Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/240,237

METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND APPARATUSES FOR PROTECTING HAMMING WEIGHT COMPUTATIONS AGAINST SIDE-CHANNEL ATTACKS

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Aug 30, 2023
Examiner
WYSZYNSKI, AUBREY H
Art Unit
2434
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
STMicroelectronics
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 710 resolved
+31.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
736
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 710 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/26 has been entered. Response to Arguments The response of 02/26/26 was received and considered. In view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 02/06/26, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14 and 16-18 has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made in view of 35 USC § 101. 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, 3-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-6: Recite a "method" (Process). Claims 7-12: Recite a "computing apparatus" (Machine). Claims 13-18: Recite a "non-transitory computer-readable storage media" (Article of Manufacture). All claims meet the initial threshold for statutory categories. As per claims 1, 7 and 13: Step 2A: Prong 1: The core of the claim involves: Receiving a string of bits. Shuffling the bits using a sequence of operations. Computing the Hamming weight of the shuffled string. Concluding that the Hamming weight of the shuffled string equals the Hamming weight of the original string. The claim is essentially a mathematical algorithm or a series of logical operations. Mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations are considered abstract ideas. Furthermore, counting the number of '1's in a string and shuffling them can conceptually be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and can be considered a "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Prong 2: Claim 1 ends at "obtaining... the hamming weight." It merely produces a number or data result. It does not recite what happens to the Hamming weight after it is computed. Therefore, the claim simply calculates and outputs information without applying it to a specific technological problem, it is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B: The only physical component recited in the claim is a generic "processor." As per, "Applying a sequence of bit operations", this is claimed at a high level of functional abstraction. It does not specify a novel hardware architecture or a specific method of manipulation. The claims instruct a generic processor to calculate the mathematical steps. It does not improve the functioning of the processor itself, nor does it apply the math to solve a specific technological problem in a tangible way. Dependent Claims 3, 10, 16 and 4, 8, 14: These claims add "masking," "reverse masking," "mixing," and "rotation" operations. While mathematically more complex, these are still just additional mathematical operations and do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent Claims 5, 11, 17 disclose output from a RNG. Simply specifying the source of the data (a random number generator) is considered insignificant "data gathering," which does not integrate the exception. Dependent Claims 6, 12, 18 disclose assurance of TRNG: These are the closest to a practical application. They state the calculated weight is used "to obtain assurance that a true random number generator (TRNG) is operating as designed." However, as currently drafted, gathering data to verify a system’s operation, without taking action to correct or control the system. Unless the claim recites a specific technological action taken based on that assurance, it is considered extra-solution activity or a field of use restriction that fails to integrate the abstract idea. Claim Interpretation The examination of the claims, as currently drafted, with respect to patentability or rejection under 35 USC 102/103 is not possible until the 35 USC § 101rejection is resolved. Conclusion A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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. /AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Aug 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §102
Feb 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598211
CYBERATTACK SCORING METHOD, CYBERATTACK SCORING APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING INSTRUCTIONS TO PERFORM CYBERATTACK SCORING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592932
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AN INTEGRATED PROCESS TO STREAMLINE PRIVILEGED ACCESS MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580964
OPTIMIZATION FOR ACCESS POLICIES IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580887
SCALABLE FLOW DIFFERENTIATION FOR NETWORKS WITH OVERLAPPING IP ADDRESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580967
CONTEXTUAL SECURITY POLICY ENGINE FOR COMPUTE NODE CLUSTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 710 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