CTNF 19/264,665 CTNF 82853 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The instant office action having application number 19/264,665, filed on July 9, 2025, has claims 1-20 pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “A method comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including an allocation value property of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the allocation value; and links connecting the representations of entities.” The claim is vulnerable to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 because it is directed to collecting information, analyzing relationships among entities using a knowledge graph query, and presenting the results visually in a graph interface. These activities are generally treated as abstract ideas under the Alice/Mayo framework and USPTO eligibility guidance. Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of an Abstract Idea Presenting user interface elements: Merely gathering user input identifying a service provider and service. Executing a knowledge graph database query: Analyzing relationships and retrieving information from a database. Receiving tuple results: Collecting and organizing information. Allocation value property: Evaluation or attribution of organizational/business information. Generating an interactive graph: Displaying information and relationships visually. Nodes and links: Mental processes and data organization concepts implemented generically. The claim focuses on organizing and displaying information about relationships between entities. Courts routinely hold that collecting data, analyzing it, and presenting results are abstract ideas. The claim does not recite a technological improvement to databases, graph processing, networking, or graphical rendering. Instead, it uses conventional computer components to automate a business-or organizational-information analysis process. Step 2A, Prong Two – No Integration into a Practical Application The additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim merely uses generic computer implementation elements such as a computing device, user interface, graph presentation area, database query, and graph display. These are recited at a high level of generality without any specific technical mechanism improving computer functionality. No improvement to knowledge graph database architecture. No unconventional graph query mechanism. No improved memory usage or processing efficiency. No specialized rendering technique. No improvement to network communication. No technical solution to a technical problem. Step 2B – No Inventive Concept The claim also fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recited computing device, interface elements, querying functions, and graph generation operations are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Displaying interface elements is conventional. Querying databases is conventional. Receiving tuple results is routine data processing. Displaying nodes and links in a graph is a common visualization technique. Interactive graphs were well-known before the filing date. The claim lacks unconventional technical implementation details. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 8 and 15 are also rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 above. Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “presenting filtering option controls representing categories of child nodes as defined in the knowledge graph database, wherein each filtering control option includes a subgroup identification and a numerical indication representing a number of child objects within the subgroup; receive a user selection of a filtering option control for a category of the categories; and in response to activation of the filtering option control, display child nodes in the graph presentation area according to the selected filtering option control.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 9 and 16. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “presenting a graph layout selection element configured to receive a selection of a layout option from a plurality of layout options, wherein the interactive graph is generated according to the layout option.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 4-5, 10-12 and 17-19. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “determining that a user identifier associated with the computing device is authorized to view the allocation value based on access control data stored in the knowledge graph database.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 20. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “receiving activation of a toggle control element in the user interface, wherein the allocation value is displayed in response to the activation of the toggle control element.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 14. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 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 nonstatutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12386853 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference Patent. Every limitations in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences or additional limitations between the claims are highlighted below by underlining and bolding all limitations . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 1, of the instant application receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including a first allocation value the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service, the first allocation value covering a first period of time; wherein a representation of the service provider includes the first allocation value and a second allocation value covering a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time and is a subset of the first period of time. Please, see the comparison table below: Instant Application 19264665 Patent No. 12386853 1. A method comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including an allocation value property of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the allocation value; and links connecting the representations of entities. 8. A system comprising: a processing unit; and a storage device comprising instructions which, when executed by the processing unit, configure the processing unit to perform operations comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including an allocation value property of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the allocation value; and links connecting the representations of entities. 15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing unit, configure the processing unit to perform operations comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including an allocation value property of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the allocation value; and links connecting the representations of entities. 1. A method comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including a first allocation value of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service, the first allocation value covering a first period of time; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the first allocation value and a second allocation value covering a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time and is a subset of the first period of time; and links connecting the representations of entities. 6. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing unit, configure the processing unit to perform operations comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including a first allocation value of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service, the first allocation value covering a first period of time; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the first allocation value and a second allocation value covering a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time and is a subset of the first period of time; and links connecting the representations of entities. 11. A system comprising: a processing unit; and a storage device comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing unit, configure the processing unit to perform operations comprising: presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including a first allocation value of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service, the first allocation value covering a first period of time; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results including: representations of entities including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the first allocation value and a second allocation value covering a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time and is a subset of the first period of time; and links connecting the representations of entities.1926 "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). The application claim 1 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 1; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 1 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention. The application claim 8 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 6; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 8 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 6 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention. The application claim 15 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 11; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 15 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 11 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 8, 9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Portisch et al (US 20220237185 A1) (hereinafter Portisch) . As per claims 1, 8 and 15 , Portisch discloses presenting a user interface on a computing device, the user interface [a user interface 122, paragraph 23] including: a service provider input element identifying a service provider; a service identifier input element identifying a service; and a graph presentation area; executing a knowledge graph database query using a combination of the service provider and the service as input to a knowledge graph database [As shown in FIG. 8 and described above, the linking operation can link data tuples 810 to respective instances 820 in the knowledge graph. Because each instance 820 can have a plurality of properties and corresponding property values, each data tuple 810 can then be mapped to a linked instance's properties and property values, paragraph 81, Also Fig. 9, knowledge graph with tuples] ; receiving tuple results in response to the executing, the tuple results including an allocation value property of the service provider attributable to the service provider with respect to the service [the mapping operation can create a map 800 which maps the data tuples 810 to respective property tuple lists (e.g., 830, 840, etc.). Thus, each data tuple in the map, which has a unique URI defined in the source schema, can be a key pointing to a unique data structure, i.e., property tuple list, paragraph 82] ; and generating in the graph presentation area, an interactive graph based on the tuple results [a user can provide or edit a label for a non-matching property. For example, instead of using the label “locationCountry” defined in the knowledge graph, the user can change the label to “Country.”, paragraph 90] including: representations of entities [Fig. 7, items 710, 720] including the service provider and the service in the tuple results as nodes in the interactive graph, wherein a representation of the service provider includes the allocation value [Thus, the data tuple (SAP, Waldorf, Frankfurt, SE) can be mapped to a property tuple list 830 which includes a list of two-element property tuples corresponding to different properties of the instance linked to the data tuple, wherein the first element in a property tuple can be the URI of a property and the second element in the property tuple can be the corresponding value of the property, paragraph 81] ; and links connecting the representations of entities [the first data tuple 710 (SAP, Waldorf, Frankfurt, SE) is linked to an instance 712 in the knowledge graph (KG) representing the company SAP with a unique URI (e.g., http://dbpedia.org/resource/SAP_SE), and the second data tuple 720 (BASF, Ludwigshafen, Frankfurt, SE) is linked to another instance 722 in the knowledge graph (KG) representing the company BASF with another unique URI, paragraph 69] . As per claims 2, 9 and 16 , Portisch discloses presenting filtering option controls representing categories of child nodes as defined in the knowledge graph database, wherein each filtering control option includes a subgroup identification and a numerical indication representing a number of child objects within the subgroup; receive a user selection of a filtering option control for a category of the categories; and in response to activation of the filtering option control, display child nodes in the graph presentation area according to the selected filtering option control [the queries can find out in the knowledge graph, how many companies have the property “numberofEmployees” annotated (i.e., with associated property values) and how many have the property “locationCountry” annotated (i.e., with associated property values). The property that has been annotated more can be deemed more “popular” and thus ranked higher, paragraph98, See table 2] . As per claims 3, 10 and 17 , Portisch discloses presenting a graph layout selection element configured to receive a selection of a layout option from a plurality of layout options, wherein the interactive graph is generated according to the layout option [graphical user interface showing a source table having one data tuple and controls for data enrichment, see Fig. 10] . As per claims 4, 11 and 18 , Portisch discloses wherein the user interface further includes: a multi-tab contextual panel interface including: a first tab configured to receive the selection of the layout option; and a second tab configured to present an estimated cost allocation for entities in the graph presentation area [new properties and property values recommended to be added to the data tuple after running the intelligent data enrichment algorithm using DBpedia, See Fig. 11] . As per claims 5, 12 and 19 , Portisch discloses wherein the second tab includes rows corresponding to entities in the interactive graph, wherein a row includes an extra detail element configured to present additional rows associated with the row [graphical user interface showing an enriched source table where a new property and the associated property value are added to the data tuple, See Fig. 12] . As per claim 6, 13 and 20 , , Portisch discloses determining that a user identifier associated with the computing device is authorized to view the allocation value based on access control data stored in the knowledge graph database [Through the user interface 122, the table enrichment engine 120 can receive a user input 118 which specifies which source table 112 needs to be enriched. In certain examples, the source schema 114 associated with the source table 112 can be automatically determined, paragraph 24] . As per claims 7 and 14 , Portisch discloses receiving activation of a toggle control element in the user interface, wherein the allocation value is displayed in response to the activation of the toggle control element [The user can select from the recommended data, e.g., through simple clicks, to add to the source table, paragraph 109] . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOSHA ARJOMANDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9784. The examiner can normally be reached on (571)272-9784 . 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)272-4098 . 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. May 15, 2026 /NOOSHA ARJOMANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 2 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 3 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 4 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 5 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 6 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 7 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 8 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 9 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 10 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 11 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 12 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 13 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 14 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 15 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 16 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 17 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 18 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 19 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 20 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 19/264,665 Page 21 Art Unit: 2166
Prosecution Insights