Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/794,586

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURE TRANSACTION APPROVAL

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Examiner
KORSAK, OLEG
Art Unit
2492
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Capital One Services LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
804 granted / 941 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
980
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
DETAILED ACTION This communication is responsive to the application # 18/794,586 filed on August 05, 2024. By preliminary amendment Claims 21-40 are pending and are directed toward SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURE TRANSACTION APPROVAL. 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 Objections Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 recites, "aera " appears to contain a typographical error. "aera" should be corrected to "area". Appropriate correction is required. 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 obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 conflicting 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. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US patent No. 10,607,216. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 21-40 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-18 of US patent No. 10,607,216. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-18 of US patent No. 10,607,216 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims 1-18 of US patent No. 10,607,216 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)). Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of US patent No. 11,301,848. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 21-40 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-25 of US patent No. 11,301,848. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-25 of US patent No. 11,301,848 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims 1-25 of US patent No. 11,301,848 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)). Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11,056,692. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 21-40 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11,056,692. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11,056,692 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11,056,692 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-40 are indicated as allowable over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims of instant application are of the same scope as allowed claims of US 10,607,216, US 11,301,848, and US 12,056,692. Further, the closest art considered by Examiner is US 11,587,090, which is not a prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2). As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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. /OLEG KORSAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587555
METHODS FOR USING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR FOR RISK RATINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587572
MULTI-VENDOR WEB SECURITY CONTROL INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572629
Secure Messaging Service with Digital Rights Management Using Blockchain Technology
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574365
METHOD,APPARATUS,STORAGE MEDIUM AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR NETWORK AUTHENTICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563042
Performing Security Protocol Transitions While Executing An Execution Environment Of A Virtual Cloud Network
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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 941 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