Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/951,456

BINDING WEB COMPONENTS TO PROTECT ACCESSING OF RESOURCES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Examiner
HENDERSON, ESTHER BENOIT
Art Unit
2458
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Citigroup Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
534 granted / 677 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
691
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 677 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 This action is in response to an application filed November 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 18, 2024 and April 9, 2025 are acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory obviousness 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent document (US 11,736,293 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter of providing access to content for a web component on a web application of a customer device. A side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim(s) of the instant application and patent document have been included below. The bolded portions are portions which are almost identical to one another. The non-bolded portions are related to subject matter which is obvious, and do not further define over the subject matter of the U.S. patent document. Therefore, the subject matter of both claim sets are not distinct from one another. Here is the following side-by-side analysis of the first independent claim in each application: Instant Application ‘456 1. A method, comprising: transmitting, by a first server to a second server, a request to provide access to content for a first web component on a web application of a customer device; receiving, by the first server from the second server, a first response comprising (i) an identifier to bind the first web component with a second web component to permit access to the content for the first web component on the web application of the customer device and (ii) content for the first web component, the identifier generated in response to a validation of the request; generating, by the first server, a second response comprising (i) the identifier, (ii) the content for the first web component, and (iii) a token for communications associated with the first web component; transmitting, by the first server to the customer device, the second response to cause the customer device to present the content for the first web component bound with the second web component using the identifier; and communicating, by the first server between the customer device and the second server, data associated with the content presented on the first web component bound with the second web component. Patent Document ‘293 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a first server from a second server, a request to provide access to content for a first web component on a web application of a customer device; determining, by the first server, whether to issue an identifier corresponding to the first web component to the customer device responsive to a validation of the request; generating, by the first server responsive to the determination, the identifier to bind the first web component with a second web component to permit access to the content for the first web component on the web application of the customer device, wherein the second web component is configured to receive content of the first web component; transmitting, by the first server to the second server, a response including the identifier and the content; and communicating, by the first server via the second server, data associated with a user interaction with the content presented on the first web component bound with the second web component using the identifier. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed over available prior art(s) and/or any combinations of available prior arts, but are rejected under Double Patenting. 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). REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has not found any reasonable prior art(s) nor combination of prior art(s) which teach the feature of ‘generating, by the first server, a second response comprising (i) the identifier, (ii) the content for the first web component, and (iii) a token for communications associated with the first web component; transmitting, by the first server to the customer device, the second response to cause the customer device to present the content for the first web component bound with the second web component using the identifier’. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p ET. 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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. /ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 March 20, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596836
COMPLIANCE DATA STANDARDIZATION AND AUDIT OUTPUT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591631
VISIBILITY APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579078
SPECULATING OBJECT-GRANULAR KEY IDENTIFIERS FOR MEMORY SAFETY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580779
INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION MANUFACTURING WITH NFTs AND SMART CONTRACTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562900
SECURE SECRETS MANAGEMENT IN AN INTEGRATION PLATFORM
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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.5%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 677 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