Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/495,533

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DIGITAL DOCUMENT EXCHANGE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ, LENNIN R
Art Unit
2683
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
482 granted / 593 resolved
+19.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
606
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 593 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kyleman et al. (US 2023/0028302). (1) regarding claims 1 and 11: Kyleman ‘302 discloses a method for digital document exchange (paragraph [0062], systems for managing electronic documents), comprising: receiving, by a document exchange computer program, a document (paragraph [0063], where a document is received electronically); ingesting, by the document exchange computer program, the document (paragraph [0109] and [0113], where the documents that are received are processed and digested); identifying, by the document exchange computer program, a folder for the document (paragraph [0072]-[0073], [0109], and [0114], where using information from he received document a folder is identified for storing the document based on the permissions of the document); storing, by the document exchange computer program, the document in the folder (paragraph [0072]-[0073], [0109], and [0114], where using information from he received document a folder is identified for storing the document based on the permissions of the document); identifying, by the document exchange computer program, a target for the document (paragraph [0109] and [0128], where based on the permissions of the received document, a destination is determined (target)); and notifying, by the document exchange computer program, the target that the document was received (paragraph [0109] and [0128], where a display shows the document to the user with the right permissions, thus notifying of the received document at the same time). (2) regarding claims 2 and 12: Kyleman ‘302 further discloses wherein the step of ingesting the document comprises: performing optical character recognition on the document (paragraph [0068], [0109], and [0147], where OCR is performed on the received document). (3) regarding claims 3 and 13: Kyleman ‘302 further discloses wherein the step of ingesting the document comprises: determining, by the document exchange computer program, that the document comprises relevant data (paragraph [0080] and [0109], where the document is analyzed and determined to be of a particular relevance). (4) regarding claims 4 and 14: Kyleman ‘302 further discloses wherein the step of ingesting the document further comprises: determining, by the document exchange computer program, that the document is complete (paragraph [0067], when multiple documents are received, each document is separated into individual files by checking on markers that identify a complete document from another). (5) regarding claims 5 and 15: Kyleman ‘302 further discloses updating, by the document exchange computer program, a checklist to reflect receipt of the document (paragraph [0105]-[0107], where documents are organized in a database in accordance with its characteristics, and as new documents are received an updated entry on the database will be generated naturally). (6) regarding claims 7 and 17: Kyleman ‘302 further discloses wherein the folder is identified based on a subject of the document, a party to the document, and/or a submitter of the document (paragraph [0072]-[0073], [0109], and [0114], where the folder is identified based on the permissions granted to the users that could access it, thus related to the party of the document). (7) regarding claims 10 and 20: Kyleman ‘302 further discloses wherein the document exchange computer program predicts the target using a machine learning system (paragraph [0076]-[0078], where a machine learning model can be used to predict the permissions categories, thus determining the target intended). 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. Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyleman et al. (US 2023/0028302) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0250780). (1) regarding claims 8 and 18: Kyleman ‘302 discloses all the subject matter as described above except comparing, by the document exchange computer program, the document to a prior version of the document to identify a change; and providing, by the document exchange computer program, the change to the target. However, Feng ‘780 teaches comparing, by the document exchange computer program, the document to a prior version of the document to identify a change (paragraph [0016], where a document is compared to its previous version and changes to the document are identified); and providing, by the document exchange computer program, the change to the target (paragraph [0016], where a notification of the changes to the document is shown to the user (target)). Having a system of Feng ‘780 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kyleman ‘302 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kyleman ‘302 to include the limitations as taught by Feng ‘780 because it improves efficiency by only notifying users of changes that the user is determined to be interested in without the user receiving notifications for each action taken to each of the components in the collaborative document (paragraph [0016]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, 9, 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A. Claims 6 and 16 disclose the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the document exchange computer program generates the checklist using a trained machine learning engine that is trained to predict documents required for a transaction type”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. B. Claims 9 and 19 disclose the unique and distinct limitations of “determining, by the document exchange computer program and using a large language model, an importance of the change; and providing, by the document exchange computer program, the importance of the change to the target”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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. /LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594059
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF UTERINE SPATIOTEMPORAL MOTION PATTERNS AND COORDINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592091
IMAGE AND VIDEO PROCESSING CIRCUITRY AND METHOD USING AN IMAGE SIGNATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585798
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR CHANGING AUTHORITY OF USER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586183
METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING LATENT TUBERCULOSIS INFECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586392
PERTURBATION ROBUST METRIC FOR EVALUATING IMAGE CAPTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 593 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