Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/173,262

SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR INFERRED GRAPH DATA LINK ATTESTATION

Non-Final OA §101§DP
Filed
Apr 08, 2025
Examiner
VY, HUNG T
Art Unit
2163
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Wells Fargo Bank N A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
781 granted / 905 resolved
+31.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
935
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 905 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . 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 Omum, 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Patent No. 12/282,490. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12/282,490 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below). Instant Application claim 1 Patent No. 12/282,490 claim 1 A method comprising: receiving a set of tuple objects corresponding to relationships between entities in a knowledge graph database; populating a graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities; populating a graph link type confirmation area with: an identification of a first entity of the entities; an identification of a second entity of the entities; and a non-activated link type confirmation element configured to, when activated, confirm a link type relationship between the first entity and the second entity; receiving activation of the link type confirmation element; and in response to receiving the activation, updating the graph presentation area. A method comprising: presenting a user interface, the user interface including: a graph presentation area; and a graph link type confirmation area; executing a knowledge graph database search query; in response to the executing; receiving a set of tuple objects corresponding to relationships between entities in the knowledge graph database; populating the graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities; and populating the graph link type confirmation area with; an identification of a first entity of the entities; an identification of a second entity of the entities; and a non-activated link type confirmation element a configured to, when activated, confirm a link type relationship between the first entity and the second entity; receiving activation of the link type confirmation element; and in response to receiving the activation, updating the graph presentation area. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: At step 1: Claims 1-20 is directed to a “system and method for inferred graph data link attestation” and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A, Prong One: The claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas: “receiving a set of tuple objects corresponding to relationships between entities in a knowledge graph database” recites a mental process as gathering a set of tuple objects corresponding to relationships between entities in a knowledge graph database (the drawing linking between entities). “populating a graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities” recites a mental process as filling or presenting in paper a graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities. “populating a graph link type confirmation area with: an identification of a first entity of the entities; an identification of a second entity of the entities; a non-activated link type confirmation element configured to, when activated, confirm a link type relationship between the first entity and the second entity; receiving activation of the link type confirmation element” recites a mental process as filling or presenting in paper a graph link type confirmation area with: an identification of a first entity of the entities; an identification of a second entity of the entities; a non-activated link type confirmation element configured to, when activated, confirm a link type relationship between the first entity receiving activation of the link type confirmation element; and in response to receiving the activation, updating the graph presentation area and the second entity; receiving activation of the link type confirmation element “receiving activation of the link type confirmation element; and in response to receiving the activation, updating the graph presentation area” recites a mental process as verifying the link type confirmation and update the graph. The claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas: With respect to claim 2, 9 and 16, the claims recite wherein updating the graph presentation area includes changing a presentation style of a link between the first entity and second entity, it’s a mental process as updating the graph presentation area includes changing a presentation style of a link between the first entity and second entity. With respect to claim 3, 10 and 17, the claims recite propagating the changed presentation style to at least one other link in the graph presentation area. it’s a mental process as filling or presenting in paper the changed presentation style to at least one other link in the graph presentation area. With respect to claim 4, 11 and 18, the claims recite where populating the graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities; selecting a presentation style for a link in the graph presentation area based on a priority order of a plurality of possible presentation styles. it’s a mental process as filling or presenting in paper a graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities; selecting a presentation style for a link in the graph presentation area based on a priority order of a plurality of possible presentation styles With respect to claim 5, 12 and 19, the claims recite receiving an indication of activation of a report generation element; and in response to receiving the indication, generating a data file including a current state of the graph link type confirmation area. it’s a mental process as receiving an indication of activation of a report generation element; and in response to receiving the indication, generating a data file including a current state of the graph link type confirmation area. With respect to claim 6, 13 and 20, the claims recite the current state of the graph link type confirmation area includes a confirmation status of a link type between the first entity and second entity. it’s a mental process as the current state of the graph link type confirmation area includes a confirmation status of a link type between the first entity and second entity. With respect to claim 7, and 14, the claims recite determining that a user identifier associated with a current user session is associated with a validator role; and presenting the graph link type confirmation area based on the determination. it’s a mental process as a user identifier associated with a current user session is associated with a validator role; and presenting the graph link type confirmation area based on the determination. At step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: That the content management system includes “processing unit” “storage device”, which are high level recitation of generic computer component s and functions and represent mere instruction to apply to a computer as in MPEP 2106.05 (f) which does not provide integration into a practical application. At step 2B The conclusions for the mere implementation using a generic computer and mere field of use are carried over and to not provide significantly more. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowed contingent on overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 and double patenting. With respect to claims 1-20, Kleiman-Weiner et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0349517 A1) discloses a method comprising: receiving a set of tuple objects corresponding to relationships between entities in a knowledge graph database (i.e., “ the knowledge graph 208 may include one or more documents represented in the user interface 206 by document icons, along with one or more concepts represented in the user interface 206 by concept icons. To form the knowledge graph 208, these documents and concepts may be associated through relationships such as graph edges that are represented as visual indicators of mentions within the user interface 206”(0034) and “The first concept icon may be associated with a first concept mentioned in the first document and also mentioned in a plurality of other documents in the corpus of documents. As further described herein, the visual indicator may visually associate the document icon with the first concept icon in the display.”(0039) and “A relationship can be described as having a “type” that is defined by a special kind of document that is often called an ontology. The mentions of various concepts in an ontology, such as “member of” may be used to describe relationships between entities, such as “Black Francis was a member of The Pixies.” The two-tuple of (MentionID(Black Francis), MentionID(The Pixies)) may be a more fundamental object. ”(0102)); populating a graph presentation area with representations of the entities and links connecting the representations of the entities (i.e.,” It will also be understood that the recommendation engine 202 may automatically populate the knowledge graph 208 within the user interface 206, or a candidate document, concept, or relationship may be presented to a user through the user interface 206 so that the user can accept, reject, modify, or request clarification of the proposed addition.”(0036) and “A relationship can be described as having a “type” that is defined by a special kind of document that is often called an ontology. The mentions of various concepts in an ontology, such as “member of” may be used to describe relationships between entities, such as “Black Francis was a member of The Pixies.” The two-tuple of (MentionID(Black Francis), MentionID(The Pixies)) may be a more fundamental object. ”(0102)); populating a graph link type confirmation area with: an identification of a first entity of the entities (i.e., “A relationship may be a kind of attribute of an entity. A relationship may be identified by two entities, which are concepts, and therefore substantiated by mentions—at least one mention for each of the two entities. That is, a pair of mentionIDs may be necessary information for identifying a relationship.”(0101)); an identification of a second entity of the entities (i.e., “A relationship may be a kind of attribute of an entity. A relationship may be identified by two entities, which are concepts, and therefore substantiated by mentions—at least one mention for each of the two entities. That is, a pair of mentionIDs may be necessary information for identifying a relationship.”(0101)); updating the graph presentation area (i.e., “As shown in step 316, the method 300 may include updating the knowledge graph or other visual expression of the journal of operations. This may, for example, include updating a data structure that contains information about the knowledge graph (e.g., relationships among documents and concepts, along with substantiating information for such relationships)”(0048)), however, Kleiman-Weiner et al. does not disclose a non-activated link type confirmation element configured to, when activated, confirm a link type relationship between the first entity and the second entity; receiving activation of the link type confirmation element; and in response to receiving the activation, Citation of Pertinent References The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The patent to Barlew et al. discloses System for Annotating input data using graphs via a use interface, U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0252006A1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571)272-4078. 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. /HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 August 10, 2024
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566949
TERNARY NEURAL NETWORK ACCELERATOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561345
GENERATING AN ARTIFICIAL DATA SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12524422
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING HIERARCHICAL, SEMI-STRUCTURED, SCHEMA-LESS, POLYMORPHIC DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12517772
EVENT PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12511259
SCALABLE, SECURE, EFFICIENT, AND ADAPTABLE DISTRIBUTED DIGITAL LEDGER TRANSACTION NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
86%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+2.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 905 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