Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/576,634

COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL CONVERSION METHOD, AND DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND GATEWAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Examiner
SOE, KYAW Z
Art Unit
2412
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Boe Technology Group Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
311 granted / 348 resolved
+31.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
382
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 348 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is a response to an application filed on 01/04/2024. Claims 29- 48 are pending for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application. Drawings The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 01/04/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. Claims 29- 34 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20190028572 A1), hereinafter “Chen”; and in further view of Wang et al. (US 20130326045 A1), hereinafter “Wang”. Regarding claim 29, Chen teaches A communication protocol conversion method [Chen: Abstract teaches method for protocol conversion for gateway], comprising: receiving at least one network request message for establishing a communication connection with a third-party system sent by a communication device [Chen: Fig. 2; Par. 89 to 91 teaches of receiving instruction for connection with third-party gateway]; performing a communication protocol conversion on the network request message according to the configuration rule [Chen: Fig. 2; Par. 93- 100 teaches of performing protocol conversion]; and sending the network request message after the communication protocol conversion to a corresponding third-party system [Chen: Par. 94- 103 teaches of sending instruction according to third-party standard]. PNG media_image1.png 582 528 media_image1.png Greyscale However, Chen does not teach determining a configuration rule corresponding to the network request message from a set of configuration rules, wherein the set of configuration rules comprises configuration rules of communication protocols of different third-party systems. Nevertheless, Wang, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches determining a configuration rule corresponding to the network request message from a set of configuration rules, wherein the set of configuration rules comprises configuration rules of communication protocols of different third-party systems [Wang: Fig. 2A; 3 Par. Fig. 9; Par 43- 55 teaches of policy configuration by third-party application service and deliver policy/rule to main control board] PNG media_image2.png 686 576 media_image2.png Greyscale Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Wang for having policy implementation method to execute protocol conversion. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Wang in the Chen system in order to implement protocol converted policy configuration [Wang: Par. 015]. Regarding claim 30, the combined Chen in view of Wang teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 29. Chen in view of Wang further teaches receiving at least one network request message for establishing a communication connection with a non-third-party system sent by the communication device [Chen: Par. 89- 90 teaches receiving instruction for connection with subordinate data platform] ; and directly sending the network request message to the non-third-party system [Chen: Par. 91 teaches sending the first signaling to subordinate data platform] Regarding claim 31, the combined Chen in view of Wang teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 29. Chen in view of Wang further teaches receiving the network request message sent by the communication device [Chen: Fig. 2] Regarding claim 32, the combined Chen in view of Wang teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 29. Chen in view of Wang further teaches determining the configuration rule corresponding to route information from the set of configuration rules according to the route information carried in the network request message [Wang: Fig. 3]. Regarding claim 33, the combined Chen in view of Wang teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 32. Chen in view of Wang further teaches the configuration rule is in a one-to-one correspondence with the route information [Wang: Fig. 3]. Regarding claim 34, the combined Chen in view of Wang teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 33. Chen in view of Wang further teaches determining the third-party system corresponding to the route information according to the route information carried in the network request message [Chen: Par. 80- 90 teaches parsing according to third party signaling standard; and determining the configuration rule corresponding to the third-party system from the set of configuration rules [Wang: Fig. 3] Regarding claim 44, the combined Chen in view of Wang teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 29. Chen in view of Wang further teaches receiving at least one instruction of deleting, modifying, or adding a configuration rule from a user through a display interface [Wang: Fig. 5; Par. 67- 72 teaches of adding third-party application service that delivered policy]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 35- 43 and 45- 48 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: A full search was conducted and the features of the instant claims 35- 43, and 45- 48 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Chen in view of Wang. With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of protocol conversion with third -party system by determining of configuration rule [Chen: Fig. 2; Par. 82- 91 and Wang: Fig. 2,3 and Par. 45- 60]. However, the combined Chen in view of Wang does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 35-37 reciting; “the performing a communication protocol conversion on the network request message according to the configuration rule, comprises obtaining a process of protocol conversion by instantiating protocol conversion rules in the configuration rule; and performing the communication protocol conversion on the network request message via the process of protocol conversion” In addition, the combined Chen in view of Wang does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 38- 39 reciting; “sending the network request message after the communication protocol conversion to the third-party system corresponding to route information according to the route information carried in the network request message wherein after the sending the network request message after the communication protocol conversion to the corresponding third-party system, the method further comprises: receiving a network response message from the third-party system, and determining a configuration rule of the third-party system from the set of configuration rules; performing the communication protocol conversion on the network response message according to the configuration rule; and sending the network response message after the communication protocol conversion to the communication device” Moreover, the combined Chen in view of Wang does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 40- 43 reciting; “after receiving the at least one network request message for establishing the communication connection with the third-party system sent by the communication device, the method further includes determining access token information in the configuration rule corresponding to the network request message; and periodically sending a connection request message for maintaining a session connection to the third-party system according to the access token information”. Moreover, the combined Chen in view of Wang does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 45- 48 reciting; “receiving at least one instruction of the user performing a touch operation or a voice control operation on the configuration rule on the display interface, and triggering the execution of an operation corresponding to the instruction on the configuration rule; or, receiving at least one instruction of the user performing a touch operation or a voice control operation on the configuration rule in a pop-up window on the display interface, and triggering the execution of an operation corresponding to the instruction on the configuration rule”. Therefore, Claims 35-43 and 45- 48 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references of Chen in view of Wang. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the 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 KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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. /KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12550085
TIMING ADVANCE LOOPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543129
EMPLOYING DITHERED CLOCK IN DISTRIBUTED RADIO SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12532272
TRANSMISSION DIVERSITY FOR ALE NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12532257
TERMINAL AND COMMUNICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12519588
SYNCHRONIZATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 348 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