DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communication filed on 04/09/2026.
2. Claims 1-10 and 12 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. 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
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10 and 12 has/have been amended to address the claim objection(s). The claim objection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 04/09/2026, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
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 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebayashi et al. (US 2007/0166051 A1) in view of Kommareddy et al. (US 2008/0028467 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10 and 12:
Sebayashi discloses a device for prioritizing at least one packet in a network, which includes router nodes configured to route packets, transmitter nodes configured to transmit the packets, and receiver nodes configured to receive the packets, the router nodes include a prioritizing router node and the receiver nodes include a prioritizing receiving node that is connected to the prioritizing router node, the device comprising (see fig. 1 and paras. 102-103 where a router/repeater device controls the passage of a packet in a network comprising repeater devices/routers (i.e., routers/prioritizing router nodes) and servers and communication terminals/equipment (i.e., transmitter and receiver/prioritizing receiving nodes transmitting and receiving the packets) based on a signature of the packet, wherein the packet corresponding to a legitimate signature is enabled to pass without restriction (i.e., prioritizing the packet)) and comprising:
a receiver (see fig. 2 for a packet acquiring unit);
(see fig. 2 for a network interfacing unit);
at least one processor; and at least one memory (see para. 113):
receiving a message comprising multiple expected values of a protection parameter, from a device associated with the prioritizing receiver node; receiving said at least one packet from one of the transmitting nodes, said at least one packet being destined for the prioritizing receiving node and comprising said protection parameter in at least one field of said at least one packet; and prioritizing said at least one packet when the value of said protection parameter corresponds to one of said expected values, [wherein said at least one expected value is changed after the expiration of a defined period] (see figs. 1, 2 and para. 129 where a legitimate signature (i.e., a message comprises a legitimate signature as a protection parameter) is received from an adjacent repeater device (i.e., a device associated with a server or a communication terminal/equipment as a prioritizing receiver node); see paras. 96, 127 where a legitimate signature includes attributes (e.g., source IP address, destination IP address, protocol, etc.) having values (e.g., source =172.16.10.24, destination =192.168.1.1/32, etc.) (i.e., expected values of a legitimate signature in at least one field such as source IP address and/or destination IP address of the packet) indicating characteristics of the legitimate packet; see paras. 102, 115 where a packet is received from a server or a communication equipment, and transmitted/passed to a communication equipment or a server without restriction when the packet has a legitimate signature)).
Sebayashi does not, but Kommareddy discloses:
wherein said at least one expected value is changed after the expiration of a defined period (see Kommareddy, paras. 26-27, where a flow identifier (i.e., expected value) of a suspect flow is transmitted from each of the routing nodes to at least one rendezvous node to determine an attack flow, and wherein a flow identifier of a suspect flow is provided at predetermined intervals (i.e., a flow identified is changed after the expiration of a predetermined interval/period); see para. 104 where a flow identifier is extracted from a packet header).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sebayashi's invention by enhancing it for said at least one expected value is changed after the expiration of a defined period, as taught by Kommareddy, in order for determining a flow identifier of a suspect flow at predetermined intervals (see Kommareddy, para. 27).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
Sebayashi discloses:
placing the packets in a queue having access to one or more output interfaces of the prioritizing router node, the access having priority over at least one other queue (see fig. 2 and para. 134 where legitimate packets are inputted into a legitimate cue (i.e., queue) to be outputted to another repeater device, a server, or a communications terminal).
Regarding claim(s) 3:
Sebayashi discloses:
filtering packets not comprising one of the expected values of the protection parameter (see fig. 9 and paras. 97, 150).
Regarding claim(s) 4:
Sebayashi discloses:
wherein the filtering comprises blocking, or destroying, or lowering the priority of the packets not comprising one of the expected values of the protection parameter (see fig. 9 and para. 134).
Regarding claim(s) 5:
Sebayashi discloses:
transmitting the message comprising the expected values of the protection parameter to a router node neighboring the prioritizing router node connected to the prioritizing receiver node (see paras. 127, 129).
Regarding claim(s) 8:
Sebayashi discloses:
wherein the at least one field comprising the protection parameter is one or more of the fields selected from a list consisting of: "Security Parameters Index" (SPI) of Internet Protocol security (IPsec),"Protocol" of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4),"Next Header" of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6),"Flow Label" of IPv6,Source Internet Protocol (IP) address, or destination IP address, or source port, or destination port, of IPv4 or IPv6,"Key" of Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE), and Segment List, or Segment List [n], or Tag, or hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) tag-length-value (TLV) of Segment Routing IPv6 (Segment Routing IPv6 (SRv6)) (see paras. 96, 119, and/or 127).
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebayashi, Kommareddy, and further in view of Chien (US 2018/0131718 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 6:
Sebayashi discloses:
wherein the protection parameter is contained in a destination [Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)] address of the at least one packet (see para. 127 where legitimate IP packet(s) is/are communicated to a legitimate user associated with a destination IP address).
Sebayashi does not, but Chien discloses:
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address (see Chien, para. 24, for IPV6 addresses).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sebayashi's invention by enhancing it for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address, as taught by Chien, in order for associating flow control rules with IPV6 addresses (see Chien, para. 24).
8. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebayashi, Kommareddy, and further in view of Waters, JR et al. (US 2014/0373140 A1, hereafter Waters).
Regarding claim(s) 7:
Sebayashi does not, but Waters discloses:
wherein the at least one packet is received through is an Internet Protocol security (IPsec) tunnel or an Internet Protocol (IP) tunnel (see Waters, para. 32, where packet(s) is/are transmitted over a network to an IP address through a tunnel (i.e., IP tunnel)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sebayashi's invention by enhancing it for the flow is an IPsec tunnel or an IP tunnel, as taught by Waters, in order to scrub packets transmitted to an IP address through a tunnel (see Waters, para. 32).
9. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebayashi, Kommareddy, and further in view of Iqbal et al. (US 12120128 B1).
Regarding claim(s) 9:
Sebayashi discloses:
wherein the message comprising the expected values of the protection parameter is a message [in accordance with a protocol selected from the group consisting of: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Flow Spec, Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Representational State Transfer Configuration (RESTCONF), Command line interface (CLI), Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Application Program Interface (API) Representational State Transfer Configuration (REST), and API] (see fig. 1 and para. 129 where a repeater device receives legitimate signature(s) from an adjacent repeater device over a network; see paras. 96, 127 where a legitimate signature includes attributes, e.g., source IP address, destination IP address, protocol, etc. (i.e., expected values of a legitimate signature) indicating characteristics of the legitimate packet).
Sebayashi does not, but Iqbal discloses:
a message in accordance with a protocol selected from the group consisting of: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Flow Spec, Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Representational State Transfer Configuration (RESTCONF), Command line interface (CLI), Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Application Program Interface (API) Representational State Transfer Configuration (REST), and API (see Iqbal, col. 1, lines 11-14, where a router uses BGP protocol to send/receive routing information to/from another router).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sebayashi's invention by enhancing it for a message in accordance with a protocol selected from the group consisting of: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Flow Spec, Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Representational State Transfer Configuration (RESTCONF), Command line interface (CLI), Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Application Program Interface (API) Representational State Transfer Configuration (REST), and API, as taught by Iqbal, in order to enable routing devices to use BGP protocol to exchange routing information (see Iqbal, col. 1, lines 11-13).
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 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 HUAN V. DOAN whose telephone number is 571-272-3809. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday, 9:00am – 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PHILIP CHEA, can be reached on 571-272-3951. 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.
/HUAN V DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights