DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/438,464 filed on December 30, 2025, has been entered. Claims 3, 4, 6, 14 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-13, 15-18 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-13, 15-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 10-13, 15-18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-9 are examined.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to Claims 2, 5 and 7-9 and cancellation of Claims 3, 4, and 6, respectively, has overcome the objection to the claims for minor informalities set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 1, 2025. As a new minor informalities have been introduced by the amendment, the objection to the claims for minor informalities is maintained.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 4, 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by the amendment, set forth in this Office Action.
The amendment to Claim 1 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 1, 2025. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
The arguments with respect to the rejoinder of Claims 10-20 have been considered by the Examiner but are moot in light of the current rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Rejoinder of Claims 10-20 will be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance. See MPEP § 821.04.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 1, the limitation “receiving, by the second terminal, a data packet through the resource connection; wherein a destination address of the data packet is a first terminal; the destination address of the data packet is an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the first terminal” recited in lines 4-6 should be “receiving, by the second terminal, a data packet through the resource connection, wherein a destination of the data packet is a first terminal and a destination address of the data packet is an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the first terminal”, the term “a first message” recited in line 15 should be “the first message”, the colon recited in line 21 should be deleted;
regarding Claim 2, the term “a second terminal” recited in line 2 should be “the second terminal;”
regarding Claim 7, the term “a second terminal” recited in lines 1-2 should be “the second terminal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 and 7-9 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule comprises: receiving, by the second terminal, the mapping rule sent by the first terminal” in lines 2-3. This limitation is unclear as it conflicts with Claim 1, which has already defined the obtaining of the mapping rule by the second terminal as obtaining a first message requesting the second terminal to perform the data address translation process and obtaining the mapping rule according to the first message, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “sending, by the second terminal, a second message, wherein the second message is used for requesting the second terminal to perform the data address translation process” in lines 4-5. This limitation is unclear as it conflicts with Claim 1, which recites the second device receiving the first message, which is a request for the second terminal to perform the data address translation process, from the first terminal, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent Claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 7 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, Claim 9 recites the limitation “the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule comprises: obtaining the mapping rule according to the second accept message” in lines 10-11. This limitation is unclear as it conflicts with Claim 1, which has already defined the obtaining of the mapping rule by the second terminal as obtaining a first message requesting the second terminal to perform the data address translation process and obtaining the mapping rule according to the first message, rendering the claim indefinite.
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0167986 A1, hereby “Lin”, in view of Youn et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0408396 A1, hereby “Youn”, and in further view of Tucker et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0272420 A1, hereby “Tucker”.
Regarding Claim 1, Lin discloses “A data processing method (Lin fig. 3 and paragraph 123: a connection establishment method), comprising:
establishing, by a second terminal, a resource connection to an access network device (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 122 and 131: first terminal 1 (corresponding to the second terminal of the claims) establishes a service bearer with the first eNB 3, i.e., a resource connection to an access network device);
receiving, by the second terminal, a data packet through the resource connection; wherein a destination address of the data packet is a first terminal; the destination address of the data packet is an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the first terminal (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 141 and 157-158: first terminal 1 receives downlink data from first eNB 3, wherein the destination IP address of the downlink data is the first IP address of second terminal 2 (corresponding to the first terminal of the claims);
obtaining, by the second terminal, a mapping rule, wherein the mapping rule is used for instructing the second terminal to perform a data address translation process (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 140-141 and 149-154: first terminal 1 establishes a mapping relationship between a first IP address and a second IP address allocated to second terminal 2, wherein the mapping relationship enables first terminal 1 to provide address translation of communications exchanged between second terminal 2 and first eNB 3); and
performing, by the second terminal, the data address translation process according to the mapping rule (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 152-155: first terminal 1 replaces the source IP address of the uplink data received from second terminal 2 (which is the second IP address allocated to the second terminal), with the first IP address allocated to second terminal 2 before forwarding the uplink data to first eNB 3);
wherein the obtaining, by the second terminal, a mapping rule comprises:
obtaining, by the second terminal, a first message, wherein the first message is used for requesting the second terminal to perform the data address translation process (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 124-125 and 128-129: the first terminal 1 receives a link configuration request message sent by the second terminal 2, wherein the link configuration request message includes the first IP address allocated to second terminal 2); and
obtaining, by the second terminal, the mapping rule according to the first message (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 140-141 and 149-154: first terminal 1 establishes the mapping relationship between the first IP address and the second IP address allocated to the second terminal 2 in response to receiving the link configuration request message from second terminal 2);
after the obtaining, by the second terminal, a first message, the data processing method further comprises one of the following:
sending, by the second terminal, a first accept message to the first terminal (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 142-143: first terminal 1 sends a link configuration complete message to second terminal 2);
sending, by the second terminal, the first accept message to the access network device; and
sending, by the second terminal, the first accept message to a core network device”.
However, while Lin discloses sending a link configuration complete message to the second terminal (Lin paragraphs 142-143), Lin does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first accept message comprises at least one of the following: an IP address of the first terminal.”
In the same field of endeavor, Youn discloses “wherein the first accept message comprises at least one of the following: an IP address of the first terminal (Youn fig. 14a and paragraphs 344 and 350: Relay UE transmits a direct communication accept message including the Remote UE IP address to the Remote UE).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Lin to include the IP address of the second terminal in the link configuration complete message provided to the second terminal as taught by Youn because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (including an IP address in a direct communication accept message) to known devices and/or methods (a connection establishment method) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (enabling communication between the second terminal and the first eNB). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Lin discloses that the first terminal replaces the destination address in downlink data sent to the second terminal, i.e., performing data address translation according to the mapping rule (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 156-159), the combination of Lin and Youn does not explicitly disclose “replacing the destination address of the data packet from the IP address of the first terminal to an IP address of the second terminal.”
In a related field of endeavor, Tucker discloses “replacing the destination address of the data packet from the IP address of the first terminal to an IP address of the second terminal (Tucker figs. 1 and 5 and paragraphs 2, 37-39, 52 and 83: an IP address of a first user device 502(1) included within the header of data packets of session 504 directed to the first user device is replaced with the IP address of a second user device 502(2)).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Lin, as modified by Youn, to replace, by the first device, the destination address in downlink data sent to the second device with the IP address of the first device as taught by Tucker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine replacing, by the first device, the destination address in downlink data sent to the second device with the IP address of the first device to seamlessly transition a communication session from the first device to the second device (Tucker paragraphs 2, 22 and 81).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Lin discloses “wherein the first message comprises at least one of the following: the IP address, a port number, an FQDN, or a URL of a first terminal (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 124-125 and 128-129: the link configuration request message may include the first IP address allocated to second terminal 2);
wherein the obtaining, by the second terminal, a first message comprises one of the following:
receiving, by the second terminal by using a direct communication technology, the first message sent by a first terminal (Lin figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 4 and 125: first terminal 1 receives the link configuration request message from second terminal 2 using a device-to-device (D2D) communication mode, i.e., a direct communication technology);
receiving, by the second terminal through the access network device, the first message sent by the first terminal; and
receiving, by the second terminal, the first message sent by a core network device.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker in view of Liu et al., Pub. No. US 2019/0349835 A1, hereby “Liu”.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Lin discloses establishing, by the first terminal, the mapping relationship, in response to receiving a link configuration request message from the second terminal (Lin paragraphs 140-141 and 157-158), and Tucker discloses replacing the destination address in packets sent to the second device with the IP address of the first device (Tucker paragraphs 2, 37-39, 52 and 83), the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker does not explicitly disclose “wherein the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule comprises:
receiving, by the second terminal, the mapping rule sent by the first terminal
wherein the mapping rule comprises:
a mapping relationship between first information of the first terminal and second information of the second terminal, wherein
the first information comprises at least one of the following: an IP address, a port number, a fully qualified domain name FQDN, or a uniform resource locator URL; and
the second information comprises at least one of the following: an IP address, a port number, an FQDN, or a URL.”
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses “wherein the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule comprises:
receiving, by the second terminal, the mapping rule sent by a first terminal (Liu figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 67-70: a second terminal 102 receives a mapping relationship from a first terminal 102);
wherein the mapping rule comprises:
a mapping relationship between first information of the first terminal and second information of the second terminal (Liu figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 67-70: the mapping relationship maps an identifier of a first-type terminal to an identifier of a second-type terminal), wherein
the first information comprises at least one of the following: an IP address, a port number, a fully qualified domain name FQDN, or a uniform resource locator URL (Liu figs. 1 and 2, Table 3, and paragraphs 67-68: while not explicitly stated, one of ordinary skill would infer that an IP address of the first-type terminal could function as the identifier of the first-type terminal); and
the second information comprises at least one of the following: an IP address, a port number, an FQDN, or a URL (Liu figs. 1 and 2, Table 3, and paragraphs 67-68: while not explicitly stated, one of ordinary skill would infer that an IP address of the second-type terminal could function as the identifier of the second-type terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Lin, as modified by Youn and Tucker, to receive, by the first terminal, the mapping relationship from the second terminal as taught by Liu because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (creating a mapping relationship using connection information received from another terminal) for another (receiving a mapping relationship from another terminal) to obtain predictable and desirable results (obtaining the mapping relationship). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker in view of Sun, Pub. No. US 2017/0214734 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Lin discloses the first terminal, which corresponds to the second terminal of the claims, establishes the mapping relationship in response to receiving a link configuration request message from the second terminal, which corresponds to the second terminal of the claims (Lin paragraphs 140-141 and 149-154), the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker does not explicitly disclose “wherein before the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule, the data processing method further comprises:
sending, by the second terminal, a second message, wherein the second message is used for requesting the second terminal to perform the data address translation process.”
In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses “wherein before the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule, the method further comprises:
sending, by the second terminal, a second message, wherein the second message is used for requesting the second terminal to perform the data address translation process (Sun figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-38: the first terminal sends a request to initiate forward port mapping to the second terminal).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Lin, as modified by Youn and Tucker, to establish the mapping relationship after sending a request to the second terminal as taught by Sun because doing so constitutes a simple substitution (establishing a mapping relationship in response to receiving a request from a second terminal) for
for another (establishing a mapping relationship after sending a request to the second terminal) to obtain predictable and desirable results (establishing the mapping relationship enabling communication between the second terminal and the network). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lin, Youn, Tucker and Sun discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7.
Additionally, Sun discloses “wherein the second message comprises the IP address of the first terminal (Sun figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 22, 36, 41-43 and 68: the forward port mapping request comprises information about a network proxy port, e.g., a port number);
wherein the sending, by the second terminal, a second message comprises one of the following:
sending, by the second terminal, the second message to the first terminal by using a direct communication technology (Sun figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 19, 36 and 68: the request to initiate forward port mapping is sent using direct communication technology, e.g., infrared light, Bluetooth, NFC or USB);
forwarding, by the second terminal, the second message to the first terminal through the access network device; and
sending, by the second terminal, the second message to a core network device.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Lin, as modified by Youn and Tucker, to establish the mapping relationship after sending a request to the second terminal as taught by Sun for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lin, Youn, Tucker and Sun discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7.
Additionally, Sun discloses “wherein after the step of sending, by the second terminal, the second message, the data processing method further comprises one of the following:
receiving, by the second terminal by using a direct communication technology, a second accept message sent by the first terminal (Sun figs. 1-3 and paragraph 38: the first terminal may obtain connection information from the second terminal in response to sending the forward port mapping request);
receiving, by the second terminal, the second accept message forwarded by the first terminal through the access network device; and
receiving, by the second terminal, the second accept message forwarded by a core network device through the access network device; and
the obtaining, by a second terminal, a mapping rule comprises:
obtaining the mapping rule according to the second accept message (Sun figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 24, 38 and 69: the first terminal creates the mapping relationship in response to obtaining the connection information from the second terminal);
wherein the second accept message comprises at least one of the following: an IP address, a port number, an FQDN, or a URL of the first terminal (Sun figs. 1-3 and paragraph 38: the connection information obtained from the second terminal comprises the intranet IP address of the second terminal).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Lin, as modified by Youn and Tucker, to establish the mapping relationship after sending a request to the second terminal as taught by Sun for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449