DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on February 17, 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 12, and 17 have been canceled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-23 are pending in the application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, 16, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (US 2023/0261995) in view of “BGP-LS Extensions for Transport Slice” (hereinafter, IETF).
Regarding Claim 1, Xiong teaches an information processing method, comprising:
determining, by a controller, network slice information corresponding to a first network device (“Accordingly, in some implementations, referring to FIG. 6, before the operation S210, the information notification method further includes an operation S230” – See [0091]; “At operation S230, creating at least one network slice according to a deterministic requirement” – See [0092]; “In a second aspect, referring to FIG. 4, the present disclosure provides an information notification method, applied to a second communication node, including operations S210 and S220” – See [0060]; “At operation S210, generating a configuration message according to a deterministic requirement of a target deterministic flow, the configuration message carrying a mapping rule from a deterministic flow to a network slice” – See [0061]; “the second communication node is a slicing controller” – See [0067]; The second communication node (controller) creates a network slice according to a deterministic requirement and generates a configuration message with the determined network slice information); and
sending, by the controller, a border gateway protocol (BGP) packet to the first network device, wherein the BGP packet includes the network slice information (“In a second aspect, referring to FIG. 4, the present disclosure provides an information notification method, applied to a second communication node, including operations S210 and S220” – See [0060]; “At operation S210, generating a configuration message according to a deterministic requirement of a target deterministic flow, the configuration message carrying a mapping rule from a deterministic flow to a network slice” – See [0061]; “the configuration message includes a BGP message” – See [0045]; The second communication node (controller) sends a configuration message (BGP packet) to a first communication node (first network device), wherein the configuration message includes the slice information), and
the first network device is configured to use the network slice information for configuring a network slice (“In a first aspect, referring to FIG. 1, the present disclosure provides an information notification method, applied to a first communication node, including operations S110 and S120” – See [0027]; “At operation S110, receiving a configuration message of a deterministic flow sent by a second communication node, the configuration message carrying a mapping rule from the deterministic flow to a network slice” – See [0028]; “At operation S120, mapping a target deterministic flow to a target network slice according to the mapping rule, and transmitting a packet of the target deterministic flow through the target network slice” – See [0029]; The first communication node (first network device) receives the configuration message and uses the network slice information included therein to configure a network slice by mapping a target deterministic flow to a target network slice),
the BGP packet includes link state (LS) information, and the LS information includes the network slice information (“notification and interaction of information related to a mapping from a deterministic flow to a network slice between the second communication node and the first communication node are implemented through an update message (i.e., UPDATE message) in the BGP message. The update message is configured to transmit routing information between BGP peers, and information carried in the update message may be used to create topologies describing relationships between various autonomous systems, so as to notify feasible routes with attributes of shared common paths to peers, or to withdraw infeasible routes from a service. Network layer reachability information (NLRI) is carried in the update message, and is configured to indicate information of a route target” – See [0046]; The slice information in the BGP packet further includes network layer reachability information (link state information)).
Xiong does not explicitly teach that the LS information comprises a node attribute sub-TLV, a link attribute sub-TLV, and a prefix attribute sub-TLV.
However, IETF teaches that the LS information comprises a node attribute sub-TLV, a link attribute sub-TLV, and a prefix attribute sub-TLV (“BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the link-state NLRI that can be a Node NLRI, a Link NLRI or a Prefix NLRI. The link-state information is mapped to BGP link-state NLRI within the BGP-LS Attribute. In addition, [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext] defines Stub Link NLRI that is used to describe the inter-as link. This document adds additional BGP-LS Attribute TLVs in order to encode TN-slice information” – See p. 3; See also Sections “3.1. Node Attribute TLVs”, “3.2. Link Attribute TLVs”, and “3.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs”; The BGP packet includes LS information comprising a node attribute sub-TLV, a link attribute sub-TLV, and a prefix attribute sub-TLV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiong such that the LS information comprises a node attribute sub-TLV, a link attribute sub-TLV, and a prefix attribute sub-TLV. Motivation for doing so would be to provide extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in order to advertise slice specific information (See IETF, p. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 1. IETF further teaches that the node attribute sub-TLV includes node-level network slice information (“AII for VN: allocate different TN-slice identifier (AII) for different virtual networks. AII is used to distinguish different virtual network resources. The node can join to multiple slices at the same time” – See p. 4; The node attribute sub-TLV includes network slice information corresponding to the node).
Xiong further teaches that the node-level network slice information includes an identifier of a network slice supported by the first network device and a topology identifier corresponding to the network slice (“the mapping rule includes a network slice identifier of the target network slice” – See [0038]; “the network slice ID further includes a multi-topology ID configured to identify a sub-topology” – See [0040]; The node-level slice information includes a slice ID (identifier of a network slice supported by the first network device) and a topology identifier corresponding to the slice).
Regarding Claim 6, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 1. Xiong further teaches that the BGP packet includes network slice address family information, and the network slice address family information includes the network slice information (“In a second aspect, referring to FIG. 4, the present disclosure provides an information notification method, applied to a second communication node, including operations S210 and S220” – See [0060]; “At operation S210, generating a configuration message according to a deterministic requirement of a target deterministic flow, the configuration message carrying a mapping rule from a deterministic flow to a network slice” – See [0061]; “the configuration message includes a BGP message” – See [0045]; The BGP packet includes network slice family address information in the form of a mapping rule for a network slice (network slice information)).
Regarding Claim 7, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 6. IETF further teaches that the network slice address family information includes the node attribute sub-TLV, and the node attribute sub-TLV includes node-level network slice information (“AII for VN: allocate different TN-slice identifier (AII) for different virtual networks. AII is used to distinguish different virtual network resources. The node can join to multiple slices at the same time” – See p. 4; The slice address family information includes the node attribute sub-TLV, wherein the node attribute sub-TLV includes network slice information corresponding to the node).
Regarding Claim 8, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 6. IETF further teaches that the network slice address family information includes the link attribute sub-TLV, and the link attribute sub-TLV includes link-level network slice information (“AII for VN: allocate different TN-slice identifier (AII) for different virtual networks. AII is used to distinguish different virtual network resources. The link can join to multiple slices at the same time. The link can be configured to an IGP instance, or as an inter-as link” – See p. 5; The slice address family information includes the link attribute sub-TLV, wherein the link attribute sub-TLV includes network slice information corresponding to the link).
Regarding Claim 9, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 6. IETF further teaches that the network slice address family information includes the prefix attribute sub-TLV, and the prefix attribute sub-TLV includes prefix-level network slice information (“Prefix-SID for TN-slice Identifier TLV should only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRI describing the prefix of the IGP node. This TLV is used to distinguish forwarding behavior of different virtual networks. This information is derived from TN-slice identifier Participation sub-TLV of IS-IS” – See p. 7; The slice address family information includes the prefix attribute sub-TLV, wherein the prefix attribute sub-TLV includes network slice information corresponding to the prefix).
Regarding Claim 10, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 1. Xiong further teaches that the BGP packet includes a BGP update message (“the configuration message is an update message in the BGP message, the update message carries NLRI, and the NLRI includes slice-action component configured with the mapping rule” – See [0049]; The configuration message (BGP packet) includes a BGP update message).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 21, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 1. Xiong further teaches that the first network device establishes a BGP relationship with the controller using an LS address family (“the present disclosure provides an information notification method, applied to a second communication node” – See [0060]; “At operation S220, sending the configuration message to a first communication node, so that the first communication node maps the target deterministic flow to a target network slice according to the mapping rule” – See [0062]; “the second communication node is a slicing controller” – See [0067]; The relationship is established between the first communication node (first network device) and the second communication node (controller) using the mapping/LS address family).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 21.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (US 2023/0261995) in view of “BGP-LS Extensions for Transport Slice” (hereinafter, IETF) and further in view of Peng (US 2023/0379266).
Regarding Claim 4, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 1. IETF further teaches that the link attribute sub-TLV includes link-level network slice information (“AII for VN: allocate different TN-slice identifier (AII) for different virtual networks. AII is used to distinguish different virtual network resources. The link can join to multiple slices at the same time. The link can be configured to an IGP instance, or as an inter-as link” – See p. 5; The link attribute sub-TLV includes network slice information corresponding to the link).
Xiong further teaches that the link-level network slice information includes an identifier of a network slice supported by the first network device (“the mapping rule includes a network slice identifier of the target network slice” – See [0038]; “the network slice ID further includes a multi-topology ID configured to identify a sub-topology” – See [0040]; The node-level slice information includes a slice ID (identifier of a network slice supported by the first network device)).
Xiong and IETF do not explicitly teach that the link-level network slice information includes information about a bandwidth reserved for the network slice.
However, Peng teaches that the link-level network slice information includes information about a bandwidth reserved for the network slice (“This newly added Sub-TLV advertises the maximum reserved bandwidth for a specific network slice between two directly connected ISIS neighbors, and the maximum reserved bandwidth is a unidirectional maximum reserved bandwidth from the node initiating the Link-State Advertisement (LSA) to its neighboring node. The structure of this newly added Sub-TLV is shown in FIG. 8” – See [0110]; The LS information includes a link attribute sub-TLV that includes link-level slice information such as reserved bandwidth for a specific network slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiong such that the link-level network slice information includes information about a bandwidth reserved for the network slice. Motivation for doing so would be to enable each node within the network to dynamically perceive which local link(s) is/are added to a network slice and dynamically activate the configuration of the maximum reserved bandwidth corresponding to the network slice on these local links (See Peng, [0091]).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (US 2023/0261995) in view of “BGP-LS Extensions for Transport Slice” (hereinafter, IETF) and further in view of Du et al. (WO 2019/223447, see corresponding published application US 2021/0084009 for citations).
Regarding Claim 5, Xiong in view of IETF teaches the method of Claim 1. IETF further teaches that the prefix attribute sub-TLV includes prefix-level network slice information (“Prefix-SID for TN-slice Identifier TLV should only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRI describing the prefix of the IGP node. This TLV is used to distinguish forwarding behavior of different virtual networks. This information is derived from TN-slice identifier Participation sub-TLV of IS-IS” – See p. 7; The prefix attribute sub-TLV includes network slice information corresponding to the prefix).
Xiong and IETF do not explicitly teach that the prefix-level network slice information includes an identifier of a network slice used for transmitting an internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) packet or an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet and on the first network device.
However, Du teaches that the prefix-level network slice information includes an identifier of a network slice used for transmitting an internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) packet or an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet and on the first network device (“As shown in FIG. 3A, the IPv6 reachable TLV field includes a prefix field and a sub-type-length-value (sub-TLV) field. The prefix field is used to carry the IPv6 address prefix, and the sub-TLV field is used to carry the network slice identifier” – See [0056]; “The ISIS LSPDU message carries the network slice identifier in the sub-TLV and indicates the association relationship between the information of the network slice identifier and the IPv6 address prefix. In this way, an SRv6 physical network is sliced into a virtual network, there is no need to modify a large quantity of standards, and compatibility with an existing standard is good. Therefore, it is a simple and easy-to-use SRv6 network slicing method” – See [0059]; The LS information includes a prefix attribute sub-TLV that includes prefix-level slice information such as an identifier of a network slice used for transmitting IPv6 packets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiong such that the prefix-level network slice information includes an identifier of a network slice used for transmitting an internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) packet or an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet and on the first network device. Motivation for doing so would be to provide a simple and easy to use segment routing over IPv6 network slicing method (See Du, [0059]).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Response to Arguments
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Xiong does not teach “sending, by the controller, a border gateway protocol (BGP) packet to the first network device, wherein … the BGP packet includes link state (LS) information including the network slice information, and the LS information comprises a node attribute sub-TLV, a link attribute sub- TLV, and a prefix attribute sub-TLV,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 16. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. In response to the amended limitations, the Examiner relies upon the newly-cited “BGP-LS Extensions for Transport Slice” reference.
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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights