Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/444,391

COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner
HANSELL JR., RICHARD A
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
368 granted / 487 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
532
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 487 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/19/2025. In the filed response, Claims 1 and 12-14 have been amended, where Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent claims. Further, Claim 6 has been canceled. Accordingly, Claims 1-5 and 7-14 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL. Response to Arguments 1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-9, filed 09/19/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. With the incorporation of the allowable subject matter of now canceled claim 6 into independent claims 1, 13, and 14, the art of record (notably Tsuboi 949 and Tsuboi 507) is overcome. As such, the prior art rejections of claims 1, 13, and 14, and their respective dependent claims have been withdrawn. However with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner respectfully submits the claimed hardware arrangement of the communication apparatus remains ambiguous as indicated in the last office action (pgs. 6-7). Thus for the following reasons, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Please see below for details. 2. After careful consideration of the amended claims, the examiner finds that the various interconnections of the communication apparatus are unclear and do not appear to align with what is presented in the Instant Disclosure. Claim 1 recites “A communication apparatus comprising: a reception unit…a generation unit, a transmission unit…and a control unit…” Each unit, as claimed, is construed to be a separate unit within the communication apparatus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). In other words, each is understood to be independent of the other. However in fig. 5, each unit appears to be an integral part of transmission unit 407. For e.g., ‘reception buffer unit’ 502 and ‘reception DMA control unit’ 507 can both be interpreted as the claimed “reception unit” given the BRI, where each belongs to transmission unit 407 to be “configured to receive a first image packet” as recited in for e.g. ¶0101-¶0102 of the filed specification. However, since the claimed reception unit can be understood as being separate from the transmission unit, the arrangement of units within the communication apparatus is deemed ambiguous. The same also applies to the claimed “generation unit”. Fig. 5 shows packet generation unit 506, which is believed to coincide with what is being claimed since this can control the generation of an image packet (e.g. ¶0114-¶0015), however, this too is an integral part of transmission unit 407, i.e. it is not a separate unit as best understood from the claim. Regarding the claimed “control unit”, fig. 5 discloses ‘transmission DMA control unit’ 508 and ‘reception DMA control unit’ 507 which can be both interpreted as the “control unit” given the BRI, with each belonging to transmission unit 407. Thus, for these reasons, the arrangement of units within the communication apparatus are deemed ambiguous. Lastly, as noted above, it seems some units of claim 1 can be mapped to different components in the instant disclosure. For e.g., it is not fully clear whether the claimed “reception unit” refers to the ‘reception buffer unit’ 502 or to the ‘reception DMA control unit’ 507, since these can both be “configured to receive a first image packet” (e.g. ¶0114-¶0015) given the BRI. Also please note, the claimed “control unit” can also be interpreted as the ‘time synchronization control’ (404) depicted in fig. 4. For all of these reasons, the metes and bounds of claim 1 (and its corresponding dependent claims 2-12) cannot be clearly ascertained. Please see rejection below. 3. Applicant’s filed amendments to the specification regarding the title are acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn. 4. After reconsideration, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn since the claimed units appear to be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (MPEP 2181). However for clarity, it is recommended that claim 1 recites the term “circuitry” or “one or more circuits” (see e.g. ¶0196 of filed specification) for implementing the functions described therein. Please see below. 5. The filed amendment in response to the objection of claim 12 is acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn. 6. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. To help overcome the 112 rejection, it is recommended that the units of the communication apparatus of claim 1 be further clarified in light of the arrangement presented in the filed specification. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews. 7. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-5 and 7-14 have been examined and are pending. Claim Objections 8. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: although the claimed units appear to be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (MPEP 2181), it is recommended that the term “circuitry” or “one or more circuits” be added for providing unambiguous structural support (see e.g. ¶0196 of filed specification) for performing the functions described therein. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 9. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 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. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “A communication apparatus comprising: a reception unit…a generation unit, a transmission unit…and a control unit…”, where each unit is being interpreted as a separate unit from the others given the BRI. However, each unit in for e.g. fig. 5 of the instant disclosure appears to be an integral part of transmission unit 407; hence, the arrangement of units as claimed is not entirely clear. Based on the foregoing, it is also difficult to unequivocally determine which units in the filed specification coincide with those being claimed. For e.g., it seems the claimed “reception unit” can refer to either the ‘reception buffer unit’ 502 or to the ‘reception DMA control unit’ 507, since these can both be “configured to receive a first image packet” given the BRI (see for e.g. ¶0114-¶0015). Thus, in light of the specification, it is difficult to unequivocally ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed communication apparatus. Please refer to examiner’s response #3 above for further details. Regarding claims 2-12, claims 2-12 all depend on claim 1, and therefore include all of its features. As such, claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons presented. Allowable Subject Matter 10. Claims 13 and 14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With the incorporation of allowable subject matter of now canceled claim 6, independent claims 13 and 14 are deemed allowed, since the art of record (notably Tsuboi 949 and Tsuboi 507) does not reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed claimed features given their broadest reasonable interpretation, in particular “wherein, in a case where the second image packet cannot be generated, the control unit causes the transmission unit to transmit the first image packet including the predetermined information as the communication packet in a state where the predetermined information remains undeleted” when considering the claims as a whole. Both Tsuboi 949 and Tsuboi 507 relate to communication systems for sending and receiving image packets (see abstract and fig. 1). Tsuboi 507 further describes deleting last packet information from a received image packet (e.g. fig. 9), however, both prior art appear to be silent with respect to the aforementioned features of claims 13 and 14. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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. /RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 19, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587660
METHOD FOR DECODING IMAGE ON BASIS OF IMAGE INFORMATION INCLUDING OLS DPB PARAMETER INDEX, AND APPARATUS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587667
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIGNALING TEXT DESCRIPTION INFORMATION IN VIDEO CODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579871
CAMERA DETECTION OF OBJECT MOVEMENT WITH CO-OCCURRENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573179
ROCK IDENTIFICATION METHOD, SYSTEM AND APPARATUS, TERMINAL, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573213
IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 487 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month