Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/736,938

COMPUTING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTI-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
CHANG, EDWARD
Art Unit
3696
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Wells Fargo Bank N A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
334 granted / 531 resolved
+10.9% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
552
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§103
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 531 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 This action is in reply to the application filed on 7th of June 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed 06/07/2024 has not been considered. Filed form 1449 is unreadable. Please re-file. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 2. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because only difference was not defining the payment instruction/routine variables (current application) and “determining a portion of the payment amount that can be covered from premium account....” (Patent No. 12,033,220). The only purported difference lies in the content of the data being executed and rather premium can cover the cost, and that difference represents an obvious modification of the patented claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5. 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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. /EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 02/07/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591876
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LAUNCHING A MOBILE APPLICATION OR A BROWSER EXTENSION RESPONSIVE TO SATISFYING PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591935
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR WEATHER-RELATED VEHICLE DAMAGE PREVENTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579583
ANALYZING SUBMISSION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT BASED ON RULE SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572933
PAYMENT SERVICES VIA APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561746
EXTRACTING RULES AND DETERMINING RISK PARAMETERS FROM AN UNDERWRITING MANUAL
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
63%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+32.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 531 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