Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/915,564

DIFFERENTIAL CLIENT-SIDE ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM A CLIENT

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 15, 2024
Examiner
DESROSIERS, EVANS
Art Unit
2491
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Paypal Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
853 granted / 1031 resolved
+24.7% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1053
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1031 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Detailed Action This communication is in response to the application filed on 10/15/2024 in which Claims 2-21 are presented for examination. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted on 10/15/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11477180 Claims 2-21 recite similar limitations as claims 1-20 of US No. 11477180 as follows: Instant application US patent No. 11477180 Claim 2. A system, comprising: one or more hardware processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to process an electronic payment transaction between a user and a merchant, wherein the request was initiated by a device of the user, and wherein the merchant has an account with the system; obtaining encrypted data from the request, wherein the encrypted data comprises funding data usable to process the electronic payment transaction and was encrypted by the device using a public key allocated to the merchant by the system; accessing the funding data based on decrypting the encrypted data using a private key corresponding to the public key; obtaining a processing result associated with processing the electronic payment transaction based on the funding data; and providing the processing result to a computer system associated with the merchant. Claims 9ans 16. Claim 1. A data computer system, comprising: one or more processors; a network interface device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the data computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving encrypted data corresponding to an electronic transaction between a user of a client device and a second entity that is not a controlling entity of the data computer system, wherein the electronic transaction was initiated by the client device, and wherein the encrypted data was encrypted by the client device using a public key allocated to the second entity by the data computer system; accessing a private key that is paired to the public key allocated to the second entity, wherein the private key is one of a plurality of private keys stored in an electronic storage system accessible by the data computer system; decrypting the encrypted data using the private key to obtain decrypted data corresponding to the electronic transaction; and providing, via the network interface device, a processing result for the electronic transaction, wherein the processing result is based on at least a portion of the decrypted data. Claims 8 and 15. The table above shows that, although the corresponding claims are directed to different statutory categories, the US patent No. 11477180 implemented on a computer would render the claims in the instant application obvious. It is clearly obvious that the (US patent No. 11477180 substantially discloses the subject matter of claim 2 of the instant Application. The Applicant merely broadens the scope of the instant application by deleting a few elements from the (US patent No. 11477180). This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-21 are objected to, but would be allowable upon file a proper terminal disclaimer and rewritten each independent claim to be along the same lines as allowable subject matter in claim 2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These include. US 20100223188 A1– Yang – describes an online payment system uses an electronic check system to make a payment to a merchant on behalf of an online customer. US 20100125737 A1– Kang - correlate increasing the security of electronic payment transactions, such as eCommerce transactions conducted over the Internet. US 8924726 B1- de Hodgma et al. discloses generating an encoded representation of encrypted forms of a message which includes an institution's digital signature derived from the message. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm. 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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. /EVANS DESROSIERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 15, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596822
PROTECTION OF SECURE VIDEO CONTENT FROM MALICIOUS PROCESSING IN THE DISPLAY PIPELINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592942
SESSION ANALYSIS FOR IDENTITY THREAT DETECTION AND IDENTITY SECURITY POSTURE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587860
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SECURED PAIRING FOR DATA COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AN EDGE NODE AND A BLUETOOTH DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587502
SERVER-INITIATED SECURE SESSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587361
ENCRYPTION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND ENCRYPTION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1031 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