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 . Claims 1-2 are presented for examination.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2024 & 10/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Internet Communication Authorization
The examiner recommends filling a written authorization for internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with applicant using internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “a device provisioned into a virtual path” and” is vague and indefinite. Claim do not explain how a device is provisioned into a virtual path. Path is connection between two devices but provisioning a device into a connection is ambiguous. According to MPEP 2173.05(a), “every term should be apparent from the prior art or specification and should not be ambiguous or vague. Without clear definitions in the specification, a ordinary artisan may not understand the scope of these terms.
Also, “network address mapper (NAM) logic” configured with…addresses is vague and indefinite. Because it is unclear whether NAM stores these addresses, generates them or uses them in some other way. Claims must use clear, precise language so that the metes and bounds of the invention can be ascertained.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of addresses of virtual paths terminal" in “a plurality of addresses of network address. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to clarify the records so how the addresses are distinguishable.
In addition the claim has Imprecise Functional Language. The NAT gateway is defined by functional capacities (i.e. receive a packet, translate the public IP” and send the packet…). While functional language is permitted, MPEP 2173 cautions that claim must clearly define when infringement occurs. The BlueIron Article summarizing In re Katz explains that claim mixing system elements with method steps of using the system can be indefinite. Appropriate corrections are advised by the office. Also the last limitation “send the packet towards the private IP address”. It is unclear what the applicant means by sending toward because t ”towards”) is ambiguous: does the NAT gateway merely sends the packet in the direction of the device? or does it ensure its delivery.
Referring to claim 2, that is directed to a NAT gateway yet it recites “a device” that is provisioned into “a virtual path” and that “comprises network address mapper (NAM) logic”. It is not clear whether this device is part of the NAT gateway or a separate component. The lack of clear antecedent basis and relationship between the NAT gateway and the device makes the claim indefinite. It also has the same deficiencies as noted above. Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boire-Lavigne (US pub, 2010/0205313 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Boire-Lavigne teaches a system comprising: a network address translation (NAT) gateway (Firewall/NAT 30A, 30b – see ¶ [29], [030], [035], [037]); and
a device provisioned into a virtual path and that has a private Internet Protocol (IP) address (The “device” corresponds to the relay agent 110A/110B or SIP UEs behind NAT with private addresses (e.g. 192.168.1.x) – Table 1, Table 2, [050], [052]), the device comprising network address mapper (NAM) logic (The relay agents maintains mapping between public and private addresses for signaling and media see [031], [034], [037] [049]-053] translation tables and address bindings ([072], [077], [080]) configured with:
a plurality of addresses of virtual path terminals connected via the virtual path (Multiple end points across NAT and SIP proxy form the virtual PATH – see ¶ [043], table list at least 6 device addresses 192, 168, 1. 200, 192, 168, 1. 100 & ([027-029]), describes multiple terminals behind private networks & Fig. 1, 2, illustrates multiple end points linked through the traversal system);
a plurality of addresses of network interfaces corresponding to subnets of the virtual path terminals (Boire-Lavigne teaches two different private subnets for two users ¶ [043], User A network: 192.168.1.x and User B network: 192.168.2.x –Also see [028], Private network 20A and 20B are different subnets ); and
proxy information (Sip Proxy 130 provides proxy routing information ¶ [036], Sip proxy receives SIP signaling [045], SIP invite contains CONTACT header VIA header i.e. proxy info [060] – [067]),
wherein the NAT gateway is configured to: receive a packet addressed to a public Internet Protocol (IP) address (NAT receives SIP INVITE and SIP 200 OK addressed to public IP, see [044], SIP INVITE sent to public address (216.218..42.170), SIP 200 OK routing to public IP)
translate the public IP address to the private IP address of the device (NAT binding translates public -> private IP [049], NAT creating NATing Table associating public port/IP with private address of relay agent & see ¶ [051]-[053], translation executed during routing); and
send the packet towards the private IP address of the device (NAT forwards incoming packets to private devices, [053], Firewall/NAT forwards the packet to the relay agent, [064], SIP proxy response forwarded through NAT to private interface).
Referring to claim 2, Boire-Lavigne teaches a network address translation (NAT) gateway comprising: one or more processors ([031]-[033], NAT30A/30B implemented in software/hardware (processor + memory); and
one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors () cause the NAT gateway to:
receive a packet addressed to a public Internet Protocol (IP) address (NAT receives SIP INVITE and SIP 200 OK addressed to public IP, see [044], SIP INVITE sent to public address (216.218..42.170), SIP 200 OK routing to public IP, [044], [060]-062])
translate the public IP address to a private IP address of a device that is provisioned into a virtual path ([049], [051][053]),
wherein the device comprises network address mapper (NAM) logic (The relay agents maintains mapping between public and private addresses for signaling and media see [031], [034], [037] [049]-053] translation tables and address bindings ([072], [077], [080]) configured with: a plurality of addresses of virtual path terminals connected via the virtual path (see ¶ [043] table – Multiple terminals, Fig 5A-5D);
a plurality of addresses of network interfaces corresponding to subnets of the virtual path terminals (multiple private subnets [028], [043]); and
proxy information (Sip Proxy 130 provides proxy routing information ¶ [036], Sip proxy receives SIP signaling [045], SIP invite contains CONTACT header VIA header i.e. proxy info [060] – [067]); and
send the packet towards the private IP address (see ¶ [053], [064], NAT forwards to private address).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant prior art can be found in the included form PTO-892 (Notice of Cited References).
The examiner also requests, when responding to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFTAB N. KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/AFTAB N. KHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454