Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/518,800

SECURE ELECTRONIC BILLING WITH REAL-TIME FUNDS AVAILABILITY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 22, 2019
Examiner
PARK, YONG S
Art Unit
3694
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Early Warning Services LLC
OA Round
10 (Final)
24%
Grant Probability
At Risk
11-12
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
36%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 24% of cases
24%
Career Allow Rate
54 granted / 220 resolved
-27.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 220 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims This action is in reply to the amendment filed 10/07/2025. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1 and 11 being independent). The amendment filed 10/07/2025 to the claims has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2025 and 10/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered. With respect to claim eligibility over 35 USC 101, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments are persuasive because it would appear that the additional limitations describe meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and the amended independent claims 1 and 11 integrate the idea into a practical application as a technical improvement. As such, the claims are eligible with respect to 35 USC 101. For these reasons, independent claims 1 and 11 are deemed to be allowable over the 35 USC 101 rejection, and claims 2-10 and 12-20 are allowed by virtue of its dependency on an allowed claim. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As the recited amendment in independent claims 1 and 11, “the distributed memory architecture stores data across the plurality of servers such that the data is accessible from a central location while reducing bottlenecks in network resources during the real-time payment transaction;”, the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how the distributed memory architecture reduces bottlenecks in network resources during the real-time payment transaction because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. And, also it is not described with sufficient detail beyond the claimed function being repeated in the written description. Dependent claims (2-10 and 12-20) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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. /YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694 December 23, 2025 /BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2019
Application Filed
Aug 27, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 17, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 22, 2020
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2020
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 05, 2021
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 05, 2021
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 07, 2021
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 13, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 06, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 28, 2021
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 28, 2021
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 14, 2021
Response Filed
Jan 04, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 12, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 18, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 20, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 22, 2022
Response Filed
Oct 12, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 23, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 25, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 25, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
May 25, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 14, 2023
Response Filed
Jul 01, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 11, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Dec 11, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 26, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597043
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MERGING NETWORKS OF HETEROGENEOUS DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12511686
REAL-TIME ONLINE TRANSACTIONAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12475465
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATION AND USE OF BIOMETRIC-BASED ACCOUNT NUMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12387571
AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE DIGITAL TWIN WITH AN ANTI NFC/RFID SKIMMING THREAT DEVICE THROUGH MIST COMPUTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12380457
OPTIMAL ROUTING OF PAYMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

11-12
Expected OA Rounds
24%
Grant Probability
36%
With Interview (+11.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 220 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month