Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/217,538

SALTED KEY REFRESHMENT

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 23, 2025
Priority
Aug 30, 2021 — continuation of 12/328,573
Examiner
WALIULLAH, MOHAMMED
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
12m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
641 granted / 739 resolved
+26.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
62.6%
+22.6% vs TC avg
§102
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. As per claim 18-20, this claim limitations “ a primary device configurable to: determine…., generate ….” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “ primary device ” coupled with functional language “ determine…., generate …. …” respectively without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 18 interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: specification discloses as primary node [0032-33]. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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. Instant application 19/217538 US 12328573 B2 1. An apparatus comprising: a transceiver configurable to receive a value from each device of a plurality of secondary network devices; and a processing circuit coupled to the transceiver and configurable to: determine that one of the received values does not match a current session number; generate a salt in response to determining one of the received values does not match the current session number, wherein the salt is different from the current session number and is different from a key refreshment counter; and cause the transceiver to transmit the salt to each secondary network device from which a value matching the current session number was received. 1. A method comprising: receiving, from each of a plurality of secondary nodes communicably coupled to a primary node, a current session number; comparing the current session numbers to a session number at the primary node to identify a mismatch; generating a salt responsive to identifying the mismatch, the salt different from the current session number, the session number, and a key refreshment counter; and sending the salt to each of the plurality of secondary nodes having a current session number matching the session number at the primary node. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21of U.S. Patent No. US 12328573 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of similar limitations with minor obvious variations. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowable if applicant files terminal disclaimer-. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED WALIULLAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7987. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 to 430 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 1-571-272-8878. 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. /MOHAMMED WALIULLAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12750377
DEPLOYING HANDWRITING RECOGNITION SERVERS FOR DIFFERENT SECURITY LEVELS
3y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12737495
Machine Learning Training with Enforced Differential Privacy Using Secure Multi-Party Computation
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12732374
HARDWARE VIRTUALIZED TPM INTO VIRTUAL MACHINES
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12722600
TERMINAL DEVICE AND METHOD PROCESSING OF DATA FOR TERMINAL DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12726370
PSEUDO-HOMOMORPHIC AUTHENTICATION OF USERS WITH BIOMETRY
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
87%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+11.0%)
2y 4m (~12m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 739 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