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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on July 1, 2024 in which claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 is/are amended; claims 3, and 5-6 is/are cancelled; and claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Objection to the Title
TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the
invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive. The title of the disclosure is objected to because the current title, “COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM”, is more indicative of a general category/subject to which claims are directed. While the current title describes the invention it does so in a very general sense and is not clearly indicative of the claimed invention. It lacks the necessary detail to differentiate Applicant's communication apparatus. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the Applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by Examiner's Amendment pursuant to MPEP 606.01.
Objection to the Abstract
The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof,
regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains (MPEP 608.01 (b)). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract merely repeats the claim language and does not enable the reader thereof to determine the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
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, 4 and 7 is/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.
Claim 1: The terms "hold" in line 5, and “about” in line 7, is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "hold and about" is/are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1: The term "whether to apply" in line 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "whether to apply" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2: The term "perform" in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "perform" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4: The terms "whether to apply" in line 7, and “about” in line 4 is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "whether to apply and about" is/are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites similar limitation as claim 4 and same rejection applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kitada et al. (US 20130039365 A1) hereinafter “Kitada”.
As to claim 1, kitada discloses a communication device configured to perform packet communication (Kitada, Abstract [46-50]), the communication device comprising:
a processor ([44-46]); and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor [46-50] to: hold a rule of a value-added service policy (Kitada [46-50], discloses wherein the address translation apparatus, the address translation program, and wherein the input processing unit executes a process for receiving a packet from the access network);
inquire to a translation device configured to perform address translation about translation information including information before the address translation (Kitada [59-64], discloses wherein a packet output from the output processing unit in the edge router is input to the first address translation apparatus, and a packet output from the output processing unit in the core router is input to the second address translation apparatus);
receive the translation information from the translation device (Kitada [66-68, 71-75], discloses output processing unit transmits the packet whose source address has been translated into the global address to the core router, and wherein the specification information reception unit receives the specification information from the first address translation apparatus); and
determine whether to apply the rule to a packet after the address translation received from the translation device by using the translation information (Kitada [75-81], discloses wherein the translation request control unit determines whether or not to request the second address translation apparatus to execute the process for translating an address in accordance with the number of addresses registered to the translation table, and further teaches wherein the translation request control unit determines whether or not the number of addresses registered to the translation table exceeds a certain threshold).
As to claim 2, Kitada discloses a communication device configured to perform packet communication, the communication device (Kitada, Abstract [46-50]), comprising: a processor [44-46]; and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor [46-50 to:
perform address translation on a received packet and generate translation information including information before the address translation (Kitada [59-64], discloses wherein a packet output from the output processing unit in the edge router is input to the first address translation apparatus, and a packet output from the output processing unit in the core router is input to the second address translation apparatus); and
transmit the translation information to a value-added service providing device that provides a value-added service by using information before the address translation, and transmit the packet after the address translation to the value-added service providing device after transmitting the translation information (Kitada [66-68, 71-75], discloses output processing unit transmits the packet whose source address has been translated into the global address to the core router, and wherein the specification information reception unit receives the specification information from the first address translation apparatus, and [75-81] wherein the translation request control unit determines whether or not the number of addresses registered to the translation table exceeds a certain threshold).
Claim 3. (canceled)
Claim 5-6. (canceled)
Claims 4, and 7 are corresponding method and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 1 and 2. and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also requests, in response 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. When responding to this office action, 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 Razu A Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:30-4 EST.
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, Wing Chan can be reached on 27493. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441