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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 06/17/2026, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/23/2026.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are amended. Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome claim objections and rejection under 112(b), previously set forth in the non-final office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because operations in Step 1 is reversed. Gateway is understood to acquire QUICK data streams and read the short data packets from the QUICK data streams. Therefore, acquiring QUICK data streams should happen before reading the short data packets.
Claim 1 is objected to because Step 1, line 4 expression “to-be-sent queues for the acquired QUIC data streams” should read “to-be-sent queues
Claim 1 is objected to because Step 2, line 6 and lines 6-7, expression “to-be-sent queues for the QUIC data streams” should read “to-be-sent queues
Claim 1 is objected to because expression in Step 22 “between n and a byte” should read “between –the number-- n and a byte” for better clarity.
Examiners note: There is repetition of the same expressions in sentences in the claims, which make the claims difficult to read. Applicant is advised to simplify sentencing language of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 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 in Step 2, lines 5-6 “in which to-be-sent data is placed into the to-be-sent queues” which lacks clarity. It is not clear if “to-be-sent data” is the same as “short data packets” that is already placed into the to-be-sent queue in Step 1.
Independent Claim 1 with the amendment now recites two different methods of popping up to-be-sent data, according to initial Step 1 and Step 2 in the claim, and additional amended Step 1 and Step 2 comprising Step 21, 22, [...]. One method of popping up to-be-sent data is based on chronological order in the to-be-sent queues, second one is based on queuing sequence of the QUIC data streams in the data stream queuing queue. It is not understood how both methods can be performed at the same time while performing sending of the received data packets. The claim is, therefore, indefinite. Same rejection applies to independent claim 6.
Claim 1 limitation in the amendment “wherein the machine type communication gateway further constructs one data stream queuing queue, which is configured to save QUIC data streams whose to-be- sent queues contain the to-be-sent data, and queue the QUIC data streams in chronological order in which the to-be-sent data is received in the to-be-sent queues for the QUIC data streams” lacks clarity about two queues, one is “data stream queuing queues” and other already recited “to-be-sent queues. Applicant is advised to clearly define, in the limitation, the operation of the two queues and clear any insufficient antecedent basis. Same rejection applies to independent claim 6.
Claim 1 limitation in the amendment “newly creating an empty data packet; popping up the to-be-sent data one by one from the to-be-sent queue for each queued QUIC data stream according to a queuing sequence of the QUIC data streams in the data stream queuing queue; encapsulating the popped-up to-be-sent data into one streamframe and then loading the streamframe into the newly created data packet; popping up the QUIC data stream from the data stream queuing queue” lacks clarity. Popping up the QUIC data stream again whose data has already processed and inserted in the newly created data packet is not understood. Moreover, it is not clear if this “newly creating an empty data packet” is the same newly created data packet in the original Step 2 above. Applicant is advised to clear any insufficient antecedent basis. Same rejection applies to independent claim 6.
Claim 1 limitation in the amendment under Step 21 “by the machine type communication gateway, traversing the data stream queuing queue, inquiring each queued QUIC data stream one by one according to the queuing sequence, and calculating a number n of remaining free bytes in the newly created data packet” lacks clarity. The operation is not understood. Data from the QUICK data stream is not extracted yet while staying in the data stream queuing queue, therefore, knowing number of bytes of its data without parsing the data is not clear. Same rejection applies to independent claim 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "to-be-sent queues" in Step 1, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “—the-- to-be-sent queues”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “sending the data packet” in Step 1, line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “sending the --newly created -- data packet”.
Examiners note: Applicant is advised to review all claims and clear any insufficient antecedent basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page14, filed on 06/17/2026, with respect to claims 3 and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3 and 8 under USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
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 MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights