Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/356,403

EFFICIENT POINT VERIFICATION FOR SEMI-STATIC ELLIPTIC CURVE DIFFIE-HELLMAN AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOLS

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
SHAW, PETER C
Art Unit
2493
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nxp B V
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
422 granted / 553 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
599
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 553 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mathematical computation without significantly more. In the claim language of independent claims 1 and 6, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because how the calculations are used in a real-world/commercial/practical setting is not provided. The claim language does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all steps are part of the abstract math calculations and thus do not raise the claim above the base judicial exception. Furthermore, the claim language in the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies. Examiner notes and appreciates that the amended preamble of claim 1 does now recite a real-world application, however, it is unclear how the steps of the method are related to this application. There is nothing mentioned in the claim language that can be the subject of a fault attack. Furthermore, this real-world application is not recited in independent claim Accordingly, based on the remaining issues described above, the rejections are maintained. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As mentioned above, Examiner acknowledges that a real-world application has been added to the preamble of claim 1, “preventing fault attacks.” However, the steps of the method of claim 1 do not include any relation to this application in part due to there not being anything mentioned in the claim language that could be the subject of a fault attack. Furthermore, claim 6 does not recite a real-world application. To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (US PGPUB No. 2022/0366006), Yamada (US PGPUB No. 2018/0254902), Yamada (JP-2018146766-A), Fiex et al. (US PGPUB No. 2012/0221618), Lamberger et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0030543), Roetteller et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0336015), Germouty et al. (WO-2025002711-A1), all generally discuss features in the claimed invention including improvements in elliptic curve point verifications using Frobenius mappings. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). 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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex. 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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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. /PETER C SHAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 March 28, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566852
NEFARIOUS CODE DETECTION USING SEMANTIC UNDERSTANDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547696
WIRELESS BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SAFETY CHANNEL COMMUNICATION LAYER PROTOCOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12536342
SOC ARCHITECTURE WITH SECURE, SELECTIVE PERIPHERAL ENABLING/DISABLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12511438
DYNAMIC PROVISION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12513190
SNAPSHOT FOR ACTIVITY DETECTION AND THREAT ANALYSIS
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.7%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 553 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