Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/024,707

PACKET COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, PACKET PROCESSING RULE SETTING METHOD AND PROGRAM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 03, 2023
Examiner
BUKHARI, SIBTE H
Art Unit
2449
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NTT, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
336 granted / 428 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
447
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§103
61.9%
+21.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 428 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 DETAILED ACTION The instant Office action is responsive to the election of claims received 1/2/2026. Claims 1-4,6-12,14-18 and 20 have been examined and are pending with this action. Arguments Applicant arguments are not persuasive based on the following arguments. Applicant: Applicant argues that claims 5, 13 and 19 are dissolved in the respective independent claims and hence the claims are allowable. Examiner: Applicant did not dissolve the entire claims 5, 13 and 19 into their respective independent claim. For instance, snooping communication between a dynamic host configurations protocol server and the terminal is not mentioned in amended claims. Applicant made minor amendments which do not put the claims in allowable condition and rejection is maintained and set forth below. The minor amendments of creating instead of generating and to a path from any of the paths is disclosed in the citations. Based on above explanation arguments made by applicant are not persuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 7-8 & 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (JP 2009049648) in view of Taiki (JP 6692178 B2). As per claim 1, Osada discloses a packet communication device connected to one or more paths, the packet communication device comprising a processor (Osada: “ to a packet routing control method for establishing a plurality of communication paths by connecting a VPN server on a remote network and a plurality of terminal devices in a local network by VPN connection”), configured to operations comprising: distributing packets received from a terminal to a path of the one or more paths (Osada: , N communication paths are set on the assumption that packets can be equally distributed (one first communication path and two first communication paths). N-1 communication paths). ”), ; acquiring an IP address of the terminal (Osada: the source address Src is distributed and encapsulated by the header having the IP address of the VPN server 101 and the global addresses of the wireless terminals MN1 and MN2 acquired at the initial setting”); and Osada does not explicitly teach generations of application rule. Taiki however discloses creating an application rule for packet processing based on the IP address (Taiki: “ traffic pattern data example>, the rule creation unit 207 of the edge node 105 may generate the redirect rule data 209 by itself & the rule creating unit 207 registers, in the filter rule data 208, the IP address and application related to the flow causing the abnormal traffic.”). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Osada in view of Taiki to figure out generations of application rule. One would be motivated to do so because this may be used to learn and enhance traffic pattern. (Taiki: [ABS]). Claims 7 and 8 are rejected based on rationale provided for claim 1. As per claim 2, Osada/Taiki discloses the packet communication device according to claim 1, wherein the application rule for the packet processing comprises is at least one of a routing rule, a filtering rule, or a traffic control rule to perform policy-based routing for the packets received from the terminal (Taiki: “The filter function unit 202 applies the filter rule data 208, compares the source IP address of the packet and the application type sent from the DPI function unit 201 with the filter rule data”). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Osada in view of Taiki to figure out generations of application rule. One would be motivated to do so because this may be used to learn and enhance traffic pattern. (Taiki: [ABS]). Claims 10 and 16 are rejected based on rationale provided for claim 1. Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (JP 2009049648) in view of Taiki (JP 6692178 B2) and in further view of Taiki (KR 20170064682 A). As per claim 3, Osada discloses the packet communication device according to claim 1, the processor (Osada: “ to a packet routing control method for establishing a plurality of communication paths by connecting a VPN server on a remote network and a plurality of terminal devices in a local network by VPN connection”), further configured to execute operations comprising: Osada does not explicitly teach generations of application rule. Taiki however discloses updating the application rule when the IP address has been changed (Taiki: “A method for updating the traffic pattern and a method for updating the filter rule data 208 and the redirect rule data 209”). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Osada in view of Taiki to figure out generations of application rule. One would be motivated to do so because this may be used to learn and enhance traffic pattern. (Taiki: [ABS]). Osada does not explicitly teach determination of change in the IP address. Chang however discloses determining whether or not the IP address corresponding to a terminal identifier of the terminal has been changed (Chang: “the terminal 820 compares the recently received package name and the IP address list with the previously stored package name and IP address list, and if the changed package name and the IP address list are changed, The list can be updated (S806)”) according to a database storing the IP address and the terminal identifier (Chang: “subscriber profile corresponding to the IMSI from the internal database and transmits to the MME 50 a Location Update Answer Message including a fixed IP address allocated in advance to the corresponding subscriber (S405)”). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Osada in view of Taiki to figure out change in the IP address. One would be motivated to do so because this provides a multi-path packet data service adaptively according to an application service (Chang: [ABS]). As per claim 4, Osada discloses the packet communication device according to claim 1, the processor (Osada: “ to a packet routing control method for establishing a plurality of communication paths by connecting a VPN server on a remote network and a plurality of terminal devices in a local network by VPN connection”), further configured to execute a method comprising; Osada does not explicitly teach generations of application rule. Taiki however discloses and updating the application rule when the IP address has been changed (Taiki: “A method for updating the traffic pattern and a method for updating the filter rule data 208 and the redirect rule data 209”).. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Osada in view of Taiki to figure out generations of application rule. One would be motivated to do so because this may be used to learn and enhance traffic pattern. (Taiki: [ABS]). Modified Osada does not explicitly teach Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol server. determining whether or not the IP address has been changed (Chang: “the terminal 820 compares the recently received package name and the IP address list with the previously stored package name and IP address list, and if the changed package name and the IP address list are changed, The list can be updated (S806)”) ; and receiving the IP address corresponding to a terminal identifier of the terminal from a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol server (Chang: “IETF based IP packet forwarding protocol is used, and in the control plane, protocols such as DHCP”). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Osada in view of Taiki to figure out change in the IP address. One would be motivated to do so because this provides a multi-path packet data service adaptively according to an application service (Chang: [ABS]). Claims 9, 11-12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected based on rationale provided for claims 3-4 Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, 14 & 20 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. Both claims 6, 14 & 20 needs to be dissolved into their respective independent claims for potential allowance. Conclusion This action is final. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes: Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sibte Bukhari whose telephone number is (571) 270-7122. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 6:00. 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SIBTE H BUKHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 03, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598666
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CHO AND FAST MCG LINK RECOVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592844
OPTIMIZATION OF LINK BANDWIDTH CONSUMPTION IN A LAYER-2 MULTICAST NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587306
DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS, CIRCUIT BOARD, STORAGE MEDIUM AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587415
LOCAL PORT GROUPING WITH RAILS OF NETWORK LINKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587499
HIGH-AVAILABILITY EGRESS ACCESS WITH CONSISTENT SOURCE IP ADDRESSES FOR WORKLOADS
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+37.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 428 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