and are pertinent to the problem of how to handle posthumous information, and the previous Office Action explicitly states that the specific motivation for this combination is “to provide data privacy and security (see at least Column 1, lines 16-30 and Column 1, line 56 through Column 2, line 20).”
Applicant next argues that “neither Scanlan, MyWishes, nor Austin disclose dynamically adjusting delivery schedules based on (1) recipient availability and (2) real-time interaction feedback received by the computing device.” Examiner firstly notes that this argument is not in keeping with the language of any presently recited claim, even as presently amended, as no claim requires said adjustment to be based on both of Applicant’s items (1) and (2) simultaneously. Rather, Claims 1 and 15 require this adjustment to be based on “at least one of” these items, and Claim 8 removes item (1) completely (and additionally further narrows item (2)). Further on this topic, Examiner notes that while the original disclosure contains some vague mentions of the possible use of both of these items in a single embodiment (see Paragraphs 0004, 0046, 0048, and 0052), every other instance in which this functionality is discussed in the original disclosure discusses them purely in the alternative, and so far as Examiner can see, the original disclosure does not provide any explanation as to how this dynamic adjustment would function when both items are considered simultaneously. As such, even if the claims were amended in the future to require this simultaneous consideration as argued, it appears that such hypothetical drafting would require rejection under 112(a) as failing to meet the written description standards thereof (though Examiner notes for clarity, this would not constitute new matter as per the aforementioned paragraphs).
Regarding the content of this argument, Applicant is mistaken. For example, as set forth in the previous 103 rejections, Scanlan discloses the adjustment of delivery times based on GPS coordinates of the recipient, e.g., when the recipient is co-located with the deceased’s gravesite or at a location particularly relevant to the deceased. This adjustment of delivery time is clearly “dynamic,” and the received GPS location of the recipient (upon which this dynamic delivery timing is based) reads upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of either recipient availability or real-time interaction feedback as claimed. Indeed, how Applicant considers the tracked GPS coordinates of the recipient device to be “static” is beyond Examiner’s understanding. Further, Applicant’s own original disclosure (see, e.g., Paragraph 0031 and Fig. 7) explicitly discloses the claimed dynamic adjustment of delivery time "based on real-time location data" of a recipient via GPS module, similar to the presently argued disclosure of Scanlan (indeed, Scanlan provides significantly more detail regarding this location-based delivery timing, which easily reads on the broader-described disclosure of the present application). As such, Applicant is essentially arguing that one of Applicant’s own explicitly recited embodiments of this functionality does not read upon this functionality.
So far as Applicant argues against this functionality in Claim 8, such arguments are based entirely on newly presented claim language and thus need not be addressed here. Further, these arguments are moot in view of the updated 103 rejections of the present Office Action. See said 103 rejections below for more information.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the death verification functionality is simultaneously based on newly drafted claim language (in Claim 15) and recites a plethora of details from the specification which are not embodied in the claim language, including biometric sensors (ie: consideration of biometric data is claimed in broader form, which does not require such sensors, solely in Claim 1 as presently drafted, and solely as part of a Markush group and is thus never required to practice any claim so long as another prong of said Markush group is disclosed – which it is), third-party API gateways, and the cross-referencing of external databases (ie: solely claimed in Claim 15 as presently drafted, and thus is irrelevant to Claims 1-14). That the content of Applicant’s original disclosure might differ, at least in some places, from the argued content of MyWishes is irrelevant where such content is not embodied in the claims themselves. So far as this functionality is further narrowed in Claim 15, this argument is moot in view of the updated 103 below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 4 and 18 are improper in similar manner as described above regarding the “recipient-specific encryption key transmitted by the recipient” functionality of Claims 1, 8, and 15: Applicant considers references in isolation, rather that properly considering how the disclosure of different references may modify one another in combination. For example, Applicant argues that “MyWishes only discloses that a user can create, upload, and send goodbye messages after their death” as opposed to also/alternatively sending items or gifts; yet if MyWishes did so, there would be no need for combination under 103. Applicant is essentially arguing that some limited form of 102 anticipation is required, which is not consistent with the standards of obviousness under 103. As explained in MPEP 2141.03: “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”
In relation to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 12, Applicant’s repeated arguments regarding Austin remain unpersuasive as already addressed above. Regarding Applicant’s further assertion that the token/key of Austin is not generated “for each scheduled release,” Examiner disagrees, as a unique key is generated for each individual record in Austin (see, e.g., Column 1, lines 16-30; Column 10, lines 3-19).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Claims 6 and 20, here again Applicant argues against references individually, rather than how the disclosures of these references modify one another when combined (e.g., as explicitly set forth in the rejections themselves). As such, Applicant again improperly argues that a reference (in this instance, Vasudevan) does not disclose details for which it was never recited, and seemingly demands some limited form of anticipation under 102 which is not in keeping with 103 standards. See above for more information.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Claim 13, Applicant again argues details of the specification which are not embodied in the claim language itself, and are therefore irrelevant. The cited combination of Scanlan and Casso reads upon what is actually claimed in Claim 13. Further, based on these arguments, it appears to Examiner that Applicant reads far more into the brief and vague content of Paragraph 0031 and Fig. 7 than is actually there, rendering the notion that Claim 13 might be further amended to distinguish from the content of the combination of Scanlan and Casso dubious. Regardless, if Applicant disagrees with this assessment, Applicant is welcome to attempt such amendments in a future round of prosecution. Regarding such hypothetical amendments, Examiner does caution that any such amended claim language should consider 112(a) written description standards for this functionality to avoid potential future rejections based thereon, given the brevity and lack of detail in the description of this functionality found in the original disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 15 contain variations of the following limitation: “dynamically adjust delivery schedules of the one or more of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item based on at least one of recipient availability and real-time interaction feedback received by the computing device to enhance the personalization and emotional impact of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item.” In this limitation, the language “to enhance the personalization and emotional impact of the shared content” represents intended use/intended result, and as such is not given patentable weight. Examiner further notes that if this language was given patentable weight, it would be indefinite under the standards of 112(b) as subjective.
Claim 12 contains the following limitation: “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to generate unique, recipient-specific encryption keys for each scheduled release, ensuring secure access to the stored digital content.” In this limitation, the language “ensuring secure access to the digital content” represents intended use/intended result, and as such is not given patentable weight.
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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, the limitations of receive verification from the memory storage system authenticating death of the user, wherein the authenticating of the user's death requires at least one of biometric data and third-party data validation; authenticate death of the user based on receiving at least one third-party data validation including cross-referencing at least one external database; in response to receiving the verification of the death of the user, transmit a unique, recipient-specific encryption key indicating that the recipient wishes to receive any of the user-selected digital content or at least one physical item associated in the memory storage system with the recipient; receive from the memory storage system, in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key: one or more of the user-selected digital content at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times, or an alert regarding upcoming delivery of the at least one physical item at the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times; receive from at least one of the one or more designated recipients availability information or sentiment feedback; and dynamically adjust delivery schedules of the one or more of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item based on at least one of recipient availability and real-time interaction feedback received by the computing device to enhance the personalization and emotional impact of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receive verification from the memory storage system authenticating death of the user, wherein the authenticating of the user's death requires at least one of biometric data and third-party data validation; authenticate death of the user based on receiving at least one third-party data validation including cross-referencing at least one external database; in response to receiving the verification of the death of the user, transmit a unique, recipient-specific encryption key indicating that the recipient wishes to receive any of the user-selected digital content or at least one physical item associated in the memory storage system with the recipient; receive from the memory storage system, in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key: one or more of the user-selected digital content at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times, or an alert regarding upcoming delivery of the at least one physical item at the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times; receive from at least one of the one or more designated recipients availability information or sentiment feedback; and dynamically adjust delivery schedules of the one or more of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item based on at least one of recipient availability and real-time interaction feedback received by the computing device to enhance the personalization and emotional impact of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device of a recipient having at least one processor and at least one memory device; wherein the computing device is communicably coupled with a memory storage system having at least one processor and at least one memory device and storing digital content and instructions, wherein the memory storage system is associated with a user and storing user-selected digital content; and digital content or at least one physical item. A computing device of a recipient having at least one processor and at least one memory device; wherein the computing device is communicably coupled with a memory storage system having at least one processor and at least one memory device and storing digital content and instructions; and wherein the memory storage system is associated with a user and storing user-selected digital content, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Digital content or at least one physical item, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 16-20, describing various additional limitations to the system of Claim 1 or the system of Claim 15, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1 and 15 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein the user-selected digital content, includes one or more of audio, video, images, GIFs, and text files (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); and wherein the user-selected digital content is organized and prioritized based on at least one of user-defined metadata and user-defined recipient relationship (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses wherein the user-specified or algorithmically determined times include at least one of significant dates and recurring events (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 18 disclose further comprising the memory storage system (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); and wherein the memory storage system is configured to coordinate with third-party providers to purchase and send physical items based on user selections prior to the death of the user (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 19 disclose wherein the computing device is configured to, in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key, receive from the memory storage system data regarding the user's will, trust, funeral instructions, and data regarding prepaid burial arrangements (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses wherein the computing device is configured to, in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key, receive age progressed images of the user for a given date based on a date associated with an image of the user retrieved from the memory storage system (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein the computing device is configured to, in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key, receive and display at least one of memory books and health books providing health and medical records related to the user (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 16 discloses wherein the memory storage system is further configured to receive the user-selected digital content from the user prior to the death of the user (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the user-selected digital content includes one or more of audio, video, images, GIFs, text files, memory books, and health books providing health and medical records related to the user (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 17 discloses wherein the user-specified or algorithmically determined times include recurring events (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 15), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 20 discloses wherein the memory storage system is configured to, in response to receiving the unique, recipient-specific encryption key, generate and transmit to the computing device, at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times, age progressed images of the user aged up to an age the user would have been at the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations of verify a user's death upon receipt of third-party data validation; at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined dates or times following verification of the user's death, instruct the at least one processor to at least one of: release or send stored digital content to one or more designated recipients, and initiate dispatch of one or more physical items to the one or more designated recipients for delivery at the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined dates or times; receive, from at least one of the one or more designated recipients, recipient engagement metrics including at least one of access duration, emotional response data, and recipient-selected feedback indicators; and automatically adjust schedules for the releasing, the sending, or the delivery of at least one of the stored digital content and the one or more physical items based on sentiment analysis of the recipient engagement metrics, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of verify a user's death upon receipt of third-party data validation; at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined dates or times following verification of the user's death, instruct the at least one processor to at least one of: release or send stored digital content to one or more designated recipients, and initiate dispatch of one or more physical items to the one or more designated recipients for delivery at the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined dates or times; receive, from at least one of the one or more designated recipients, recipient engagement metrics including at least one of access duration, emotional response data, and recipient-selected feedback indicators; and automatically adjust schedules for the releasing, the sending, or the delivery of at least one of the stored digital content and the one or more physical items based on sentiment analysis of the recipient engagement metrics, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitation of automatically adjust schedules for the releasing, the sending, or the delivery of at least one of the stored digital content and the one or more physical items based on sentiment analysis of the recipient engagement metrics, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions executable by at least one processor, digital content, and one or more physical items. Non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions executable by at least one processor, in the context of the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Digital content and one or more physical items, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14, describing various additional limitations to the product of Claim 8, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 8 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 9 discloses wherein the user-specified or algorithmically determined dates or times include at least one of significant dates and recurring events (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 8), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the digital content comprises at least one of user-selected audio, video, images, GIFs, and text files (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses wherein the digital content is organized and prioritized based on user-defined metadata and recipient relationship data (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to generate unique, recipient-specific encryption keys for each scheduled release, ensuring secure access to the digital content (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 13 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to transmit the digital content (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) over secure, multi-channel networks, including cellular and satellite connections, to reach recipients regardless of location (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to coordinate with third-party providers to purchase and send physical items based on user selections prior to the user's death (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the physical items include at least one of flowers, cards, keepsakes, jewelry, toys, clothes, a hologram box, a 3D-printed image, and a food item (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 8), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan et al (PGPub 20240095852) (hereafter, “Scanlan”) in view of MyWishes website (various pages), https://www.mywishes.co.uk/digital-legacy, https://www.mywishes.co.uk/confirm-deceased, https://www.mywishes.co.uk/will-writing-software, https://www.mywishes.co.uk/funeral-wishes (all captured 10/08/2024) (hereafter, “MyWishes”) and Austin et al (US 11004548) (hereafter, “Austin”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Scanlan discloses:
a computing device of a recipient having at least one processor and at least one memory device (¶ 0045, 0061; Fig. 1; client terminal can be a computer device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, another server, a kiosk, a cell phone, a tablet, a mobile device, a monitor or other suitable device, all of which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to customarily comprise at least one processor and at least one memory);
wherein the computing device is communicably coupled with a memory storage system having at least one processor and at least one memory device and storing digital content and instructions, wherein the memory storage system is associated with a user and storing user-selected digital content (¶ 0045-0047, 0063, 0090; Figs. 1-2, 8; processing server connects to client terminals; processing server includes a processor, interconnecting memory, and a communications interface; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.);
receive from at least one of the one or more designated recipients availability information or sentiment feedback (¶ 0013, 0065, 0087-0088, 0093-0098; Fig. 8; processor determines whether a trigger condition is met; trigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, client terminal being located at a specific set of GPS coordinates, or a specific date, such as a date of significance; the communication device may be further configured to receive a response to the generated message from the living individual; the processor may be further configured to analyze the response to determine a degree of engagement of the living individual and update the trigger condition based on the degree of engagement of the living individual); and
dynamically adjust delivery schedules of the one or more of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item based on at least one of recipient availability and real-time interaction feedback received by the computing device to enhance the personalization and emotional impact of the user-selected digital content or the at least one physical item (¶ 0065, 0087-0088, 0093, 0098; Fig. 8; processor determines whether a trigger condition is met; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, where the content of the message generated may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and relationship link; trigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, client terminal being located at a specific set of GPS coordinates, or a specific date, such as a date of significance; in an embodiment where the client terminal is located at a specific set of GPS coordinates, this may be a mobile device located at the gravesite of a deceased individual, or at the location previously frequented by the deceased individual).
Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose receive verification authenticating death of the user, wherein the authenticating of the user's death requires at least one of biometric data and third-party data validation (pgs. 1-3, 5; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload, and send out goodbye messages after your death; the trusted contact is able to administrate your messages (including confirming your death; when an account is administered by a ‘Trusted Contact,’ a ‘Goodbye message’ will be sent out immediately). Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the verification is received by the computing device from the memory storage system (Abstract; ¶ 0045-0047; Figs. 1, 8; the present disclosure provides a system and method for generating an empathetic profile and sending messages to a living individual; processing server connects to client terminals).
Scanlan does not explicitly disclose but MyWishes does disclose authenticate death of the user based on receiving at least one third-party data validation (pgs. 1-3, 5; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload, and send out goodbye messages after your death); the trusted contact is able to administrate your messages (including confirming your death; when an account is administered by a ‘Trusted Contact,’ a ‘Goodbye message’ will be sent out immediately). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose but Austin does disclose wherein third-party validation includes cross-referencing at least one external database (Column 9, line 20 through Column 10, line 2; Column 11, lines 1-43; Column 13, line 47 through Column 14, line 21; Column 15, lines 20-39; Figs. 2-3, 6; the data aggregation module combines mortality data records from different data sources that may be associated with the same individual into a single mortality data set; data records from the other data sources can be merged with the mortality data sets and healthcare data sets to create more complete data sets; the mortality data sets include an indicator of mortality, a uniqueness score, a cause of death indicator, and a death validity score; the data aggregation module assigns a death validity score to each of the mortality data sets; in particular, the data aggregation module determines a confidence value that an individual associated with the given mortality data set is actually deceased; FIG. 6 illustrates an example process 600 of the unique combination of steps that produce the death validity score; the individual mortality data set with PII provided in FIG. 6 includes and/or is concerned with data fields for PII (e.g., name, date of birth, etc.), present within the Social Security Death Master File (SSDMF), duration of presence in the SSDMF, a SSDMF verification code (if available), presence in obituary data, and an alternate source or phone confirmation status).
Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose transmit a unique, individual-specific encryption key indicating that the recipient wishes to receive data (Column 1, lines 16-30; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose steps are taken in response to receiving the verification of the death of the user; wherein the key is recipient-specific; wherein the data received is any of the user-selected digital content or at least one physical item associated in the memory storage system with the recipient (pgs. 1-3, 5; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload, and send out goodbye messages after your death; the trusted contact is able to administrate your messages (including confirming your death; when an account is administered by a ‘Trusted Contact,’ a ‘Goodbye message’ will be sent out immediately; messages can be assigned to specific dates and times in the future; type your message or record a video; the Trusted Contact enters a code that is paired with their email address).
Scanlan additionally discloses receive, from the memory storage system, one or more of the user-selected digital content at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times, or an alert regarding upcoming delivery of the at least one physical item at the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; trigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, a specific date, such as a date of significance, that is provided either from empathetic profile, user profile, or database; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose content is received in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key (Column 1, lines 16-30; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the end-of-life preparation and scheduling techniques of MyWishes with the posthumous content delivery system of Scanlan because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of MyWishes are applicable to the base device (Scanlan), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the health/death data receipt security features and death verification techniques of Austin with the posthumous content delivery system of Scanlan and MyWishes to provide data privacy and security (see at least Column 1, lines 16-30 and Column 1, line 56 through Column 2, line 20)
Regarding Claim 2, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Scanlan additionally discloses:
wherein the user-selected digital content, includes one or more of audio, video, images, GIFs, and text files (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.); and
wherein the user-selected digital content is organized and prioritized based on at least one of user-defined metadata and user-defined recipient relationship (¶ 0063, 0081, 0085-0089; Fig. 8; a family creates user profiles in anticipation of a family member passing away in the future; after a family member passes away, empathetic profile may be created either from new inputs, or an existing user profile may be converted into empathetic profile; a relationship link is created based on the inputs received from client terminal; a relationship link may be created based on the association data received from the inputs, and any similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile; for example, if the empathetic profile representing the deceased individual is the mother of a family member with user profile, this may be entered as a record in database, creating the relationship link; data associated with the relationship, or relationship properties may also be entered into database; processor determines whether a trigger condition is met; if trigger conditions are not met, processor continues to wait for trigger conditions to be met before proceeding; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; rigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, client terminal being located at a specific set of GPS coordinates, or a specific date, such as a date of significance; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; where a specific date has been provided, this may be the birthday of a related user or the anniversary between the deceased individual and a related user; an example message that may be generated in this embodiment may be “Happy Birthday” or “Happy Anniversary;” the message that is generated may even be more specific; for example, if the deceased individual is a spouse of a related user receiving the message, then the message generated may be more specific, such as “Happy Anniversary, my love” or “Happy Anniversary, from your loving wife”).
Regarding Claim 3, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the user-specified or algorithmically determined times include at least one of significant dates and recurring events (¶ 0009, 0063, 0087, 0089; Fig. 8; trigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, the client terminal being located at a specific set of GPS coordinates, or a specific date, such as a date of significance).
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. Scanlan additionally discloses further comprising the memory storage system (¶ 0045-0047, 0063, 0090; Figs. 1-2, 8; processing server connects to client terminals; processing server includes a processor, interconnecting memory, and a communications interface).
Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the memory storage system is configured to coordinate to purchase and send physical items (¶ 0076; Fig. 18; screen for users to purchase goods, e.g., white rose bouquet, family journal, memory box). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose wherein delivered content is based on user selections prior to the death of the user (pgs. 1-3, 8; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload and send out goodbye messages after your death; if you would like to leave messages for your loved one you will either need to type your message or record a video; our users are able to assign a gift/sentimental or 'high value' items to a friend and family member in their ‘Letter of Wishes’ document). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose wherein the purchases are via third-party providers (Column 8, lines 11-55; retail purchasing data (over the counter purchases from pharmacies, amazon, etc. for disease or injury-related items)).
The rationale to combine Scanlan and MyWishes remains the same as for Claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the health/death related purchase and recording techniques of Austin with the posthumous content delivery system of Scanlan and MyWishes because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Austin are applicable to the base device (Scanlan and MyWishes), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose wherein the computing device is configured to receive from the memory storage system data regarding the user's will, trust, and funeral instructions (pgs. 5, 7-9, 16-20; Trusted Executor; MyWishes will writing software is free and simple to use; MyWishes is the only Last Will & Testament software that enables the sharing of non-sensitive information directly onto your friends' social media profiles; MyWishes makes planning your funeral quick and easy; your funeral playlist is a list of songs, readings or poems that you would like to be read, played or performed at your funeral; if you decide to share your playlist the social media sharing features integrated into MyWishes will pushy our playlist onto your feed evoking discussion with your friends and family; written and recorded messages by the deceased to be read or played at their funeral; published onto your public MyWishes profile when assigned a specific date or administered by the person you entrust). Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the data also includes data regarding prepaid burial arrangements (¶ 0055, 0065; a funeral home may have a database containing the ownership of funeral plots; the funeral plots may be pre-purchased and reserved for a person who is still living). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose content is received in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key (Column 1, lines 16-30; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose wherein the computing device is configured to receive and display content (pgs. 1-3; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload and send out goodbye messages after your death; this acts like a modern day Victorian memory box). Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the content includes at least one of memory books and health books providing health and medical records related to the user (¶ 0076; Fig. 18; screen for users to purchase goods, e.g., white rose bouquet, family journal, memory box). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose content is received in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key; wherein the received and displayed content includes health books providing health and medical records related to the user (Column 1, lines 16-30; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 15. Scanlan additionally discloses:
wherein the memory storage system is further configured to receive the user-selected digital content from the user prior to the death of the user (¶ 0050, 0055, 0063, 0081, 0090; Fig. 8; a family creates user profiles in anticipation of a family member passing away in the future; after a family member passes away, empathetic profile may be created either from new inputs, or an existing user profile may be converted into empathetic profile; photographs from the deceased individual's social media page may be imported and saved into memory to be used for generating messages; a relationship link is created based on the inputs received from client terminal; a relationship link may be created based on the association data received from the inputs, and any similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile; for example, if the empathetic profile representing the deceased individual is the mother of a family member with user profile, this may be entered as a record in database, creating the relationship link; data associated with the relationship, or relationship properties may also be entered into database; empathetic profiles may also include digital media including, but not limited to photographs, videos, audio files and personal notes relating to the deceased individual); and
wherein the user-selected digital content includes one or more of audio, video, images, GIFs, text files, memory books, and health books providing health and medical records related to the user (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.).
Regarding Claim 17, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 15. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times include recurring events (¶ 0063, 0089; Fig. 8; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future weddings, birthdays and anniversaries, despite the passing away of the deceased individual; where a specific date has been provided, this may be the birthday of a related user or the anniversary between the deceased individual and a related user; an example message that may be generated in this embodiment may be “Happy Birthday” or “Happy Anniversary”).
Regarding Claim 18, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 15. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to coordinate to purchase and send physical items (¶ 0045-0046, 0076; Fig. 18; processor can cooperate with non-transitory computer readable medium such as memory to execute instructions to realize the functionality discussed herein; screen for users to purchase goods, e.g., white rose bouquet, family journal, memory box). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose wherein delivered content is based on user selections prior to the death of the user (pgs. 1-3, 8; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload and send out goodbye messages after your death; if you would like to leave messages for your loved one you will either need to type your message or record a video; our users are able to assign a gift/sentimental or 'high value' items to a friend and family member in their ‘Letter of Wishes’ document). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose wherein the purchases are via third-party providers (Column 8, lines 11-55; retail purchasing data (over the counter purchases from pharmacies, amazon, etc. for disease or injury-related items)).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 4.
As Claims 12 and 14 depend upon the separately rejected independent Claim 8, they are addressed below subsequent to said separate rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of MyWishes, Austin, and Vasudevan et al (PGPub 20230090269) (hereafter, “Vasudevan”).
Regarding Claim 6, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the computing device is configured to receive images of the user retrieved from the memory storage system (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Vasudevan does disclose wherein the images are age progressed images of the user for a given date based on a date associated with an image of the user (¶ 0044-0045; the image transformation module 208 may apply AI-based facial age progression and regression techniques to adjust the object to time period in the query). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose content is received in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key (Column 1, lines 16-30; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith).
The rationale to combine Scanlan, MyWishes, and Austin remains the same as for Claim 1. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the age progressing picture techniques of Vasudevan with the posthumous content (including pictures) delivery system of Scanlan, MyWishes, and Austin because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Vasudevan are applicable to the base device (Scanlan, MyWishes, and Austin), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 20, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 15. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the memory storage system is configured to generate and transmit to the computing device, at one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times, images of the user; wherein the particular time is the one or more user-specified or algorithmically determined times (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Vasudevan does disclose wherein the images are age progressed images of the user aged up to an age the user would have been at a particular time (¶ 0044-0045; the image transformation module 208 may apply AI-based facial age progression and regression techniques to adjust the object to time period in the query). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose content is received in response to the transmission of the unique, recipient-specific encryption key (Column 1, lines 16-30; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 6.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of MyWishes.
Regarding Claim 8, Scanlan discloses:
non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions executable by at least one processor (¶ 0045-0046; processor can cooperate with non-transitory computer readable medium such as memory to execute instructions to realize the functionality discussed herein);
receive, from at least one of the one or more designated recipients, recipient engagement metrics including at least one of access duration, emotional response data, and recipient-selected feedback indicators (¶ 0013, 0094-0095, 0097-0098; Fig. 8; the communication device may be further configured to receive a response to the generated message from the living individual associated with the user profile; the processor may be further configured to analyse the response to determine a degree of engagement of the living individual and update the trigger condition based on the degree of engagement of the living individual; at block 840, the message is displayed on client terminal on the graphical user interface; in certain embodiments, the duration of time that the message is displayed may be measured and sent back to processor; alternatively, the duration of time that a window is active with the message present may be measured and sent back to processor; measurement of the duration of time that a message is displayed to a user on client terminal measures the responsiveness and receptiveness of a user to the message; a user may also respond to the message; the reply to the message and the aforementioned duration of time that the message is displayed on client terminal may be analyzed by processor at block 845; the response to the message may be analyzed based on length of the message; if the response is short in length, that may indicate that the user is not receptive to the message that was sent; if the response contains a larger amount of words or characters, that may indicate that the user is receptive to the message; by analyzing the length of the response and the duration of time that a message is displayed on client terminal, the receptiveness of the user to messages may be ascertained); and
automatically adjust schedules for the releasing, the sending, or the delivery of at least one of the stored digital content and the one or more physical items based on sentiment analysis of the recipient engagement metrics (¶ 0005, 0013, 0065, 0087-0088, 0093-0098; Fig. 8; processor determines whether a trigger condition is met; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, where the content of the message generated may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and relationship link; the communication device may be further configured to receive a response to the generated message from the living individual associated with the user profile; the processor may be further configured to analyse the response to determine a degree of engagement of the living individual and update the trigger condition based on the degree of engagement of the living individual; by analyzing the length of the response and the duration of time that a message is displayed on client terminal, the receptiveness of the user to messages may be ascertained; once the degree of engagement or receptiveness of the user to messages is ascertained, the trigger conditions for future messages may be updated based on the degree of engagement).
Scanlan does not explicitly disclose but MyWishes does disclose verify a user's death upon receipt of third-party data validation (pgs. 1-3, 5; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload, and send out goodbye messages after your death); the trusted contact is able to administrate your messages (including confirming your death; when an account is administered by a ‘Trusted Contact,’ a ‘Goodbye message’ will be sent out immediately).
Scanlan additionally discloses receive, from the memory storage system, one or more of the user-selected digital content at user-specified or algorithmically determined times, or an alert regarding upcoming delivery of the at least one physical item at the user-specified or algorithmically determined times (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; trigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, a specific date, such as a date of significance, that is provided either from empathetic profile, user profile, or database; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose but MyWishes does disclose wherein content is received following verification of the user's death; wherein the data received is any of the user-selected digital content or at least one physical item associated in the memory storage system with the recipient (pgs. 1-3, 5; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload, and send out goodbye messages after your death; the trusted contact is able to administrate your messages (including confirming your death; when an account is administered by a ‘Trusted Contact,’ a ‘Goodbye message’ will be sent out immediately; messages can be assigned to specific dates and times in the future; type your message or record a video; the Trusted Contact enters a code that is paired with their email address).
The rationale to combine Scanlan and MyWishes remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Scanlan in view of MyWishes disclose the limitations of Claim 8. Scanlan discloses the additional limitation of Claim 9 in the same manner as for Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 9. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the stored digital content comprises at least one of user-selected audio, video, images, GIFs, and text files (¶ 0063, 0087-0099; Figs. 1-2, 8; photographs and other forms of digital media may be stored in memory in association with both empathetic profiles and user profiles; these photographs and other forms of digital media may also be referred to as memories; memories may be used to create personalized videos for future events despite the passing away of the deceased individual, memories may be included in messages that are sent to related users, memories may be imported from or exported to social media, etc.; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, as depicted, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; the generated message is sent to client terminal through a dedicated messaging application, social media platform, SMS text message, etc.).
Regarding Claim 11, Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin disclose the limitations of Claim 8. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the stored digital content is organized and prioritized based on user-defined metadata and recipient relationship data (¶ 0063, 0081, 0085-0089; Fig. 8; a family creates user profiles in anticipation of a family member passing away in the future; after a family member passes away, empathetic profile may be created either from new inputs, or an existing user profile may be converted into empathetic profile; a relationship link is created based on the inputs received from client terminal; a relationship link may be created based on the association data received from the inputs, and any similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile; for example, if the empathetic profile representing the deceased individual is the mother of a family member with user profile, this may be entered as a record in database, creating the relationship link; data associated with the relationship, or relationship properties may also be entered into database; processor determines whether a trigger condition is met; if trigger conditions are not met, processor continues to wait for trigger conditions to be met before proceeding; if trigger conditions are met, processor generates a message to be sent to the user, where the content of the generated message may be based on empathetic profile, user profile, and the relationship link; rigger conditions may include, but are not limited to, client terminal being located at a specific set of GPS coordinates, or a specific date, such as a date of significance; messages may also include digital media, e.g., photographs or videos retrieved from memory as part of empathetic profile or user profile; where a specific date has been provided, this may be the birthday of a related user or the anniversary between the deceased individual and a related user; an example message that may be generated in this embodiment may be “Happy Birthday” or “Happy Anniversary;” the message that is generated may even be more specific; for example, if the deceased individual is a spouse of a related user receiving the message, then the message generated may be more specific, such as “Happy Anniversary, my love” or “Happy Anniversary, from your loving wife”).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Austin.
Regarding Claim 12, Scanlan in view of MyWishes disclose the limitations of Claim 9. Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to generate unique, individual-specific encryption keys for each release, ensuring secure access to the stored digital content (Column 1, lines 16-30; Column 3, lines 31-67; Fig. 8; a unique encrypted token (or “key”) that allows that individual record to be matched to a de-identified and tokenized healthcare data set for the deceased individual; delivering the merged de-identified healthcare data sets in response to receiving, using the computing device, previously de-identified healthcare data sets with unique encrypted person tokens associated therewith; the de-identification module is configured to create an encrypted person token). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose wherein the release is a scheduled release; wherein key is recipient-specific (pgs. 1-3, 5; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload, and send out goodbye messages after your death; messages can be assigned to specific dates and times in the future; the trusted contact is able to administrate your messages (including confirming your death; when an account is administered by a ‘Trusted Contact,’ a ‘Goodbye message’ will be sent out immediately; messages can be assigned to specific dates and times in the future; type your message or record a video; the Trusted Contact enters a code that is paired with their email address).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Scanlan in view of MyWishes disclose the limitations of Claim 9. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to coordinate to purchase and send physical items, wherein the physical items include at least one of flowers, cards, keepsakes, jewelry, toys, clothes, a hologram box, a 3D-printed image, and a food item (¶ 0045-0046, 0076; Fig. 18; processor can cooperate with non-transitory computer readable medium such as memory to execute instructions to realize the functionality discussed herein; screen for users to purchase goods, e.g., white rose bouquet, family journal, memory box). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by MyWishes does disclose wherein delivered content is based on user selections prior to the death of the user (pgs. 1-3, 8; our goodbye messaging tool lets you create, upload and send out goodbye messages after your death; if you would like to leave messages for your loved one you will either need to type your message or record a video; our users are able to assign a gift/sentimental or 'high value' items to a friend and family member in their ‘Letter of Wishes’ document). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Austin does disclose wherein the purchases are via third-party providers (Column 8, lines 11-55; retail purchasing data (over the counter purchases from pharmacies, amazon, etc. for disease or injury-related items)).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of MyWishes and Casso (PGPub 20140096267) (hereafter, “Casso”).
Regarding Claim 13, Scanlan in view of MyWishes disclose the limitations of Claim 9. Scanlan additionally discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to transmit the digital content over secure networks, including cellular and satellite connections, to reach recipients regardless of location (¶ 0045-0047, 0061-0062; processing server connects to client terminals via wide area network (WAN); client terminal can be a computer device such as, but not limited to, a cell phone, mobile device, etc.; WAN may be implemented over the internet; any desired levels and types of security and encryption protocols are contemplated and can be implemented over WAN). Scanlan does not explicitly disclose by Casso does disclose wherein the networks are multi-channel (¶ 0144, 0149, 0167; transmitting a first notification can be repeated multiple times, at given intervals (e.g., daily), through one or more communication channels (e.g., text messages, emails, or the like)).
The rationale to combine Scanlan and MyWishes remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the multi-channel communication techniques of Casso with the posthumous content delivery system of Scanlan and MyWishes to ensure the safekeeping and distribution of information at an appropriate time, to the appropriate designees, and in accordance with the account owner's desires (see at least Paragraphs 0012, 0031, and 0167 of Casso).
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20130325976 – “Transferring Items from One Party to Another,” Mansfield et al, disclosing a system for scheduling the future delivery of tangible, physical, virtual, or digital item, such delivery potentially occurring after the donor has died
PGPub 20190050788 – “Techniques For Pre-scheduled Dispatching Non-electronic Correspondence On Behalf Of A Sender,” Lantsman, disclosing a system for pre-scheduling delivery of correspondence to a recipient upon detection of a pre-determined event, wherein said event may be the death of the sender
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights