Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 18/912,397

LATTICE MESH

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Priority
Jun 11, 2018 — provisional 62/683,533 +5 more
Examiner
WASHINGTON, ERIKA ALISE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Anduril Industries Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allowance Rate
907 granted / 1018 resolved
+29.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1030
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§102
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1018 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first paragraph of the specification should include that SN 18/448,812 is now US Patent Number 12,143,819. Appropriate correction is required. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slater, US Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0307695 (hereinafter Slater). Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Slater discloses A system comprising: an interface configured to: provide a request to join a publish group from a client or a point to point communication link of a lattice mesh [paragraphs 0038, 0066]; and receive a group key or a host public key [paragraph 0099]; and one or more processors configured to: determine whether a message stored in a backfill database is available to send [paragraphs 0031-0032, 0104]; and in response to determining the message stored in the backfill database is available to send [paragraph 0100]: encode the message stored in the backfill database using the group key or the host public key [paragraph 0099]; and send the message stored in the backfill database [paragraph 0100]. Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Slater discloses wherein the backfill database comprises logged data stored locally on the client [paragraph 0114]. Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, it is inherent in the art that the group key or the host public key is received from an asset database. Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, Slater discloses wherein the group key is used to encrypt and/or decrypt messages [paragraph 0098]. Regarding claims 8, 15, and further regarding claim 21, it is inherent in the art that the host public key is used to sign messages issued by a host. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 4, 11, an 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slater. Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Slater does not specifically disclose wherein the group key or the host public key is time bounded to a window of messages stored in the backfill database. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to limit group keys and public keys to a predetermined window of time. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Slater to include this feature. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. 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 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,707. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 2, 9, and 16 are taught in patented claims 1, 6, and 11, respectively. The instant claims omit that the group key includes a shared secret and a public key of an ephemeral keypair. Instant dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 are taught in patented dependent claims 2, 7, and 12, respectively. Instant dependent claims 7, 14, and 21 are taught in patented dependent claims 5, 10, and 15, respectively. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 10, and 17 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Srivastava et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0044356, disclose a method and apparatus for distributing and updating private keys of multicast group managers using directory replication. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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. /EAW/ July 20, 2026 /ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707253
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING CAPABILITY INFORMATION ABOUT RECEPTION STA IN WIRELESS LAN SYSTEM
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12707273
Spatial Reuse for Low Latency Traffic
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12701421
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO PROTECT CLEAR TEXT TRANSMISSION OF USER IDENTITY IN WIRELESS NETWORKS
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12683843
JOINT COMMUNICATION AND SENSING METHOD AND RELATED USER EQUIPMENT FOR ORTHOGONAL FREQUENCY DOMAIN MULTIPLEXING COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675835
SYSTEM TO FACILITATE A CORRECT IDENTIFICATION OF A SERVICE PROVIDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+4.3%)
2y 2m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1018 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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