Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/586,798

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY AUTOMATING SUBMISSIONS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
KELLS, ASHER
Art Unit
2171
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Capital One Services LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
490 granted / 625 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
647
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 625 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Notice of AIA Status The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the tabular data is received from the user device via clickable elements proximate to the fields on the webpage.” The term “proximate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of the term. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). 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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inukonda et al., US 2015/0193123 A1. Regarding claim 13, Inukonda discloses a dynamic submission automation system comprising: One or more processors; and memory in communication with the one or more processors. Inukonda fig. 1A. Storing instructions that are configured to cause the dynamic submission automation system to: receive, from a user device, tabular data and one or more associations of columns from the tabular data to fields on a webpage for one or more submissions. Inukonda teaches accessing spreadsheet data. Inukonda ¶¶ 55, 65, fig. 5A. A column of the spreadsheet data may be mapped to a field in a graphical user interface. Id. ¶ 70. The graphical user interface may be a webpage. Id. ¶¶ 57-58, fig. 6. [Storing instructions that are configured to cause the dynamic submission automation system to:] extract column data and row data from the tabular data. Inukonda teaches extracting column data and row data from the spreadsheet. Inukonda ¶ 77. [storing instructions that are configured to cause the dynamic submission automation system to:] transmit, via an API, one or more submissions for each row in the tabular data using the one or more associations of columns. Inukonda teaches transferring the data extracted from the spreadsheet to populate fields in the graphical user interface. Inukonda ¶ 77. APIs (e.g., HTTP) may be used in this process. Id. ¶¶ 58, 69. Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 13, Inukonda discloses wherein the tabular data and one or more associations is received from the user device via a browser extension, a mobile application, or both. Inukonda teaches the use of a mobile device. Inukonda ¶ 36. The system uses applications to transfer data. Id. ¶ 42. Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 13, Inukonda discloses wherein receiving the tabular data further comprises: receiving a location of the tabular data; and transmitting an API call with the location of the tabular data to retrieve the tabular data. Inukonda teaches using APIs to retrieve data from a spreadsheet from a particular field. Inukonda ¶¶ 58, 69. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 and 16-19 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 1-12 are allowed. The closest known prior art is Inukonda et al., US 2015/0193123 A1. Inukonda teaches transferring data from a spreadsheet to field on a webpage. However, Inukonda does not teach the use of a machine learning model. Meanwhile, Mayer et al., US 2023/0108015 A1, teaches the use of a machine learning model to match source screen data to target screen data. However, Mayer does not explicitly describe suggesting associations based on (1) data types of webpage fields and extracted column data; or (2) field names of the webpage and column names of extracted column data. Claims 16-19 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. Conclusion Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.. 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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. Asher D. Kells Primary Examiner Art Unit 2171 /Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591763
PROCESSING DEVICE, PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585373
INTERFACE TO DISPLAY SHARED USER GROUPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567066
MODIFYING CONTROL SCOPES OF CONTROLS ACROSS A PLURALITY OF DATA PROCESSES VIA DATA OBJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566918
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR ADDING APPENDED INFORMATION INDICATING CHANGES MADE TO THE DOCUMENT TO THE REVISED DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561514
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CLASSIFYING ONE OR MORE HYPERLINKS IN A DOCUMENT
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 625 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