Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/596,551

AUTOMATED NON-BILLING CYCLE REMITTANCE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 05, 2024
Priority
Jan 15, 2019 — continuation of 16/247,740 +1 more
Examiner
RANKINS, WILLIAM E
Art Unit
3694
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allowance Rate
452 granted / 784 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
824
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 784 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rejection is moot as the claims have been amended to replace the rejected material. The amended claims recite that the non-billing cycle remittance decreases utilization of CPU resources. The Office asserts that tis amendment is also not supported by the specification. The specification discloses in 00h16 that executing batch jobs…”may” not be needed. Thus the specification does not definitively disclose any decrease in utilization of CPU resources. 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. The independent claims recite: The non-billing cycle remittance decreases utilization of CPU resources at least in part by reducing execution of batch jobs for interdependent cycles. However, the specification does not support this limitation. The specification discloses that executing batch jobs…”may” not be needed, which is not a definitive statement of the alleged improvement. Conclusion 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 8 earlier events
Sep 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 21, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 21, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639678
METHOD OF PROCESSING DIGITAL CHECKS
2y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12620020
APPLYING PROVISIONAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION THRESHOLDS
3y 6m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12620035
DISTRIBUTED LEDGER SYSTEM FOR MANAGING LOSS HISTORIES FOR PROPERTIES
2y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12614160
DISTRIBUTION UTILITY
2y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12608730
SENDING FUNDS VIA AN EMAIL PAYMENT GATEWAY
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (+8.4%)
3y 4m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 784 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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