Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/910,084

GENERATION OF A CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEY FROM AN SRAM MEMORY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 09, 2024
Examiner
HAILU, TESHOME
Art Unit
2434
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Commissariat A L'Energie Atomique Et Aux Energies Alternatives
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
543 granted / 698 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
721
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
§103
53.9%
+13.9% vs TC avg
§102
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 698 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the original application filed on October 09, 2024. 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 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 1, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term SRAM should be written as Random Access Memory (SRAM) at least once in the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14 and 15 are presented as independent claims in form of dependent claim of independent claim 1. They should be presented with all limitations of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 15 contains a single means claim which does not comply with the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112(a), first paragraph. See MPEP 2164.08 (a). 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. Claims 1-14 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 1 recites the term “so as to promote the establishment in a first logic state …” and “so as to promote a setting in a second logic state …” in line 5 and 10 respectively. These terms are considered as intended use, and it is unclear the limitations after the terms are part of the claim language or not. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites the terms “the establishment …” and “the encryption key” in lines 5 and 21 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim. Claim 3 recites the terms “the kth rank” in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim. claim 7 recites the term “so as to promote the establishment in a first logic state …” and “so as to promote a setting in a second logic state …” in line 7 and 10 respectively. These terms are considered as intended use, and it is unclear the limitations after the terms are part of the claim language or not. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. claim 9 recites the term “so as to establish the memory cells or bits of the registers …” in line 4. This term is considered as intended use, and it is unclear the limitations after the terms are part of the claim language or not. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. claim 12 recites the term “so as to adjust said given probability …” in line 4. This term is considered as intended use, and it is unclear the limitations after the terms are part of the claim language or not. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 recites the terms “the first region” and “the second region” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim. Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected based on the dependency nature of rejected independent claim. Conclusion The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Handschuh (US Pub. No. 2013/0051552). Handschuh’s reference discloses: A computing device for obtaining a first cryptographic key during an enrollment phase, the computing device comprising a key generator for generating the first cryptographic key in dependence upon a seed, the computing device being configured for storing the first cryptographic key on a storage of the computing device for later cryptographic use of the first cryptographic key on the computing device during a usage phase coming after the enrollment phase wherein, the computing device further comprises a physically unclonable function, the key generator being configured for deriving the seed from an output of the physically unclonable function, and an encryption module for encrypting the first cryptographic key using a second cryptographic key derived from the output of the physically unclonable function, the computing device being configured for storing the first cryptographic key on the storage in encrypted form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESHOME HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-3159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at (571) 272-3811. 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. /TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598214
PROCESSING AUTHENTICATION REQUESTS FOR UNIFIED ACCESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS USING FREQUENTLY INVOKED POLICIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598217
Analyzing Cloud-Based Services for Compliance with Multiple Regulations
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587372
SINGLE REQUEST ARCHITECTURE FOR INCREASING EFFICIENCY OF SECURE MULTI-PARTY COMPUTATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580947
BROWSER SECURITY VIA DOCUMENT OBJECT MODEL MANIPULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580949
QUANTUM SECURITY SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM NETWORKS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 698 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month