SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING ESTATE SETTLEMENTS

§101 §103

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 is a nonfinal rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 09/14/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8, 11, 12, and 13 have been canceled. New claims 14-20 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14-20 are currently pending and are examined herein. Priority The application has a provisional application #63/756,360 filed on 02/10/2025. The claims have the effective filing date of 02/10/2025. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter? Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14-20: A method for automated digital account change implemented using a computing device, comprising: Claims 1-13 recite a method which falls under the potentially eligible subject matter category “process.” Therefore, all of the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible subject matter category, therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2. Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?) The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claim 1 is marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows: Claim 1: A computer implemented method for performing estate settlements, comprising: providing a platform system having a database; establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network; providing options for receiving asset information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; providing options for receiving a personal representative information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; storing the provided client asset information and personal representative information on the platform system database; determining, via the platform provider, a death of the account owner, wherein said determining includes monitoring, via the platform system, a death master file published by the Unites States Social Security Administration to determine whether the account owner is listed as deceased; upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file, automatically locking, via the platform system, an account of the account owner on the platform system and sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner, the verification request including a link for the account owner to respond to prove they are not deceased; upon the account owner responding to the verification request via the link and completing an identity verification, unlocking, via the platform system, the account of the account owner; upon the account owner not responding to the verification request within a predetermined timeframe, sending a notification to the personal representative; requiring the personal representative to submit a death certificate of the account owner and to undergo an identity verification process; and upon completion of the identity verification process of the personal representative, providing read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database. When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the category “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present claims fall under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In the present case, the limitations in bold fall within at least “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” as the limitations recite social activities and following rules or instructions which facilitate interactions between people. These limitations are also recited with such generality that they encompass any manner of arriving at the intended outcome, including instructions to an individual to perform the functions. The subsequent limitations in bold, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification encompass the steps of establishing communications between an account owner and a platform, receiving asset information, receiving a personal representative information, storing the information, determining the death of the account owner by monitoring a death master file, locking an account of the owner and sending a verification request to provide that they are not deceased, unlocking the account of the account owner upon the account owner responding to the verification request, requiring the personal representative to submit a death certificate and undergo and identity verification process and providing access to the client asset information to the personal representative. These fall directly within “managing personal behavior” as it merely recites interactions with an individual which manage their personal behavior by determining a set of tasks for an individual to complete. In view of the specification the problem being addressed is, “[0007] Accordingly, it would be beneficial to provide a system and method for performing estate settlements that can aid executors, trustees and other individuals in handling the estate settlement process of a person so as to overcome the drawbacks noted above which leads to lost assets.” Since this problem is geared towards the abstract idea of managing interactions between individuals or relationships between people, in the form of estate planning, it is at least a recitation of an abstract idea. The “platform system” is interpreted to still be part of the abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation it is not necessarily limited to technological implementation (it is not limited to computer applications), it can encapsulate any managing system that facilitates the actions. Similarly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of network in view of the specification is not limited to computer networks alone, as a “network of people,” or “social network,” falls within the scope as well. However, even if it was limited to computer applications, the fact that the interactions are potentially between an individual and a computer does not preclude the claim from reciting “certain methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” Furthermore, even when considering the limitations of “providing read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database” this is still part of the abstract idea because it is claimed in a manner, such that when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is merely a rule-based operation, which prevents a user from making changes to the personal information. Merely providing permission-based features, especially at this level of breadth, is no more than “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” Similarly, the newly amended limitations are also merely more of the same “certain methods of organizing human activity under ‘managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” For example, “wherein said determining includes monitoring, via the platform system, a death master file published by the Unites States Social Security Administration to determine whether the account owner is listed as deceased;” is recited at a level of generality such that it can merely include instructions to a user to manage relationships between people, because monitoring an individual’s records is a form of performing an interaction between people. Similarly, “locking an account of the account owner on the platform system and sending a verification request to the account owner, including a link for the account owner to respond to prove they are not deceased” is another rule-based interaction management limitation, which, despite being claimed to be performed on a “user interface device,” is still part of the abstract idea because the analysis regards whether the activity itself falls within the category, and not whether the interaction is carried out on a computer. Again, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” Finally, the amendments of upon the account owner responding to the verification request via the link and completing an identity verification, unlocking, via the platform system, the account of the account owner; upon the account owner not responding to the verification request within a predetermined timeframe, sending a notification to the personal representative; requiring the personal representative to submit a death certificate of the account owner and to undergo an identity verification process; and upon completion of the identity verification process of the personal representative,” all fall within “interactions between people,” because it merely recites limitations in how the interactions between the account owner, personal representation, and the platform occur. Furthermore, in addition to recite “managing personal behavior,” the amendments result in the claims falling squarely within another subcategory, “commercial or legal interactions” including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. In this case, the specific rules regarding identity verification, monitoring of the United States Social Security Administration death master file to confirm whether an individual is deceased, completing an identity verification, locking and unlocking accounts, requiring a death certificate to be submitted and undergoing an identity verification process, and providing read-only access upon completion of the verification, all fall squarely within “commercial or legal interactions” because they all recite legal obligations, and contractual agreements being carried out on the system. Thus the claims recite at least one category under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Therefore, since the limitations are not meaningfully different from other ideas found to be abstract in examples from MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the claims at least recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: - computer implemented method - providing a platform system having a database; - establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network; - including a link -automatically locking The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and user interface device as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea steps of “establishing communications between an account owner and a platform, receiving asset information, receiving a personal representative information, storing the information, determining the death of the account owner, and providing access to the client asset information to the personal representative” are instructed to be performed “automatically” on generic computing components such as a computer, or user interface device. Even when considering “establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network” it is merely a field of use claim under MPEP 2106.05(h), because merely indicates that the communications are performed on a network. Furthermore, it is also an “apply it” level element because it uses a device in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic or other function, in this case, using a network to transmit communications. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” In line with paragraphs [0024] and [0025] of the instant specification, these components are no more than generic computing components. Furthermore, while the elements, “platform system having a database,” “platform provider,” and “network” are broad enough to be part of the abstract idea, even if they were considering additional elements, they are still no more than using computers or other devices in their ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks. Furthermore, even if “the link,” was interpreted to be a hyperlink, this would still be an “apply it” level element because it merely uses a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea without adding specific improvements to any technological field or adding any functionality to computer technology. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, none of the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: - computer implemented method - providing a platform system having a database; - establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network; - including a link -automatically locking The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing components such as a computer or user interface device to perform the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, nothing in the limitations meaningfully limit the claim to be significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, and 14-20 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein: Claim 2 recites more of the same abstract idea because it is merely adding the step of “performing an identity verification of the account owner” to the establishing communications steps. In the manner it is claimed this is still part of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people because it merely claims any verification of identity (such as asking an individual to show their identification). Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 2 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 3 add the steps of generating an asset presentation screen to receive information, and claim 4 defines the fields being prompted to the user. This is more of the same abstract idea because it merely is collecting data, in order to perform the abstract idea. The additional element of the data being collected by “an asset presentation screen,” is still an “apply it” level element as it is no more than using a device in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic task (a screen to display data and input information). Even when analyzed individually or in an ordered combination with the existing additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 3 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 5 & 6 are merely collecting more information from the account owner which is a data collection step in line with performing the abstract idea, whether it is collecting a “last will and testament,” or “financial obligation” this information still falls within the scope of “certain methods of organizing human activity” at least under “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships.” Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 5 and 6 are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 7 and 14 adds the additional steps of monitoring government records of recently deceased persons, particular a death master filed published by the United States Social Security Office. This is still more of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people because it is merely a collection of death information regarding a person, to enable performing the abstract idea. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more because monitoring the file on a weekly basis is not a meaningful limitation. Therefore, claims 7 and 14 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 adds the additional step of sending a death confirmation request to the user interface device, however, sending a death confirmation request is more of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” because it merely instructs a user to perform an action. The additional element “user interface device,” is repeated and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 9 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 10 and 17 merely add further limitations of predetermined timeframes, which do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. For example, claim 10 claims storing the client asset information on the database for at least one year after the death of the account owner, however, this is merely claimed as a set of instructions that determine the duration of how long the information is stored. The abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” is still performed in the claim it depends upon and this step merely requires information to be maintained. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 10 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites more of the same abstract idea by limiting “identity verification to be “biometric verification” of the account owner, which still falls within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people, because “biometric verification” is broad enough to encompass abstract interactions such a human comparing a ID document with the face of an individual. Therefore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 15 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 16 and 18 recite more of the same abstract idea by providing a notification to a user with specific instructions to manage their personal behavior, for example claim 16 provides instructions to account owner to remove a name from the death master file, and claim 18 provides instructions to a personal representative to gain access to an account. These are both squarely within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” because they are merely rules or instructions outputted to an individual. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claims 16 and 18 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 19 merely recites more of the same abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically “commercial or legal interactions” because the act of determining whether an asset is missing from a last will and testament is merely carrying out a “agreement in the form of contracts” and notifying an individual of the discrepancy. Furthermore, the additional element of “artificial intelligence,” is an “apply it” level element because it merely names the field of artificial intelligence by name without meaningfully limiting its use on the claims. Merely instructing an “artificial intelligence” model to carry out an abstract idea is “apply it” especially when it merely claims the outcome or idea of a solution without the procedural steps to allow “artificial intelligence” to arrive at the claimed outcome. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application, even when considering artificial intelligence in combination with the computer systems, because even as a combination it is still no more than “apply it.” Even viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims is meaningfully limited such that significantly more is provided, therefore, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. Claim 20 merely adds the limitation of comprising “blockchain technology for creating and storing information,” however merely naming blockchain technology as part of the system is no more than a “general link” to a particular technical field, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(h). MPEP 2106.05(h) states, “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Therefore, “blockchain technology” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even when viewed in combination with the computing system. Even viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims is meaningfully limited such that significantly more is provided, therefore, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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. Claims 1-7, 9, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Turek et al. (US 20170301048 A1) hereinafter Turek, further in view of Alexander D. Lantsman (US 20180101920 A1) hereinafter Lantsman. Regarding Claim 1: Foote teaches: -A computer implemented method for performing estate settlements, comprising: (Foote [Col. 1 Lines 60-64] A estate planning and beneficiary management system according to an embodiment includes a system controller which may prompt and receive from a user information which may be necessary to create and estate planning model. [Col. 2 Lines 3-8] The information may be organized into different modules in the suites, and stored in databases on a system platform. The platform may include other modules, systems, and engines. A system controller controls information and instructions to the modules, systems, and engines from the databases and other memories. [Col. 13 Lines 29-33] Various illustrative logical blocks, modules, components, circuits, and algorithm operations described in connection with the aspects described herein may be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both.) - providing a platform system having a database; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 17-22] The website may be generated by a system controller 107 which also manages the other modules and databases in the system platform. The system controller may communication with entities outside of the system platform via the network 106. The controller may write to and read from the various databases and memories.) - establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 12-16]A user 102 who wants to use the system 100 may communicate with a system platform 104 via a network 106. The user 102 may access a website associated with the system, and explore the various services, FAQs, company information, etc., provided by the site. [Col. 3 Lines 26-29] FIGS. 2A and 2B show a user sign-up operation 200 according to an embodiment. The user 102 may subscribe to or purchase services offered by the system platform 104. [Col. 4 Lines 56-60] The user may store PINs, credit card numbers, online banking credentials, etc., in the vault's password manager, and access it securely from anywhere on a computer or mobile device. This information is stored in a centralized vault for the user's account.) Any entry of information by the user in Foote is done between the user interface device such as a mobile phone or computer, and is sent to the system platform. - providing options for receiving asset information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; (Foote [Col. 4 Lines 20-23] A digital inheritance module 322 may prompt the user for information regarding digital assets, for example, NFT, cryptocurrency, and blockchain. [Col. 5 Lines 41-43] An asset aggregation module 346 may link assets and liabilities for personal and business accounts and provide instructions for asset transfers [Col. 5 Lines 56-62] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution. This may be used to guide beneficiaries, providing a clear road map for access as provided and instructed by user.) - providing options for receiving a personal representative information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 32-40] Once membership in the system is established, various web pages may be provided to the user to collect information necessary to prepare an estate planning model for the user. This may include a page requesting contact information and permission, or access, levels for trusted parties (block 204), for example, potential beneficiary(-ies) 110, trustee(s) 112, executor 114, and attorney(s) 116. This information may be stored at and utilized by a permissions module 118 at the system platform.) - storing the provided client asset information and personal representative information on the platform system database; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 28-30] The user may enter personal and payment information, which is stored in a user payment database 108 at the system platform (block 202). [Col. 5 Lines 35-37] A subscription manager 342 may be used to record an inventory of subscriptions and access information so beneficiaries or trusted contacts can manage subscription assignments as outlined in legal directives. [Col. 3 Lines 36-40]This may include a page requesting contact information and permission, or access, levels for trusted parties (block 204), for example, potential beneficiary(-ies) 110, trustee(s) 112, executor 114, and attorney(s) 116. This information may be stored at and utilized by a permissions module 118 at the system platform. [Col. 5 Lines 56-59] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution.) - determining, via the platform provider, a death of the account owner; and (Foote [Col. 2 Lines 32-39] The system may monitor for a triggering event, such as death or incapacitation, and once a triggering event is detected and verified, message the beneficiaries and trusted contacts. [Col. 8 Lines 55-59] The system platform may monitor for a triggering event, such as death or incapacitation (block 216). For example, the distribution process may be triggered automatically once the user doesn't respond to a scheduled check-in confirming they are still alive and well. [Col. 10 Lines 16-25] If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830). (66) If the notifier does not detect such an indication, the testator may be marked as “deceased” in the system (block 832) and the will executed and beneficiaries notified (block 834).) - sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner, the verification request including a link for the account owner to respond to prove they are not deceased; (Foote [Col. 10 Lines 4-9] In an embodiment, to avoid the possibility of fraud or error in the determination that the testator is in fact deceased, the system may initiate a “life notifier” to confirm the death of the testator (block 828). In an embodiment, the notifier may be run on, for example, a serverless platform such as AWS lambda, Google Cloud, etc. [Col. 8 Lines 55-59] The system platform may monitor for a triggering event, such as death or incapacitation (block 216). For example, the distribution process may be triggered automatically once the user doesn't respond to a scheduled check-in confirming they are still alive and well. [Col. 10 Lines 10-20]The notifier may actively attempt to contact the testator through various means based on the testator's contact information stored in the system. Conventional and/or AI-based online public document searches may also be performed, as well as monitoring the testator's accounts, e.g., banking, social, etc., for any activity through any permissions granted to the system. If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830).) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “link for the account owner to prove they are not deceased,” is broad enough to encapsulate any means of responding to the inquirer. Since the claims fail to limit the link to a particular form of interface element or otherwise, the plain language of “link” is broadly interpreted. For example, contacting the testator through “various means,” would satisfy the limitation because emailing the testator, inherently provides a manner for the testator to respond back with an email. - requiring the personal representative to submit a death certificate of the account owner and to undergo an identity verification process; and (Foote [Col. 9 Lines 9-33] In an embodiment, the system may follow a number of protocols to carry out post-death transfers of digital and crypto assets. Referring back to FIG. 2, the triggering event may be reported by an outside party, such as the digital executor. After the triggering event is identified (block 216), the system may perform an after life protocol 800, shown in FIG. 8, prior to executing the transactions as provided for in the smart contracts (block 222). (58) In an embodiment, the digital executor may access the system and initiate a digital asset transfer process for the deceased user (testator). The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc. The required documents may also include proof of identification for the digital executor, which may be a person or persons, such as valid government-issued photo identification of the person(s) and a letter signed by the named digital executor or named executor in the probate documents providing instructions to initiate the digital asset transfer process.) - upon completion of the identity verification process of the personal representative, providing access to the client asset information to the personal representative. (Foote [Col. 13 Lines 5-7] In addition, the password manager enables trusted contacts access to the user's credentials for particular passwords in case of a triggering event. [Col. 8 Lines 11-26] In an embodiment, the system may include a communication engine 134 (FIG. 1), which may be in communication with the various outside world platforms. Information for these platforms, including exchanges 702, social platforms 704, and subscription services 706, may be provided by the user and stored in databases in the various suites. These platforms 119 may include for example, platforms such as Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. The communication engine 134 may deal with the relevant resources in these platforms and provide all the required documents and detailed will directives to verify the event of death and the user's wishes laid out in the user's will surrounding around these platforms, including access by any beneficiaries that they had assigned. [Col. 9 Line 65 – Col. 10 Line 3] In an embodiment, the case administrators may provide digital signatures in the form of “option wallets” linked to the system, which may be opened, for example, by selecting a “confirm” button in the user interface. Once all of the case administrators have confirmed the document verification portion, the case may be updated to “deceased” (block 826).) However, Foote fails to teach or suggest: - wherein said determining includes monitoring, via the platform system, a death master file published by the Unites States Social Security Administration to determine whether the account owner is listed as deceased; upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file, automatically locking, via the platform system, an account of the account owner on the platform system -that the sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner, occurs “upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file.” upon the account owner responding to the verification request via the link and completing an identity verification, unlocking, via the platform system, the account of the account owner; upon the account owner not responding to the verification request within a predetermined timeframe, sending a notification to the personal representative; -that upon completion of the identity verification process of the personal representative, the access provided is read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database.(Foote fails to teach “read-only access”, despite teaching role-based access levels in [Col. 8 Lines 37-54] The user may update the information in the system platform (block 214, FIG. 2B) as it changes over time. This may include updating financial information, as well as adding and removing beneficiaries, changing passwords as necessary, adding or deleting documents and media and other digital content, etc. The user may communicate these changes to the system platform 104, which may make these changes using an update module 136. Depending on the user's service package and access provided by the user to the system, the update module 136 may monitor entities with online presences, such as banks and cryptocurrency exchanges, and notify the user of changes to their portfolio. The messaging system 128 may also notify beneficiaries and trusted contacts as documents are modified by the user, depending on their access level. This provides visibility to the user of their overall estate, and transparency to beneficiaries and trusted contacts as documents are added, deleted, or modified.)) Alternatively, Turek discloses a system for cloud-based estate management in which a user’s personal account information is locked upon receiving a death notification, but can be unlocked after confirming the event was a false alarm. Turek teaches: - wherein said determining includes monitoring, via the platform system, to determine whether the account owner is listed as deceased;(Turek [0007] d) monitoring for occurrence of at least one preprogrammed life change event specific to an estate holder and perform specifically pre-programmed functions upon receipt of notification that one of said life change events has occurred using the estate vault server; [0031] Another use may be a per-device electronic monitor, that may run as a background process or service on a computer or mobile device and may be used to check status or receive notifications as well as to perform per-device actions as needed, such as (for example) to lock the device and prevent access in response to a potential life event, or to access, obfuscate, or destroy information on the device according to configured rules.) - upon determining that the account owner is listed, automatically locking, via the platform system, an account of the account owner on the platform system (Turek [0031] A rules engine may be used to configure and enforce various operation rules such as (for example) to perform specified actions on specific information or to automatically obfuscate sensitive or irrelevant information as appropriate. For example, an estate holder may have personal documents they do not wish to come to light, that may be obfuscated or destroyed upon their passing before an estate executor or anyone else can obtain them (or even be made aware of their presence). Another example may be to automatically lock an estate holder's personal accounts, whether financial accounts or user logins for online products or services, or any other configured login or account holder information. For example, upon a potential life event, the system may proactively change or scramble the user's passwords to various social media accounts, preventing access by any unauthorized parties who may have been provided their login information in the past, and may then store the new passwords for future reference.) - upon the account owner responding to the verification request via the link and completing an identity verification, unlocking, via the platform system, the account of the account owner; (Turek [0031] Upon further event handling, the new passwords may be provided to interested parties according to configured rules, for example they may be provided to the estate holder after confirming the event was a “false alarm”, allowing them to reconfigure their accounts for regular use, or selected account information may be provided to an executor 545 for handling as they perform their duties. This functionality may be further enhanced through the use of a password or account manager as described below, such as to store large numbers of login information in a convenient way (for an estate holder during normal activities) and also for storing the new, “locked-down” account details as needed without the risk of losing account access altogether. Additionally, a “heartbeat” system may be utilized, that may check regularly for an estate holder's activity such as by manually responding to configured notifications to effectively create a “dead man” switch, wherein failure to respond to a notification or notifications (or failure to do so within a timely manner) may trigger system operations and be treated as a potential life event (as described below in FIG. 8).) - upon the account owner not responding to the verification request within a predetermined timeframe, sending a notification to the personal representative; (Turek [0031] Additionally, a “heartbeat” system may be utilized, that may check regularly for an estate holder's activity such as by manually responding to configured notifications to effectively create a “dead man” switch, wherein failure to respond to a notification or notifications (or failure to do so within a timely manner) may trigger system operations and be treated as a potential life event (as described below in FIG. 8). Another use may be a per-device electronic monitor, that may run as a background process or service on a computer or mobile device and may be used to check status or receive notifications as well as to perform per-device actions as needed, such as (for example) to lock the device and prevent access in response to a potential life event, or to access, obfuscate, or destroy information on the device according to configured rules. [0038] FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method for handling a potential life event 800, according to a preferred embodiment of the invention. According to the embodiment, an estate vault server may receive a notification of a potential life event 801, such as (for example) if an estate holder fails to respond to notifications in a timely manner, or if a registered party provides explicit notification of an event (such as if a family member notifies the system that someone has died). The event that follows depends on whether explicit rules for confirmation have been configured within the embodiment 802. If no confirmation rules have been configured, the embodiment may notify one or a plurality of parties with some type of interest in the disposition of the estate such as emergency personnel, a designated attorney or the executor of the estate 803.) - that upon completion of the identity verification process of the personal representative, the access provided is read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, (Turek [0038] If entered certain family members, close friends and other who have no direct interest in the estate but have personal relationships with the estate holder may also be notified 803. If one of more rules for confirmation of a life event are in effect, preprogrammed functions to confirm the validity of the possible life event will be activated 804. If the confirmation functions fail to confirm that the life event has transpired 805, normal operation of the embodiment will resume 806. If the life event is confirmed 805 and no estate handling rules for the confirmed event are present 807, parties predesignated to be notified with regards to estate handling under conditions that the confirmed life event has occurred may be notified 808. If specific estate handling rules exist 807, actions specified by those rules such as online account securing, and obfuscation or destruction of designated personal information among other possible activities known to those skilled in the art may be taken 809 before parties interested in the disposition of the estate are notified 810. [0033] It may be appreciated that an account with an estate management system 501 is itself an asset belonging to an estate, and in some arrangements specific instructions or other information may be associated with the account in a public or “semi-privileged” context, for example to declare selected interested parties as being permitted access to some or all of an estate management account. Such information may be associated with notifications as described below (for example, to notify specific parties that their action is needed on an estate management account), or with configured permissions and accounts as described previously (for example, to specify selected parties that are permitted to access portions of the estate management account, as well as what their permissions and duties are regarding assets within the account once accessed).) - wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database.(Turek [0026] According to the embodiment, an estate holder may provide information and store documents throughout their life, and may establish accounts for various interested parties to whom they wish to provide access to some or all of the information contained in their estate vault 501. This may be used to (for example) restrict access for selected third-party products or services to ensure they may only modify information they have submitted (preventing one service from seeing or altering data from another, for example), or to enable selected attorneys 530 to provide information in a one-way manner, having access to submit information pertinent to the estate but not to view or modify any information (for example, so that an attorney 530 may submit files related to a specific legal case that may be relevant to the estate, but who may have no interest in the estate otherwise). [0036] In a next step the estate holder may establish accounts for interested parties, such as nominating an executor and providing information for attorneys, for example contact details or permissions preferences (such as granting “view all” access or “read/write this” access to various parties, as desired) 602. The estate holder may then provide estate-specific information such as inventories of items, legal or personal documents, or other details pertaining to the estate itself 603. The estate holder may then also configure notification preferences for interested parties, such as selecting a notification interval for the estate vault to prompt them to update information, or to select notification preferences such as contact details or trigger conditions (for example, “notify executor immediately via this email address if I have a medical emergency”) 604. Over time, the estate vault may provide notifications to interested parties based at least in part on the notification configuration from a previous step 605, and may receive input from parties such as response to notifications or new documents or information related to the estate 606. Upon the death of the estate holder, the estate vault system may be notified (for example, via a preconfigured attorney that may have been configured in a previous step) 607, and may then begin estate execution operations (as described below, referring to FIG. 7) 608. [] ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding the teachings of Turek, particularly the sequence of steps as taught by Turek in which a user’s account is initially locked upon recording a potential death event, and then the estate holder is notified or “checked” to confirm the death, and upon detecting a false alarm, the estate holder’s account is unlocked again. In the case of no notification being made, the system sends a notification to a personal representative (parties predesignated to be notified). Therefore, when viewed in combination with Foote, which teaches the identity verification processes, the combination arrives at the predictable outcome of the limitations above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Turek’s benefit of obscuring potential information without the risk of losing complete account access. (Turek [0031] This functionality may be further enhanced through the use of a password or account manager as described below, such as to store large numbers of login information in a convenient way (for an estate holder during normal activities) and also for storing the new, “locked-down” account details as needed without the risk of losing account access altogether.) However, Turek fails to teach: -that the monitoring is of “a death master file published by the Unites States Social Security Administration” -that automatically locking occurs “ upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file,” -that the sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner, occurs “upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file.” Alternatively, Lantsman discloses the monitoring of the death master file to detect an event of death of a bequeather. Lantsman teaches: -that the monitoring is of “a death master file published by the Unites States Social Security Administration”(Lantsman [0041] At step 112, the Entity attempts to detect an event of death of the bequeather. Herein the term “death” is used in reference to an officially recognized or recorded event of death, perishing of disappearance of a person. In one embodiment, the Entity periodically monitors data and inquires in governmental or non-governmental public records or otherwise publicly available sources of information if the bequeather is/was listed or identified therein as a deceased person. The inquiries are conducted with pre-selected periodicity (e.g., once a week, month, etc.) and may be performed using Internet-enabled computers or manually, as well as by placing requests with respective sources of such information. [0043] The records may include public-domain information provided by or obtained from governmental and non-governmental sources. Examples of such sources include Social Security Death Master File, Military Records of Casualties, Death/Vital/Statistical records of States or municipalities, records of Funeral Services and medical institutions, mortuaries, coroners, police, and commercial data companies.) -that automatically locking occurs “ upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file,”(Lantsman [0043] The records may include public-domain information provided by or obtained from governmental and non-governmental sources. Examples of such sources include Social Security Death Master File, Military Records of Casualties, Death/Vital/Statistical records of States or municipalities, records of Funeral Services and medical institutions, mortuaries, coroners, police, and commercial data companies.) -that the sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner, occurs “upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file.” (Lantsman [0047] To reduce probability of an error, the Entity may attempt to contact the bequeather or contact members of estate thereof and inquire on correctness of the information regarding death of the bequeather. Additionally, the Entity may request the institution(s) issued Death Certificate or a confirmation of death of the bequeather to confirm authenticity of these documents. [0046] At step 114, information establishing the event of death of the bequeather is analyzed by the Entity for completeness, consistency and accuracy. For example, portions of data obtained from different sources may be compared to one another and/or otherwise examined and verified, validity or reliability of particular notices, records or sources thereof may be inspected, cross-referenced, etc.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Foote by adding the teachings of Lantsman, in which the Social Security Death Master File is monitored to determine a death of a user, which is merely a simple substitution into Foote’s “triggering event.” Thus each of the steps provided as a result of the triggering event which are taught by Foote, are modified to be triggered by Lantsman’s detection of a death from the Death Master File, thus predictably arriving at the claimed invention. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that as a result of this simple substitution into Foote, Turek’s “automatically locking step” would occur upon determining Lantsman’s monitoring of the Death Master File. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the benefit of reducing the probability of error, and maintaining the validity or reliability of the death event. (Lantsman [0046] At step 114, information establishing the event of death of the bequeather is analyzed by the Entity for completeness, consistency and accuracy. For example, portions of data obtained from different sources may be compared to one another and/or otherwise examined and verified, validity or reliability of particular notices, records or sources thereof may be inspected, cross-referenced, etc. [0047] To reduce probability of an error, the Entity may attempt to contact the bequeather or contact members of estate thereof and inquire on correctness of the information regarding death of the bequeather. Additionally, the Entity may request the institution(s) issued Death Certificate or a confirmation of death of the bequeather to confirm authenticity of these documents.) Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 1: -Furthermore, Foote teaches: - wherein said establishing communication includes performing an identity verification of the account owner. (Foote [Col. 9 Lines 17-33] In an embodiment, the digital executor may access the system and initiate a digital asset transfer process for the deceased user (testator). The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc. The required documents may also include proof of identification for the digital executor, which may be a person or persons, such as valid government-issued photo identification of the person(s) and a letter signed by the named digital executor or named executor in the probate documents providing instructions to initiate the digital asset transfer process. [Col. 12 Lines 35-40] The user may then enter the user identification and password for the selected platform (block 1024). The system may then encrypt the user's credentials, e.g., user identification and password, via ECIES encryption, using the subscriber's private and public key (block 1026) and store the encrypted credentials on the blockchain (block 1028).) Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 1: -Furthermore, Foote teaches: - wherein said providing options for receiving asset information includes: generating, via the platform provider, an asset presentation screen configured to receive information from the user interface device. (Foote [Col. 5 Lines 56-62] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution. This may be used to guide beneficiaries, providing a clear road map for access as provided and instructed by user. [Col. 12 Lines 14-23] The user may select the user-side password manager option in their system dashboard/website GUI (block 1002). The may select an “Add Account” option (block 1004). The system may offer previously added or popular platforms (e.g., Facebook, Gmail, etc.) (block 1006). If the platform desired by the user is not displayed, the user may enter the URL/web address for a login page of a third party platform (block 1008). The user may then select a “Save” option to add the third party platform to their account (block 1010), and the system will add the third party platform to the user's account (block 1012). If the desired platform is displayed, the user may select the desired platform to be shared (block 1014). The user may then select trusted contact(s) linked to their account for sharing (block 1016).) Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 3: -Furthermore, Foote teaches: - wherein the asset presentation screen includes at least one of an asset title input field, an asset location or account number field, an asset description field, and an asset beneficiary field. (Foote [Col. 5 Lines 35-43] A subscription manager 342 may be used to record an inventory of subscriptions and access information so beneficiaries or trusted contacts can manage subscription assignments as outlined in legal directives. A financial reports module 344 may provide a user with financial snapshot of net worth and provide a summary of current financial affairs. An asset aggregation module 346 may link assets and liabilities for personal and business accounts and provide instructions for asset transfers. [Col. 5 Line 63 – Col. 6 Line 7] For physical assets, such as jewelry, art, automobiles, collectibles, etc., this information may include the physical location of the asset and, in certain cases, the physical location of a proof of ownership, such as a certificate of title for an automobile. (35) For financial instruments and financial products such stocks, bonds, life insurance policies, bank accounts, loans, mortgages, etc., this information may include the location of documents, and for those with an online presence, website addresses, passwords, login ids, and secondary verification information, e.g., challenge questions, for accessing the documents.) Foote Col. 5 Lines 35-43 teaches the asset beneficiary field. Col. 5 Lines 63- Col. 6 Line 7 teaches the certificate of title for an automobile (asset title input field), physical location of the asset (asset location). Therefore, at least one of the list is taught. Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 1: -Furthermore, Foote teaches: - further comprising: providing options for receiving a last will and testament will of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system. (Foote [Col. 4 Lines 15-17] A will creation module 318 may prompt the user for information which may be used to create a last will and testament. [Col. 4 Lines 46-48] A digital legacy vault 336 may provide secure and encrypted file storage for legal documents, for example, contracts, agreements, will, [Col. 9 Lines 19-27] The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc.) Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 1: -Furthermore, Foote teaches: - further comprising: providing options for receiving financial obligation information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; and (Foote [Col. 6 Lines 1-7] (35) For financial instruments and financial products such stocks, bonds, life insurance policies, bank accounts, loans, mortgages, etc., this information may include the location of documents, and for those with an online presence, website addresses, passwords, login ids, and secondary verification information, e.g., challenge questions, for accessing the documents. [Col. 5 Lines 41-43] An asset aggregation module 346 may link assets and liabilities for personal and business accounts and provide instructions for asset transfers.) Liabilities, loans, and mortgages fall within the scope of “receiving financial obligation from the account owner.” - storing the received financial obligation information within the database. (Foote [Col. 5 Lines 31-34] The system website may prompt the user to enter information for modules of a financial suite 340 (block 212), which may be stored in a financial database 130 in the system platform.) Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 1: However, neither Foote nor Turek teach or suggest: - monitoring, via the platform system, government records containing names of recently deceased persons. Alternatively, Lantsman teaches: - monitoring, via the platform system, government records containing names of recently deceased persons. (Lanstman [0041] At step 112, the Entity attempts to detect an event of death of the bequeather. Herein the term “death” is used in reference to an officially recognized or recorded event of death, perishing of disappearance of a person. In one embodiment, the Entity periodically monitors data and inquires in governmental or non-governmental public records or otherwise publicly available sources of information if the bequeather is/was listed or identified therein as a deceased person. The inquiries are conducted with pre-selected periodicity (e.g., once a week, month, etc.) and may be performed using Internet-enabled computers or manually, as well as by placing requests with respective sources of such information. [0042] The inquiries generally include (i) performed by or on behalf of the Entity searches of published data (e.g., data available on the Internet or in print) establishing the event of death of the bequeather, and/or (ii) requests to sources of such data to provide the Entity or an authorized agent thereof with information if the bequeather is/was identified or listed as a deceased person. [0043] The records may include public-domain information provided by or obtained from governmental and non-governmental sources. Examples of such sources include Social Security Death Master File, Military Records of Casualties, Death/Vital/Statistical records of States or municipalities, records of Funeral Services and medical institutions, mortuaries, coroners, police, and commercial data companies.) The “Social-Security Administration death master file” satisfies the limitation because it falls within the scope of government records containing names of recently deceased persons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding Lantsman’s use of the death master file as a source to verify that the death has occurred. By substituting Foote’s use death determination technique’s with Lantsman’s techniques one would have arrived at the predictable outcome of the claimed limitations at hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the social security death master file because it is a reliable way to legally verify the customer’s death. (Lantsman [0046] At step 114, information establishing the event of death of the bequeather is analyzed by the Entity for completeness, consistency and accuracy. For example, portions of data obtained from different sources may be compared to one another and/or otherwise examined and verified, validity or reliability of particular notices, records or sources thereof may be inspected, cross-referenced, etc.) Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest The method of claim 1: Furthermore, Foote teaches: - sending a death confirmation request to the user interface device. (Foote [Col. 9 Lines 13-33] After the triggering event is identified (block 216), the system may perform an after life protocol 800, shown in FIG. 8, prior to executing the transactions as provided for in the smart contracts (block 222). (58) In an embodiment, the digital executor may access the system and initiate a digital asset transfer process for the deceased user (testator). The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc. The required documents may also include proof of identification for the digital executor, which may be a person or persons, such as valid government-issued photo identification of the person(s) and a letter signed by the named digital executor or named executor in the probate documents providing instructions to initiate the digital asset transfer process. [Col. 10 Lines 4-9] In an embodiment, to avoid the possibility of fraud or error in the determination that the testator is in fact deceased, the system may initiate a “life notifier” to confirm the death of the testator (block 828). In an embodiment, the notifier may be run on, for example, a serverless platform such as AWS lambda, Google Cloud, etc.) Regarding Claim 14: The combination of Foote, Turek and Lantsman teach: The method of claim 1, However, neither Foote nor Turek teach or suggest: - wherein said monitoring the death master file is performed on a weekly basis, the death master file being posted each week by the United States Social Security Administration. Alternatively, Lantsman teaches: - wherein said monitoring the death master file is performed on a weekly basis, the death master file being posted each week by the United States Social Security Administration.(Lantsman [0041] At step 112, the Entity attempts to detect an event of death of the bequeather. Herein the term “death” is used in reference to an officially recognized or recorded event of death, perishing of disappearance of a person. In one embodiment, the Entity periodically monitors data and inquires in governmental or non-governmental public records or otherwise publicly available sources of information if the bequeather is/was listed or identified therein as a deceased person. The inquiries are conducted with pre-selected periodicity (e.g., once a week, month, etc.) and may be performed using Internet-enabled computers or manually, as well as by placing requests with respective sources of such information. [0043] The records may include public-domain information provided by or obtained from governmental and non-governmental sources. Examples of such sources include Social Security Death Master File, Military Records of Casualties, Death/Vital/Statistical records of States or municipalities, records of Funeral Services and medical institutions, mortuaries, coroners, police, and commercial data companies.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Foote by adding the teachings of Lantsman, in which the Social Security Death Master File is monitored to determine a death of a user, which is merely a simple substitution into Foote’s “triggering event” on a weekly basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the benefit of reducing the probability of error, and maintaining the validity or reliability of the death event. (Lantsman [0046] At step 114, information establishing the event of death of the bequeather is analyzed by the Entity for completeness, consistency and accuracy. For example, portions of data obtained from different sources may be compared to one another and/or otherwise examined and verified, validity or reliability of particular notices, records or sources thereof may be inspected, cross-referenced, etc. [0047] To reduce probability of an error, the Entity may attempt to contact the bequeather or contact members of estate thereof and inquire on correctness of the information regarding death of the bequeather. Additionally, the Entity may request the institution(s) issued Death Certificate or a confirmation of death of the bequeather to confirm authenticity of these documents.) Regarding Claim 17: The combination of Foote, Turek and Lantsman teach: The method of claim 1, Furthermore, Foote teaches: - wherein the predetermined timeframe is (30) days.(Foote [Col. 9 Lines 43-49] The verification process may have a certain time period for completion, for example, thirty days. Once the document verification process begins, the status of the case may be updated to “verification in process” in the system (block 816). Once the required information and documents have been verified internally, the case may be marked as “documents verified” (block 818). [Col. 10 Lines 16-20] If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830). [Col. 10 Lines 44-47] In an embodiment, if the process is not completed in the set time period, e.g., 30 days (block 814), the process may be suspended (block 822) and an investigation started (block 824).) However, neither Foote nor Turek teach: - wherein the predetermined timeframe is seven days. Alternatively, Lantsman teaches: - wherein the predetermined timeframe is seven days.(Lantsman [0041] The inquiries are conducted with pre-selected periodicity (e.g., once a week, month, etc.) and may be performed using Internet-enabled computers or manually, as well as by placing requests with respective sources of such information.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Foote by adding the teachings of Lantsman, which is merely a simple substitution into Foote’s “predetermined timeframe,” from 30 days to weekly which satisfies 7 days. Not only would it have been obvious to perform this combination, but the viable range of 7 days would have been obvious to try in Foote’s timeline. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the benefit of reducing the probability of error, and maintaining the validity or reliability of the death event. (Lantsman [0046] At step 114, information establishing the event of death of the bequeather is analyzed by the Entity for completeness, consistency and accuracy. For example, portions of data obtained from different sources may be compared to one another and/or otherwise examined and verified, validity or reliability of particular notices, records or sources thereof may be inspected, cross-referenced, etc. [0047] To reduce probability of an error, the Entity may attempt to contact the bequeather or contact members of estate thereof and inquire on correctness of the information regarding death of the bequeather. Additionally, the Entity may request the institution(s) issued Death Certificate or a confirmation of death of the bequeather to confirm authenticity of these documents.) Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Foote, Turek and Lantsman teach: The method of claim 1, Furthermore, Foote teaches: - further comprising: sending, to the personal representative, a death notice including a notification that the account owner is listed in the death master file and instructions for the personal representative to gain access to the account of the account owner.(Foote [Col. 10 Lines 21-28] If the notifier does not detect such an indication, the testator may be marked as “deceased” in the system (block 832) and the will executed and beneficiaries notified (block 834). The beneficiaries may then claim their inheritance in the system (block 836). For each claim, the user's private key may be retrieved in the blockchain to complete a transaction between the user's wallet and the beneficiary wallet and the assets shared (block 838). [Col. 5 Lines 56-62] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution. This may be used to guide beneficiaries, providing a clear road map for access as provided and instructed by user.)) Regarding Claim 19: The combination of Foote, Turek and Lantsman teach: The method of claim 1, However, Foote fails to teach: - further comprising: comparing, via artificial intelligence of the platform system, the last will and testament with the asset information to determine whether an asset is missing from the last will and testament or a beneficiary of an asset has changed; and upon determining a discrepancy, notifying the account owner of the discrepancy. Alternatively, Turek teaches: - further comprising: comparing, via artificial intelligence of the platform system, the last will and testament with the asset information to determine whether an asset is missing from the last will and testament or a beneficiary of an asset has changed; (Turek [0028] An extended example of automated recognition may include the use of machine learning to process an estate holder's personal accounts, optionally before or after a qualifying event, such as to identify potential items of interest. For example, during life an estate holder may be proactively prompted to add information based on documents received in a configured email account. After death, an estate holder's accounts or other assets may be processed to identify any additional items or information of interest that may have been forgotten or omitted, such as financial transactions that were not reported to an estate management system 501 or personal records that were kept hidden from other parties (such as records of a medical condition prior to death, for example). [0027] Additionally, an estate management server 505 may perform automated document or file recognition on submitted data, for example to assist an estate holder or interested party in categorizing data as it is provided and thereby reducing digital clutter and contributing toward overall information organization. For example, scanned documents may be analyzed (for example using optical character recognition or metadata tags) to determine categorization information such as “vehicle title” or “house maintenance receipt”. These documents may then be automatically sorted into their appropriate categories based on analysis, optionally after allowing the submitting user or an estate holder to review and correct as needed. Automatic classification may be further enhanced via integration with third-party products or services as described previously, such as integration with certain tax or insurance systems for easier and more precise classification of associated documents or files.) Turek’s use of machine learning to determine missing or omitted assets satisfies, the limitation. - and upon determining a discrepancy, notifying the account owner of the discrepancy.(Turek [0034] Notifications 520 may be produced and sent to various parties to inform them of various events, such as changes in estate information, important life events, or to prompt for new information such as for periodic updates. For example, an estate holder may be prompted on a regular basis to update and provide information, to ensure that an estate vault remains current. An attorney may be notified of important life events that may affect the estate or other interested parties, such as health concerns or changes of residence (as new local laws may affect the management of an estate). An executor 545 may be notified of important life events so that they may correspond with the estate holder and stay informed, as well as to update their own information as needed (such as contact information for the executor, or conflicts with their own estate or life events. [0032] It may be appreciated that security and privacy may be a large concern when handling such sensitive information as an estate holder's detailed personal and property information, both to protect against theft or tampering from malicious parties as well as to protect estate contents from government entities (for example, that may have an interest in seizing assets).) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding the teachings of Turek, particularly, the use of machine learning artificial intelligence to determine missing assets from documents, and notifying the user of such assets as it would provide the benefit of protecting the privacy of the user while accurately ensuring that all assets are accounted for. (Turek [0028] Another use may be to automatically identify potential assets for handling, and optionally to reconcile them with a static or ongoing estimate of net worth for use during estate handling. These functionalities may be enhanced through the use of a rules engine, as described below.) Regarding Claim 20: The combination of Foote, Turek and Lantsman teach: The method of claim 1, Furthermore, Foote teaches: -wherein the platform system database comprises blockchain technology for creating and storing information.(Foote [Col. 7 Lines 25-34] ith regards to NFT transfers, as mentioned above, blockchain technology makes it almost impossible to forge records, ensuring that the purchaser of an NFT holds a token representing sole ownership of the original work that he or she has purchased. Because each NFT is unique, they cannot be traded for equal value like cryptocurrency or traditional forms of currency are traded. In the overwhelming majority of instances, NFTs can only be accessed using a password or a personal key. In order to access the user's NFT(s), this information must be passed on to future beneficiaries. [Col. 12 Lines 35-40] The user may then enter the user identification and password for the selected platform (block 1024). The system may then encrypt the user's credentials, e.g., user identification and password, via ECIES encryption, using the subscriber's private and public key (block 1026) and store the encrypted credentials on the blockchain (block 1028).) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Turek (US 20170301048 A1), further in view of Lantsman (US 20180101920 A1), further in view Jason N. Statom (US 20170256011 A1) hereinafter Statom. Regarding Claim 10: The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teaches The method of claim 1: -wherein the client asset information is stored on the platform system database after the death of the account owner.(Foote [Col. 7 Lines 35-44] Individuals seeking to pass on crypto assets, such as cryptocurrency and NFTs, and other online assets should document a “digital legacy” to accurately describe important account details and store information about how to access the assets within these accounts. The user may have the ability to store sensitive information in the password vault, however if they are not comfortable doing so, the user would need to provide the location of where they stored the cold wallet and the location of where they maintain the key to share with an executor upon death.) Foote does teach that the client asset information is stored on the platform but does not specify a duration. However, The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman fails to teach: - wherein the client asset information is stored on the platform system database for at least one year after the death of the account owner.(Foote teaches an indefinite storage of a “digital legacy,” without specifying a specific temporal limit.) Alternatively, Statom discloses an after death method for delivering information to recipients which the user would like to address. Statom teaches: - wherein the client information is stored on the platform system database for at least one year after the death of the account owner.(Statom [0034] STEP 6: Storing, by the customer prior to death, the most memorable video moments and ensure they get to the recipient of the customer's prior to death choosing, when the time is right. Storing on servers with the initial package is for ten years, with the option to increase in five year increments for an additional purchase. [0038] STEP 10: The initial length of time for the included package for the videos to be stored is ten years with the option to add additional lengths of time to be kept for an additional purchase in five year increments.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by specifying a minimum duration in which the client information in stored, such as in Statom’s case where it is stored for 5 years. While Foote teaches storing information “after death,” Foote does not specify a time limit. Statom is only relied upon for the numeric teaching of a time limit, which does not need to be based on “after death,” in order to be obvious to arrive at the limitation. By combining these two references one would have arrived at the expected outcome of storing client asset information in Foote after death for at least 5 or 10 years as taught by Statom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of enabling certain recipients to receive the video at a later time, such as children who would not have access to the information until adulthood. (Statom [0030] one's choosing at a future date or until verification of death, and then will be released to the recipient of choosing. The included package allows one to future date release of the videos up to 10 years in advance, with the option of adding additional 5 year increments up to a total of 20 years in the future, depending on the option the customer chooses. These videos will only be released at the designated time/date the customer chooses.) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Turek (US 20170301048 A1), further in view of Lantsman (US 20180101920 A1), further in view Haverlah et al. (US 11341267 B1) hereinafter Haverlah. Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach The method of claim 1, However, neither Foote, Turek, nor Lantsman teach or suggest: wherein said identity verification of the account owner comprises a biometric verification of the account owner. Alternatively, Haverlah discloses death certificate processing techniques to update a death record which authenticates users using biometrics. Haverlah discloses: wherein said identity verification of the account owner comprises a biometric verification of the account owner.(Haverlah [Col. 9 Line 58 – Col. 10 Line 5) Indeed, other data may be employed to authenticate the user 104. Such other data may be unique to the user 104. For example, the user 104 may be authenticated based at least partly on biometric data such as fingerprints, retinal maps, brainwave patterns, and so forth. In such instances, the biometric data may be collected using sensor device(s) that are in proximity to the user 104 and that are known to be trusted (e.g., secured against spoofing or other compromise). In general, certain embodiments support authentication of the user(s) 104 using any suitable number of authentication factors including but not limited to cryptographic keys or other digital security tokens, other credentials (e.g., username, password, PIN, challenge questions, etc.), biometric data, location information, and so forth.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Foote by simply substituting Foote’s identity verification (death confirmation) procedure to include biometric verification as taught by Haverlah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination by the benefit of protecting against spoofing. (Haverlah [Col. 9 Lines 63-65] In such instances, the biometric data may be collected using sensor device(s) that are in proximity to the user 104 and that are known to be trusted (e.g., secured against spoofing or other compromise).) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Turek (US 20170301048 A1), further in view of Lantsman (US 20180101920 A1), further in view of Catherine Hodder, Esq (NPL, Findlaw, What if the government thinks I’m Dead, September 12, 2022, https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/legally-weird/what-if-the-government-thinks-im-dead/) hereinafter Hodder. Foote, Turek, and Lantsman teach or suggest: The method of claim 1, However, neither Foote nor Turek teach: further comprising: upon determining that the account owner is erroneously listed in the death master file, providing, via the platform system, guidance to the account owner for removing a name of the account owner from the death master file. Alternatively, Lantsman teaches: - further comprising: upon determining that the account owner is erroneously listed in the death master file,(Lantsman [0043] The records may include public-domain information provided by or obtained from governmental and non-governmental sources. Examples of such sources include Social Security Death Master File, Military Records of Casualties, Death/Vital/Statistical records of States or municipalities, records of Funeral Services and medical institutions, mortuaries, coroners, police, and commercial data companies. [0048] At step 116, the method 100 queries if data identifying the bequeather as a deceased person is reasonably reliable (i.e., meets reliability and accuracy criteria of the Entity). If the query of step 116 is answered negatively, the method 100 proceeds back to step 112. If the query of step 116 is answered positively, the method 100 proceeds to step 118. [0047] To reduce probability of an error, the Entity may attempt to contact the bequeather or contact members of estate thereof and inquire on correctness of the information regarding death of the bequeather. Additionally, the Entity may request the institution(s) issued Death Certificate or a confirmation of death of the bequeather to confirm authenticity of these documents.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Foote by adding the teachings of Lantsman, in which the Social Security Death Master File is monitored to determine a death of a user, but double checked to ensure that there is no erroneous reporting of a death. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the benefit of reducing the probability of error, and maintaining the validity or reliability of the death event. (Lantsman [0046] At step 114, information establishing the event of death of the bequeather is analyzed by the Entity for completeness, consistency and accuracy. For example, portions of data obtained from different sources may be compared to one another and/or otherwise examined and verified, validity or reliability of particular notices, records or sources thereof may be inspected, cross-referenced, etc. [0047] To reduce probability of an error, the Entity may attempt to contact the bequeather or contact members of estate thereof and inquire on correctness of the information regarding death of the bequeather. Additionally, the Entity may request the institution(s) issued Death Certificate or a confirmation of death of the bequeather to confirm authenticity of these documents.) However, Lantsman fails to teach: - providing, via the platform system, guidance to the account owner for removing a name of the account owner from the death master file. -Alternatively, Hodder discloses a set of instructions to responding to a notice of being mistakenly considered dead. Hodder teaches: - providing, via the platform system, guidance to the account owner for removing a name of the account owner from the death master file. (Hodder [Page 2, If Social Security Makes the Error] If you realize you are considered dead by the SSA, you immediately need to correct their error. These are the steps to take: Visit your local Social Security office (https://web.archive.org/web/20221101133033/https://secure.ssa.gov/ICON/main.jsp). Bring an original form of identification such as a driver's license, passport, military record, or school or employee ID card. Request an "Erroneous Death Case - Third Party Contact" letter. Present that letter to banks, credit reporting bureaus, doctors, and insurance companies that believe you are dead.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Foote by adding the teachings of particularly, by adding a set of steps to remedy an erroneous reporting of death on the social security master file, as it would provide the benefit of assisting users who may not be receiving government benefits. (Hodder Page 3, How will I know If I am Mistakenly Considered Dead?, Finally, if you notice that you are not receiving benefits such as Social Security checks, stimulus payments, or other government benefits, it may mean the government thinks you are dead. If you are having difficulties getting the SSA, the IRS, or credit reporting agencies to fix the error, you should consult a consumer protection lawyer.) Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant asserts that the Examiner’s assertions regarding the platform system and network are incorrect, and that “read-only access limitation” does not fall within the subgrouping. The applicant argues that “automated machine monitoring of a published government file and automatic locking of a database account” do not fall under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” however, this argument is not persuasive because automatically performing the activities above does not place it outside of the certain method of organizing human activity, thus when considering the activity itself, which is merely checking a government file or locking an account, these are merely ways to manage personal behavior and relationships, and manage a user’s access to account, recited at a level of generality such that it is abstract. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that the Prong one analysis is “procedurally deficient” because the analysis is problem is within the field of “estate planning,” is not a persuasive argument because the 101 analysis provided does not simply discount the claims to be abstract merely due to the specification reciting “estate planning.” Instead, the rejection describes in detail, why each claim limitation at least recites “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” given the context of estate planning. The examiner asserts that there are no procedural deficiencies in the Prong one analysis. In regards to the Prong two analysis, the applicant argues that the machine-executed access-control operations cannot be performed by a network of people, however, this argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. Whether the activity itself can be wholly performed by humans is not dispositive as to whether the claims recite “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” because the analysis considers whether the activity itself falls within the subgroupings. Furthermore, the “monitoring, via the platform system, a death master file published by the United States Social Security Administration to determine whether the account owner is listed as deceased" and "upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file, automatically locking, via the platform system, an account of the account owner on the platform system” are merely instructions to perform the activity on a computer or computing device. The applicant has not provided any reasons or proof as to how these claims recite more than “apply it” or how they recite an improvement in the field of computer arts. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that “Such automated monitoring and locking operations are inherently technological and cannot sensibly be performed by a network of people following instructions,” is not persuasive because other than being performed “automatically,” nothing in the claims is so technology-based that it cannot possibly be performed by a network of people. People may monitor a death master file by manually reading the users, and individuals may “lock an account,” by manually notifying other entities to lock that account or by restricting access. There is no specific technical locking of an account occurring, other than merely restricting it to a technological environment at an “apply it” level. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that false-positive recovery path is a specific “technical enforcement mechanism” that addresses the “technical feature” concern of the examiner. However, these features still don’t meet the standard of technical improvements to computer systems as required in MPEP 2106.05(a). The steps provided, other than being sent to a user interface, including a link, and responding to the link are all merely interactions between people. The use of a user interface, including a link merely limits such interactions to occur on a generic computer using features that are inherent to user interface technology at the time of the filing of the invention (links). Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the claimed sequence of automated account state changes is not a mere rule or instruction to a person, is not persuasive because even mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a general purpose computer fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While it may be a defined “technical process,” it is not a technical improvement because there is no improvement purported. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that the claims is analogous to Example 42 claim 1 is not persuasive because the claims lack the level of structural detail taught in Example 42, such as the plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices, the standardization of information based on various hardware or software platforms, the content server, and the computer network. When compared to claim 2, the main feature that distinguishes is the standardization of disparate formats into a singular standardized format to ensure that all users on the network have access to the updated information. In contrast, the present claims which merely monitor DMF, lock accounts, send links for verifying identity, and provide read-only credentials) do not provide any features that would be considered a technical improvement over the prior art of record, because each of the features are inherent to general purpose computers being programmed to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, the examiner’s argument that a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally cannot be said to improve computer technology stands because merely reciting “automatically locking,” and “unlocking” accounts is merely “apply it” level, because the word “automatically” is the only word that may limit being performed by a human. One cannot improve technology by merely limiting the functions to be performed “automatically” or in other words as instructions on a generic computer. The comparison to the improvement of “restricting software operation within a license” citing Ancora Tech, is also not persuasive because Ancora tech was deemed an improvement at the time of its filing (issued in 1998). Locking and unlocking an account automatically, even when viewed in the context of the claims as a whole cannot possibly be deemed a technical improvement in the time of its filing (2025). The “drafting effort to monopolize estate settlement” argument is not persuasive because the 2-step process itself inherently incorporates the preemption concert as stated in MPEP 2106.04(I), “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection").” In response to the applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s analysis omits the database, network, and platform system, this argument is not persuasive because the examiner has previously stated in the office action, “Furthermore, while the elements, “platform system,” “platform provider,” and “network” are broad enough to be part of the abstract idea, even if they were additional elements, they are still no more than using computers or other devices in their ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Furthermore, the examiner does not deem the “database” to be an additional element, because absent of any structural limitations and hardware, a database is no more than a storage of information, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which can merely be a piece of paper with the list of information. The examiner has considered all of the additional elements in combination, including the newly amended claims and still finds that none of the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In view of the applicant’s arguments over Step 2B, the applicant’s arguments that the Examiner has not provided express written support for well-understood, routine, or conventional elements, the examiner states that no such support is required because no allegation of well-understood, routine or conventional elements has been made by the examiner. Furthermore, the rejection does not hinge on such an assertion, nor is it required in order to deem the abstract idea less than “significantly more.” The step 2B analysis is not procedurally deficient contrary to the applicant’s assertion. In response to the applicant’s arguments over claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are now moot in view of the updated rejection which now includes Foote, Turek, and Lantsman. More specifically, the applicant’s arguments regarding Foote’s failure to teach “upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file, automatically locking, via the platform system, an account of the account owner the platform system,” and has been reinforced by adding Turek’s teachings specifically locking an account from the platform system, combined with Lantsman’s teachings for monitoring the Death Master File. Without conceding the previous rejections in view of Foote, the present combination now teaches the same “account locking” mechanism as required in the claims, as suggested by Turek. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation for “link” does not require a specific structure such as a hyperlink or download link, “link” can merely mean any connection providing a capability to respond back. The combination of Foote, Turek, and Lantsman are shown to satisfy this limitation in the rejection above. In view of the applicant’s arguments over Turek, the applicant’s assertions have been considered, including Turek’s failure to teach appearing in the death master file as a trigger, and providing a link, however, Turek is not relied upon for either of these teachings in the present rejection. Furthermore, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding Statom’s teachings are not persuasive, because even assuming that Statom does not specify that the purchased time limits are for “after death,” the limitation itself would be satisfied when considered in combination with Foote because Foote is relied upon for the “after death” portion of the limitation. Furthermore, it also would have been obvious to modify the teachings such that it is a posthumous limit based on Statom’s time limit of 120 days to save the video after death (Statom [0025] STEP 8: Authorizing release of the final farewell video to the recipients via a confirmation text or email message. Receiving, by recipients of the final farewell videos, a text message and an email advising they have a final farewell video from the customer, e.g., “You have a final farewell video from ‘Joe Smith,’ with up to 120 days from a time the recipient receives a link to view and save it to the recipient's device. The recipient will then reply “yes” to receive the final farewell video on their cellular phone/email via a link involving a click and view on the website. [0026] STEP 9: Viewing the video. After replying and the recipient would like to view the video again, a link will be sent out to the recipient in which the recipient can click on the website and view the video for up to 120 days. The recipients will have an option to save the video to their device for keeping.) Therefore, time limits based on after death are also taught in Statom, albeit requiring modification. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the arguments above fall short, which the examiner does not concede, at the very least, it would have been obvious to store user account information on a platform after the death of a user, even permanently, which is more than “one year.” Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments over the prior art of record are persuasive and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626 /RASHIDA R SHORTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626