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 .
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.
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 9-22 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 9 recites the limitation "the packet" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 9 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, there is no antecedence for “the packet”. It is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 9 recites “the packet” in line 11, 12, 18, 19 and 20, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 9 recites “at least one service function number” in line 8, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what service function number is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “the tag being including a service function number”, in line 7, it is unclear if this is meant to be the same number or if the tag is now being claimed as including multiple different service numbers.
While claim 9 recites “the tag of the packet” in line 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, there is no antecedence for “the tag of the packet”. It is unclear which, if any, previous tag or packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag of the packet”.
Claim 10 recites “transfer the packet” in line 3 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 12 recites “the packet” in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 13 recites “transfer the packet” in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 11 recites “the tag” in line 5 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, it is unclear which, if any, previous tag is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag”.
Claim 14 recites “the tag” in line 5 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, it is unclear which, if any, previous tag is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag”.
Claim 15 recites “the tag” in line 5 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, it is unclear which, if any, previous tag is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag”.
Claim 11 recites “the processing target data” in line 5-6 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets being including a tag and a processing target data”, it is unclear which, if any, previous processing target data is being referenced by the limitation of “the processing target data”.
Claim 14 recites “the processing target data” in line 5-6 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets being including a tag and a processing target data”, it is unclear which, if any, previous processing target data is being referenced by the limitation of “the processing target data”.
Claim 15 recites “the processing target data” in line 5-6 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 9 previously recites “each of the divided packets being including a tag and a processing target data”, it is unclear which, if any, previous processing target data is being referenced by the limitation of “the processing target data”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the packet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 16 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets” in line 3, there is no antecedence for “the packet”. It is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 16 recites “the packet” in line 13, 14, and 20, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 16 recites “at least one service function number” in line 6, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what service function number is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “the tag being including a service function number”, in line 4-5, it is unclear if this is meant to be the same number or if the tag is now being claimed as including multiple different service numbers.
While claim 16 recites “the tag of the packet” in line 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, there is no antecedence for “the tag of the packet”. It is unclear which, if any, previous tag or packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag of the packet”.
Claim 17 recites “the packet” in line 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 18 recites “the packet” in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 20 recites “transfer the packet” in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “a plurality of divided packets” and “each of the divided packets”, it is unclear which, if any, previous packet is being referenced by the limitation of “the packet”.
Claim 19 recites “the tag” in line 5 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, it is unclear which, if any, previous tag is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag”.
Claim 21 recites “the tag” in line 5 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, it is unclear which, if any, previous tag is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag”.
Claim 22 recites “the tag” in line 5 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets including a tag”, it is unclear which, if any, previous tag is being referenced by the limitation of “the tag”.
Claim 19 recites “the processing target data” in line 5-6 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets being including a tag and a processing target data”, it is unclear which, if any, previous processing target data is being referenced by the limitation of “the processing target data”.
Claim 21 recites “the processing target data” in line 5-6 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets being including a tag and a processing target data”, it is unclear which, if any, previous processing target data is being referenced by the limitation of “the processing target data”.
Claim 22 recites “the processing target data” in line 5-6 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what packet is being referenced. As claim 16 previously recites “each of the divided packets being including a tag and a processing target data”, it is unclear which, if any, previous processing target data is being referenced by the limitation of “the processing target data”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, regarding the teachings of Liu and Dunbar compared to the amended language of the “divided packets”, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In this case, as shown above, the claim amendments have introduced numerous inconsistencies within the claim language which render the claims indefinite. The exact scope of the claims is unclear as the various antecedence issues make it unclear how the different limitations are being applied to different term within the claim.
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 James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights