Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/410,969

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRIVATE ASSETS DERIVATIVES CREATION AND USE FOR PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, RISK TRANSFER, OR TRADING WITH THE AID OF A DIGITAL COMPUTER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Priority
Jun 22, 2021 — provisional 63/213,374 +2 more
Examiner
MILEF, ELDA G
Art Unit
3694
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Cuneifin Jsc
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
Est. Remaining
49%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allowance Rate
210 granted / 511 resolved
-10.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 511 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Double Patenting 2. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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); 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 non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 5. Claims 1-6, 10-23 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 7-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,493,908. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to system and method for private equity derivatives creation and use with the aid of a digital computer. Regarding claims 1-6, 10-23 the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 2, 3, 7-15 of U.S. Patent 12,493,908. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7-15 of U.S. Patent 12,493,908 teach limitations omitted from claims 1-6, 10-23 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).. Conclusion 3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm. 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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (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 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. /ELDA G MILEF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12770188
TRADE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND TRADE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12762621
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY GENERATING PORTFOLIOS USING ENSEMBLE TECHNIQUES
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12749115
LOW LATENCY REGULATION OF DISTRIBUTED TRANSACTION PROCESSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CENTRALIZED DEMAND-BASED DYNAMICALLY REALLOCATED LIMITS
1y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12737759
FRAUD DETERRENCE FOR SECURE TRANSACTIONS
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12718206
MESSAGE PROCESSOR WITH APPLICATION PROMPTS
5y 3m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
49%
With Interview (+8.2%)
3y 10m (~2y 11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 511 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