Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/245,771

System and Method For Managing Data From Different Sources

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Priority
Mar 20, 2024 — continuation of 12/360,963
Examiner
CHBOUKI, TAREK
Art Unit
2161
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
The Toronto-dominion Bank
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
697 granted / 859 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
879
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
89.6%
+49.6% vs TC avg
§102
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§112
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 859 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 . Claims 1-20 have submitted for examination 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. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No 12360963. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowable if the above double patenting rejection is addressed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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. /TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 5/19/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2025
Application Filed
May 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12682778
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION INCORPORATING REINFORCEMENT-BASED LEARNING AND FEEDBACK
1y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675437
METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR TRANSMITTING DATA
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12675495
NATURAL LANGUAGE TO CUSTOMIZE DATA VISUALIZATION
1y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12670146
MONITORING AND ALERTING MECHANISMS
1y 9m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12664203
Method for Classifying Data Items
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.1%)
3y 2m (~2y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 859 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