Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/422,332

System and Method for Modifying Textual Content

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Examiner
DEBROW, JAMES J
Art Unit
2174
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Shopify Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
351 granted / 504 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
529
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 504 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . This Office Action is responsive to: Remarks filed 27 Nov. 2025 Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are independent claims Applicant’s Response In Applicant’s Response dated 27 Nov. 2025, Applicant argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 10 Sep. 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gandhi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0378399 A1; Filed: May 10, 2023). Regarding independent claim 1, 17 and 20, Gandhi disclose a computer-implemented method, comprising: applying a text analysis tool to text having been added to a document (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); identifying a portion of text in the document as violating a rule in a rule set associated with the document (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); providing a first input to a large language model (LLM), the first input comprising at least one prompt requesting a revision to the portion of text in the document (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); receiving, from the LLM, a response to the first input, the response comprising a suggested modification to the document related to the portion of text (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); and providing an option to apply the suggested modification to the document (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claims 2 and 18, Gandhi disclose the method of claims 1 and 17 respectively, wherein the text analysis tool is applied continuously, periodically, or responsive to a second input during document composition (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claims 3 and 19, Gandhi disclose the method of claims 1 and 17 respectively, further comprising applying the suggested modification to the document (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 4, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the suggested modification is applied responsive to a third input confirming the suggested modification (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 5, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising applying the text analysis tool to the suggested modification to confirm that changes comply with the rule set (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 6, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 5, further comprising: revising the first input to the LLM (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); receiving a revised modification (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); and applying the text analysis tool to the revised modification to confirm that changes comply with the rule set (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 7, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request from the LLM for additional content associated with the portion of text (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); and supplementing the input with the additional content (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 8, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising updating the rule set based on the suggested modification (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 9, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the method is executed asynchronously to document composition (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 10, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more portions of text in the document (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); and providing a corresponding option with each portion to obtain the suggested modification from the LLM (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 11, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the portion of text is highlighted inline and detecting selection of the highlighted text causes the text analysis tool to display the corresponding option (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 12, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 11, wherein a plurality of corresponding options is displayed, each option providing a different suggested modification (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 13, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modification to the document comprises a replacement for the portion of text (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 14, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modification to the document comprises content additional to the portion of text (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 15, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing content associated with the document composition process to the LLM (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072); and receiving the rule set, the rule set having been generated by the LLM using the content associated with the document composition process (0030; 0040; 0045; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). Regarding dependent claim 16, Gandhi disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the LLM, a prediction for a new portion of text to be added to the document based on an analysis of the input (0030; 0040; 0045; 0049; 0052-0053; 0064; 0068; 0070-0072). NOTE It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference 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. See MPEP 2123. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Gandhi fails to teach or suggest “portion of text in the document”. The Examiner disagree. Gandhi disclose the document content information may include but is not limited to the layout of a presentation slide or other document, the location and size of images within the slide or document, the text included in the slide or document and the attributes of the that text, the location of the text within the document, the source files or locations for obtaining the images included in the slide or document, and/or other information that describes elements of the slide or document and the content therein. The LLM 222 uses this information to provide context when modifying existing content (0030;’ 0029; 0025). Thus Gandhi explicitly teach “portion of text in the document”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J DEBROW whose telephone number is (571)272-5768. The examiner can normally be reached on 09:00 - 06:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /James J Debrow/ Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2174 571-272-5768
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Nov 27, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602148
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIAGNOSIS AND ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591734
BULK ENVELOPE MANAGEMENT IN DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12572731
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, TERMINAL, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566917
SERVER APPARATUS AND CLIENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561357
DOCUMENT PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+25.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 504 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