Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/521,141

Packet Mirroring Method, Apparatus, and System

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 28, 2023
Examiner
CHRISS, ANDREW W
Art Unit
2472
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 208 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
267
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 208 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment, filed 6 January 2026, has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1, 9, 17, 25 are amended. Claims 1-30 are currently pending. The outstanding rejections of Claims 9-11, 14-16, 25-27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Claims 1-8, 12, 13, 17-24, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 9, 17 and 25. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 17-19 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (China Patent Publication 114095459 A) in view of Yu (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0299532), hereinafter Yu, and Kalkunte et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0140130), hereinafter Kalkunte. Note: Citations to the text from Li are taken from the machine translation provided with this Office action. Regarding Claim 17, Li discloses an apparatus (Figure 9 and page 7, line 16 – network element structure) comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (Figure 9, memory 920 as described at page 7, line 18); a packet observing port (Figure 9, transceiver 910 that receives and transmits data under control of the processor, as described at page 7, line 23); and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Figure 9, processor 900 reads program from memory, as described at page 7, line 18) to cause the apparatus to: receive an Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet comprising a service packet and a packet header (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header), wherein the packet header comprises a first mirroring index corresponding to feature information in the service packet (Figure 5 and page 6, lines 11-24 – where SR header comprising a mirroring header that includes one or a combination of parameters such as VLAN, class of service, timestamp, etc.). However, Li does not disclose determin(ing) packet observing port information based on the first mirroring index and a first-mapping relationship, and wherein the packet observing port information indicates the packet observing port; and mirror the IPV6 packet to the packet observing port. In an analogous art, Yu discloses this. Specifically, Yu discloses identifying a packet as a packet that needs to be mirrored, analyzing a TRILL header to cause a mirrored packet to be routed to another network element via a port connected to the network element (see Figure 4A and description of mirroring process in paragraph 0058). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Yu in order to facilitate network analysis that allows for identification and resolution of network problems (paragraph 0008 of Yu). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the mapping relationship records correspondences between first mirroring indices including the mirroring index and respective first information about packet observing ports including the packet observing port information. In an analogous art, Kalkunte discloses this. Specifically, Kalkunte discloses a Mirror_Control register for each port including an ingress mirror-to-port index (which port the ingress packet need to be mirrored), an egress mirror-to-port index (which port the egress packet needs to be mirrored), a non unicast mirror-to-port index (the mirror-to port for egress mirrored broadcast and multicast packets) and the Mirror_Enable bit (enables mirroring on the associated ingress, egress, MAC and FP port), where each port further a port table with a mirror bit for enabling mirroring on that port and a layer 2 table with a mirror entry for enabling mirror on a destination address hit (paragraph 0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Yu with Kalkunte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to monitor device performance (refer to paragraph 0006 of Kalkunte). Claim 1 is a method comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 17. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 17. Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Li discloses the packet header comprises an IPV6 basic header and an IPV6 extension header, and wherein the IPV6 extension header comprises the mirroring index (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header). Regarding Claims 3 and 19, Li discloses the IPV6 extension header further comprises a segment routing header (SRH) (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header). Regarding Claims 6 and 22, Li discloses receiving the mapping relationship from a network management device (page 6 – lines 4-24 – where the mapping relationship is included in the SRv6 expansion header received from another network device). Regarding Claims 7 and 23, Li discloses the feature information comprises at least one of an n-tuple, a source media access control (MAC) address, or priority information (page 6, line 18, wherein the SRv6 header includes class of service, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), and wherein n is a positive integer. Regarding Claims 8 and 24, Li discloses wherein the method is implemented by a transit device or an egress device on a forwarding path of the IPV6 packet (Figure 8 – the packet processing is performed by network elements along the mirror flow path, as described at page 6, lines 29-32). Claims 4, 5, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Yu, and Kalkunte as applied to Claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of Xie et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0320929), hereinafter Xie. Regarding Claims 4 and 20, the combination of Li, Yu, and Kalkunte discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 18, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the IPV6 extension header further comprises a bit index explicit replication (BIER) header. In an analogous art, Xie discloses this. Specifically, Xie discloses a packet comprising an IPv6 extension header including a BIER header (paragraph 0155). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Yu/Kalkunte with Xie. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network bandwidth and eliminate the need to construct a multicast distribution tree (paragraph 0003 of Xie). Regarding Claims 5 and 21, the combination of Li, Yu, and Xie further discloses the BIER header is a BIER IPv6 (BIERv6) header or a BIER in IPv6 (BIERin6) header (paragraph 0155 of Xie). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Yu/Kalkunte with Xie. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network bandwidth and eliminate the need to construct a multicast distribution tree (paragraph 0003 of Xie). Claims 9-11, 14-16, 25-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kalkunte. Note: Citations to the text from Li are taken from the machine translation provided with this Office action. Regarding Claim 25, Li discloses an apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (Figure 9, memory 920 as described at page 7, line 18); and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Figure 9, processor 900 reads program from memory, as described at page 7, line 18) to cause the apparatus to: receive a service packet (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header; Figure 8 – a process of controlling the mirror flow path is shown); determine a mirroring index based on a mapping relationship and feature information in the service packet (Figure 5 and page 6, lines 11-24 – where SR header comprising a mirroring header that includes one or a combination of parameters such as VLAN, class of service, timestamp, etc.; Figure 8 and page 6, line 29-page 7, line 9 – header information is read to determine whether to forward the packet or analyze the packet for mirroring analysis), wherein the mapping relationship indicates that the mirroring index corresponds to the feature information in the service packet (Figure 5 and page 6, lines 11-24 – where SR header comprising a mirroring header that includes one or a combination of parameters such as VLAN, class of service, timestamp, etc.; Figure 8 and page 6, line 29-page 7, line 9 – header information is read to determine whether to forward the packet or analyze the packet for mirroring analysis); obtain an Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet based on the service packet and the mirroring index (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header), wherein the IPV6 packet comprises the service packet and a packet header (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header), and wherein the packet header comprises the mirroring index (Figure 5 and page 6, lines 11-24 – where SR header comprising a mirroring header that includes one or a combination of parameters such as VLAN, class of service, timestamp, etc.); and forward the IPV6 packet (Figure 8 and page 6, line 29-page 7, line 9 – header information is read to determine whether to forward the packet or analyze the packet for mirroring analysis). However, Li does not disclose the mapping relationship records correspondences between first mirroring indices including the mirroring index and respective first information about packet observing ports including the packet observing port information. In an analogous art, Kalkunte discloses this. Specifically, Kalkunte discloses a Mirror_Control register for each port including an ingress mirror-to-port index (which port the ingress packet need to be mirrored), an egress mirror-to-port index (which port the egress packet needs to be mirrored), a non unicast mirror-to-port index (the mirror-to port for egress mirrored broadcast and multicast packets) and the Mirror_Enable bit (enables mirroring on the associated ingress, egress, MAC and FP port), where each port further a port table with a mirror bit for enabling mirroring on that port and a layer 2 table with a mirror entry for enabling mirror on a destination address hit (paragraph 0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li with Kalkunte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to monitor device performance (refer to paragraph 0006 of Kalkunte). Claim 9 is a method comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 25. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 25. Regarding Claims 10 and 26, Li discloses the packet header comprises an IPV6 basic header and an IPV6 extension header, and wherein the IPV6 extension header comprises the mirroring index (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header). Regarding Claims 11 and 27, Li discloses the IPV6 extension header further comprises a segment routing header (SRH) (Figure 5 – an IPv6 packet is sent comprising an origin packet, an outer IPv6 header and a SRv6 header; page 6 – lines 4-24 which describes the contents of the SR header). Regarding Claims 14 and 30, Li discloses receiving the mapping relationship from a network management device (page 6 – lines 4-24 – where the mapping relationship is included in the SRv6 expansion header received from another network device). Regarding Claim 15, Li discloses the feature information comprises at least one of an n-tuple, a source media access control (MAC) address, or priority information (page 6, line 18, wherein the SRv6 header includes class of service, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), and wherein n is a positive integer. Regarding Claim 16¸ Li discloses wherein the method is implemented by a transit device or an egress device on a forwarding path of the IPV6 packet (Figure 8 – the packet processing is performed by network elements along the mirror flow path, as described at page 6, lines 29-32). Claims 12, 13, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kalkunte, as applied to Claims 10 and 26 above, and further in view of Xie. Regarding Claims 12 and 28, the combination of Li and Kalkunte discloses the limitations of claims 10 and 26, as described above. However, the forementioned references do not disclose the IPV6 extension header further comprises a bit index explicit replication (BIER) header. In an analogous art, Xie discloses this. Specifically, Xie discloses a packet comprising an IPv6 extension header including a BIER header (paragraph 0155). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Kalkunte with Xie. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network bandwidth and eliminate the need to construct a multicast distribution tree (paragraph 0003 of Xie). Regarding Claims 13 and 29, the combination of Li, Kalkunte and Xie further discloses the BIER header is a BIER IPv6 (BIERv6) header or a BIER in IPv6 (BIERin6) header (paragraph 0155 of Xie). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Kalkunte with Xie. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save network bandwidth and eliminate the need to construct a multicast distribution tree (paragraph 0003 of Xie). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rash et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20140282823) discloses mirroring traffic where the traffic flows are defined b 5-tuples (paragraph 0025). Wu et al (WIPO Publication 2021017658) discloses generating a mirror packet corresponding to a test packet comprising a 5-tuple. 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET. 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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. /ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593235
ANALYTICS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574793
First Network Node, Second Network Node and Methods in a Wireless Communications Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562805
BEAM MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556340
SEPARATE HYBRID AUTOMATIC RECEIPT REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR DOWNLINK TRANSMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12507218
CONTROL PLANE MESSAGE FOR SLOT INFORMATION CONVEYANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.1%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 208 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month