Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/137,364

MULTIPLE TERMINALS WITH ROTATING LICENSE MANAGEMENT

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Examiner
OKEKE, IZUNNA
Art Unit
2497
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Adeia Guides Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
609 granted / 744 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 744 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “circuitry configured to generate” in claim 14. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim limitation “circuitry configured to generate” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites in part “in response to determining that the second device is within the particular distance of the second device based on the QR code”. It is unclear and indefinite how a “second device” can be within a distance of the same “second device”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 – (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. Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Strom et al. (US-20080256646). Referring to claims 1 and 14: Regarding claims 1 and 14, Strom teaches a method comprising: generating an ephemeral personal credential (EPC) associated with a user account (Para 60, 62 and 63…. license associated with a domain identifier which comprises a user account); transmitting the EPC to a first device of a plurality of devices (Para 79…. transmitting license to a first device); in response to determining that the first device is within a particular distance of a second device of the plurality of devices, causing the second device to synchronize the EPC with the first device (Para 90… second device synchronizing/receiving license from the first device); receiving account credentials from the second device of the plurality of devices (Para 90 and 91…. receiving domain certificate from the second device); determining that the account credentials are associated with the user account (Para 91…. validating the certificate); receiving the EPC from the second device (Para 92… license from second device); and in response to determining the EPC received from the second device is valid, providing the second device access to content associated with the user account (Para 92…. validating the license and consuming the content). Referring to claims 2 and 15: Regarding claims 2 and 15, Strom teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of devices is associated with the user account (Para 50…. domain certificate). Referring to claims 3 and 16: Regarding claims 3 and 16, Strom teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first device is randomly selected from the plurality of devices (Para 88… any device can server as the first device that acquires the license). Referring to claims 4, 7, 17 and 20: Regarding claims 4, 7, 17, and 20, Strom teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first device is at least one of most recently used from the plurality of devices, most frequently used from the plurality of devices, or which received a most recent EPC associated with the user account (Para 79… first device receiving the license initially). Referring to claims 5, 6, 18 and 19: Regarding claims 5, 7, 18 and 19 Strom teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: periodically generating a subsequent EPC associated with the user account, wherein each subsequent EPC is valid during a corresponding subsequent time period (Para 92…. license valid while certificate is valid). Referring to claims 12 and 13: Regarding claims 12 and 13, Strom teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the EPC has not been received from at least one device during a time period: generating a second EPC (Para 89… the second member device obtaining the license); and transmitting the second EPC to a third device of the plurality of devices (Para 89…. providing it to a third member device). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST. 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, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached on (571) 272-3867. 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. /IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580767
TRANSMISSION OF SECURE AND AUTHENTICATED DATA OVER A NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574257
SMART HEATER SYSTEM FOR BATHING INSTALLATIONS INCLUDING SPAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567971
ENTERPRISE AUTHENTICATION WITH VIRTUALIZED TPM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561415
GENERATION OF CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554869
A DEVICE AND A METHOD FOR PERFORMING A CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 744 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