Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/240,495

System and Method for Annotation-Based Document Management

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Aug 31, 2023
Examiner
TRAN, TAM T
Art Unit
2174
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Cognetto LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
318 granted / 397 resolved
+25.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
415
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
53.0%
+13.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 397 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to Application 18/240,495 filed on 08/31/2023. In the instant application, claim 1 is independent claim; Claim 1 has been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final. 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 . Drawings The drawings submitted on 08/31/2023 are acceptable. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented, annotation-based document system …”. However, the specification does not mention any structure associated with the claimed system. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret the claimed “A computer-implemented, annotation-based document system” as software per se. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 is allowed when the 35 USC § 101 rejection is resolved. Examiner’s Statement of reason of Allowance The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention is directed to a computer-implemented, annotation-based document system for streamlining the process of annotating or extracting data content from a document or set of documents and generating a written report/review document about a specific source document or set of documents, whereby the report contains content generated by one or multiple users. The invention describes an annotation-based document management system that includes at least three interrelated regions of a graphical user interface and enables users to quickly access, from a list of documents, locations of interest within each document. Independent claim 1 when considered as a whole, are allowable over the prior art of record. The closest prior arts can be found: Thomas et al. (US 7945600) teaches a method for organizing a plurality of electronic documents to facilitate review of the electronic documents. A summary representation is generated for each electronic document in a plurality of electronic documents. Similarity metrics are determined between electronic documents in the plurality of electronic documents based upon the summary representations for the electronic documents. The plurality of electronic documents are grouped into a hierarchical collection of folders based upon the similarity metrics, each folder in the hierarchical collection of folders comprising one or more electronic documents from the plurality of electronic documents related to a concept represented by the folder. Wilde at al. (US 2022/0236843) teaches a method for summarizing suggested content and sharing the summarized suggested content is described. In one aspect, a computer-implemented method includes performing an analysis of text of a document, searching a document library for content elements and documents based on the analysis of the text, identifying candidate documents and candidate content based on the searching, presenting a list of candidate documents or candidate content with the document authoring application, receiving a selection of a candidate document or candidate content from the list in the document authoring application, and providing the selected candidate document to a collaborative content sharing platform, the collaborative content sharing platform configured to generate a graphical user interface that displays a list of shared documents, the shared documents includes candidate documents selected by one or more users of a group of users that share access to the collaborative content sharing platform. Rasmussen et al. (US 2008/0256113) teaches a method for sharing information between application programs. Some embodiments are particularly directed to techniques for accessing information from one application program that is managed or maintained by another application program. For example, an apparatus such as a computing device or system may include a first application program to create information in the form of notes for an operator or user. A second application program may be used to generate or display a target document. A context management module may be arranged to manage information shared between the first and second application programs, such as a note with a target document or vice-versa. However, closest prior arts as discussed above, do not teach or suggest the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims1. For example, the prior arts do not teach of suggest the steps of “A computer-implemented, annotation-based document management system for a set of one or more documents, the system including at least three interrelated regions of a graphical user interface, comprising: a first region of the graphical user interface that lists at least one first document, and shows, for that first document, at least two associated elements that include at least one identifier for that first document and at least one direct or indirect reference to at least one first data value associated with that first document; a second region of the graphical user interface that can display some or all of the content of the first document listed in the first region of the graphical user interface, whereby at least one element included in the content of the first document can be augmented with at least one first visual mark-up; and a third region of a graphical user interface that contains at least one first field that can be populated with at least one first data value associated with the first document displayed in the second region of the graphical user interface, whereby a direct or indirect reference to the first data value can be shown in the first region of the graphical user interface, as part of the at least two elements associated with the first document listed.” While the cited prior arts disclose some of the claimed features as explained above, however, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as Claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either from the cited prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known references to render the claimed invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)). Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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. /TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Feb 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 14, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 08, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592007
LYRICS AND KARAOKE USER INTERFACES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591312
WEARABLE TERMINAL APPARATUS, PROGRAM, AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585419
AUDIO PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572272
METHOD FOR COMPUTER KEY AND POINTER INPUT USING GESTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572260
PRESENTATION AND CONTROL OF USER INTERACTIONS WITH A USER INTERFACE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 397 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