DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/438,464 filed on June 17, 2026. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 14 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 8-13, 15-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 8-13, 15-18 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 10-13, 15-18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 17, 2026, has been entered.
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 the claims has overcome the objection to the claims for minor informalities set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 17, 2026. The objection to the claims for minor informalities is hereby withdrawn.
4. The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 2 and 7-9 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 arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on page 11 of the response filed June 17, 2026, Applicant argues, “First aspect: In Lin, the first terminal 1 merely acts as a data relay and does not perform data parsing. In contrast, in the present application, the second terminal needs to interpret the data, and therefore needs to convert the address of the first terminal in the data into the address of the second terminal itself.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing recited in the limitations of Claim 1 that requires the second terminal to perform parsing or other processing of the data packet beyond replacing of the destination address. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Continuing, on page 12 of the response, Applicant further argues, “Second aspect: Lin provides a teaching away from combining with other prior art to achieve the present application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Modifying Lin by the teachings of Tucker to replace the IP address of the second terminal as the destination address of packets received from the network server with its own IP address enables transfer of an application session with the network server from the second terminal to the first terminal. Rather than violating the technical principal of Lin, this provides the first terminal of Lin with an additional and desirable capability.
Continuing, on page 13 of the response, Applicant additionally argues, “Third aspect: Tucker actually does not at all disclose, teach or suggest the technical solution of the present application (the present application is that the second terminal replaces the destination address of downlink data from the network device from the IP address of the first terminal to an IP address of the second terminal), the data being replaced and the executing subject device are different between Lin and Tucker, and thus the two cannot be combined at all. Even if combined, they would not achieve the present application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is known from Lin that the first terminal can perform address translation by replacing a first IP address of the second terminal with the second IP address of the second terminal as the destination IP address of a packet received from the network server. Tucker discloses replacing the IP address of a first device with an IP address of a second device to redirect traffic destined for the first device to the second device. As the first terminal of Lin is already replacing the destination IP address of packets received from the network server, the first terminal is readily modifiable to replace an IP address of the second device with an IP address of the first device as the destination address as suggested by Tucker.
Lastly, on page 14 of the response, Applicant additionally argues, “Fourth aspect: The function of the direct communication accept message in Youn including the Remote UE IP address is different from the function of the first accept message in the present application including the IP address of the first terminal.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lin discloses the first terminal sending a link configuration complete message, i.e., a first accept message, to the second terminal, which indicates to the second terminal that the first terminal has allocated a second IP address to the second terminal and that the mapping relationship between the first IP address of the second terminal and the second IP address of the second terminal has been established. Youn is relied upon for explicitly disclosing that a communication acceptance message may include an IP address. Applicant is arguing against the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Never-the-less, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
6. The arguments with respect to the rejoinder of Claims 10-13, 15-18 and 20 have been considered by the Examiner but are moot in light of the current rejections of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103. Rejoinder of Claims 10-13, 15-18 and 20 will be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance. See MPEP § 821.04.
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 1, 5, 8 and 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the obtaining, by the second terminal, a mapping rule comprises at least one of the following:” in lines 11-12. As currently worded and formatted, the limitations that comprise each of the alternatives for obtaining the mapping rule are unclear. Therefore the claim is indefinite.
Dependent Claims 5, 8 and 9 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, the language “at least one of the following” is interpreted as requiring one from a set of alternatives for “obtaining, by the second terminal, a mapping rule”, and the limitations “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; and obtaining, by the second terminal, the mapping rule according to the first message” are considered to constitute a first alternative, the limitations “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” are considered to constitute a second alternative, and the limitations “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; obtaining the mapping rule according to a second accept message” are considered to constitute a third alternative, respectively.
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, 5, 8 and 9 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 of the data packet is a first terminal, and a 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 at least one of the following:
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);” and
“after the obtaining, by the second terminal, the 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 that the first terminal allocates the second IP address to the second terminal, which is then utilized for communication between the first terminal and the second terminal (Lin paragraphs 140-141 and 146-150) and further 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 the IP address, of the 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.”
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker anticipates the limitations of Claim 8 (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, i.e., a first message, from second terminal 2 – the limitations of Claim 8 further define “the second message” and the sending thereof, which is recited in Claim 1 as an alternative to obtaining the mapping rule according to the first message, which is disclosed by Lin).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker anticipates the limitations of Claim 8.
Additionally, the combination of Lin, Youn and Tucker anticipates the limitations of Claim 9 (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, i.e., a first message, from second terminal 2 – the limitations of Claim 9 further define steps taken after the sending of “the second message”, which is recited in Claim 1 as an alternative to obtaining the mapping rule according to the first message, which is disclosed by Lin).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this 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
Prosecution Insights