Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/391,375

INTEGRITY PROTECTED COMMAND BUFFER EXECUTION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 20, 2023
Examiner
LANIER, BENJAMIN E
Art Unit
2437
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 913 resolved
+11.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
945
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed 02 February 2026 amends claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 15. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered. Response to Arguments Applicant argues on page 7 of the response, “Applicant respectfully submits that Jean does not teach or reasonably suggest at least the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Jean’s RPMB authentication involves memory device access authentication rather than command buffer content authentication…”. In response, the Jean reference is a secondary reference in the claim rejections found in the Final rejection mailed 01 October 2025 (“Final”). The primary reference (Pappachan) discloses command buffer content authentication ([0059] & [0068]). Specifically, Pappachan discloses the performance of an integrity validation on metadata stored in a queue ([0059] & [0068]), which would be considered to be command buffer content authentication. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the response, “Jean’s RPMB authentication involves…command buffer content authentication where both the processing device and host device independently compute and compare authentication tags over the same command buffer…Applicant respectfully submits that Jean’s technique relating to replay protected memory block command queue does not teach or reasonably suggest compute a first authentication tag using a cryptographic key associated with the host device over the command buffer, wherein the command buffer is associated with a pointer accessible by the host device, and authenticate content of the command buffer by comparing the first authentication tag with a second authentication tag computed by the host device and associated with the command buffer, wherein the command buffer includes a pointer corresponding to a list of commands and maintain a counter for use as an anti-replay mechanism, wherein the counter is maintained as an anti-replay counter that is incremented in associated with authentication of the command buffer, wherein the anti-replay counter is maintained separately from the host device as recited by claim 1.” This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. 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 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. Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13-15, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,496,314. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claims of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the corresponding claims of U.S Patent No. 11,496,314 (see table below to see a mapping for claim 1). Pending Application U.S. Pat. No. 11,496,314 An apparatus comprising a hardware processing device processing circuitry to: read a command buffer from a memory coupled to the processing circuitry, the command buffer having a first command received from a host device, the command buffer associated with an instruction executable by one or more processing elements associated with the processing circuitry, the instruction associated with parameter data; (Claim 1) An apparatus, comprising: … a processing device communicatively coupled to the computer-readable memory to: read, from a command buffer of the computer-readable memory, a first command received from a host device, the first command executable by one or more processing elements on the processing device, the first command comprising an instruction and associated parameter data including an address of a memory region referenced by the first command and comprising first command data to be operated on by execution of the first command; (Claim 1) wherein the additional commands are linked by pointers to enable sequential execution…a first command received from a host device…the first command comprising an instruction and associated parameter data including an address of a memory region referenced by the first command and comprising first command data to be operated on by execution of the first command…(Claim 1) compute a first authentication tag using a cryptographic key associated with the host device over the command buffer, wherein the command buffer is associated with a pointer accessible by the host device; (Claim 1) compute a first authentication tag using a cryptographic key associated with the host device, the instruction and the first command data residing at the address of a memory region referenced by the first command; (Claim 1) authenticate content of the command buffer by comparing the first authentication tag with a second authentication tag computed by the host device and associated with the command buffer, wherein the command buffer includes a pointer corresponding to a list of commands. (Claim 1) and authenticate the first command by comparing the first authentication tag with a second authentication tag computed by the host device and associated with the command. (Claim 1) the one or more command buffers comprising…one or more batch buffer store additional commands…wherein the additional commands are linked by pointers to enable sequential execution; (Claim 1) and maintain a counter for use as an anti-replay mechanism, wherein the counter is maintained as an anti-replay counter that is incremented in associated with authentication of the command buffer, wherein the anti-replay counter is maintained separately from the host device. (Claim 1) initialize an anti-replay counter prior to reading the first command from the command buffer. (Claim 2) increment the anti-replay counter after the first command is executed. (Claim 4) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50. 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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. /BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Sep 23, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
May 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602474
USE OF AN APPLICATION CONTROLLER TO MONITOR AND CONTROL SOFTWARE FILE AND APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598079
DIGITAL SIGNATURES WITH KEY-DERIVATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587541
SECURE CONNECTION BROKER FOR SWARM COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566846
TURING MACHINE AGENT FOR BEHAVIORAL THREAT DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566884
MULTIMODAL FINGERPRINTING OF DIGITAL ASSETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+17.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 913 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