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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 3/27/26 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
3. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0300065 to Dong et al in view of U.S Publication No. 2024/0121178 to Liu et al.
a. As per claim 1, Dong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a Provider Edge (PE) router, in a Segment Routing over Internet Protocol version 6 (SRv6) network, to perform steps of:
operating a SRv6-based Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) service at the PE router and with the PE router capable of supporting a plurality of Segment Identifier (SID) types in terms of structure (See paragraph [0117 and 0130], the PE 24 may advertise a VPN SID label of a VPN route by using the BGP message. As shown in FIG. 3a, information related to the VPN SID may be carried in a segment identifier information type-length-value (SID information TLV) field in the BGP message); and advertising the SRv6-based BGP service with a BGP Update message containing Service Segment Identifier (SID) information along with a plurality of Service SID Structure information, including one for each of the plurality of SID types (See paragraph [0118], updating, he BGP message, the PE 24 advertises an updated BGP message to the PE). However, Dong et al fails to explicitly teaches wherein the Service SID information comprises a single Service SID, and the plurality of Service SID Structure information define respective SID structure encodings for the plurality of SID types in a Segment Routing Header (SRH).
Liu et al teaches wherein the Service SID information comprises a single Service SID (See paragraph [0043]), and the plurality of Service SID Structure information define respective SID structure encodings for the plurality of SID types in a Segment Routing Header (SRH) (See paragraph [0004, 0053]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Liu et al in the claimed invention of Dong in order to for the SID network programming function type is matched with an SID network programming function type (See paragraph [0011]).
b. As per claim 10, Dong et al teaches a method implemented by a Provider Edge (PE) router, in a Segment Routing over Internet Protocol version 6 (SRv6) network, the method comprising steps of: operating a SRv6-based Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) service at the PE router and with the PE router capable of supporting a plurality of Segment Identifier (SID) types in terms of structure (See paragraph [0117 and 0130], the PE 24 may advertise a VPN SID label of a VPN route by using the BGP message. As shown in FIG. 3a, information related to the VPN SID may be carried in a segment identifier information type-length-value (SID information TLV) field in the BGP message); and advertising the SRv6-based BGP service with a BGP Update message containing Service Segment Identifier (SID) information along with a plurality of Service SID Structure information, including one for each of the plurality of SID types (See paragraph [0118], updating, he BGP message, the PE 24 advertises an updated BGP message to the PE). However, Dong et al fails to teach wherein the Service SID information comprises a single Service SID, and the plurality of Service SID Structure information define respective SID structure encodings for the plurality of SID types in a Segment Routing Header (SRH).
Liu et al teaches wherein the Service SID information comprises a single Service SID (See paragraph [0004, 0011-0012]), and the plurality of Service SID Structure information define respective SID structure encodings for the plurality of SID types in a Segment Routing Header (SRH) (See paragraph [0004, 0011, 0053]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Liu et al in the claimed invention of Dong in order to for the SID network programming function type is matched with an SID network programming function type (See paragraph [0011]).
c. As per claims 2 and 11, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Dong et al teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed, cause the PE router, to further perform steps of receiving a packet for the SRv6-based BGP service from another PE router in the SRv6 network, with a corresponding SID based on one of the plurality of SID types (See paragraph [0122 and 0124], A service orchestrator 41 may obtain SIDs of various types advertised by PE nodes within a management domain range. For example, the service orchestrator 41 may obtain, from a PE 22, SIDs of service types, including S1::1 and S2::1, where S1::1 may be used to indicate the PE 22 to send a service packet to a firewall 51 for cleaning to implement attack filtering, and S2::1 is used to indicate the PE 22 to send the service packet to a firewall 52 for cleaning).
d. As per claims 4 and 13, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Dong et al teaches wherein the Service SID information is a Service SID Type-Length-Value (TLV) having a Service SID TLV type that designates there are the plurality of Service SID Structure information (See paragraph [0130]).
e. As per claims 5 and 14, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Dong et al teaches wherein the Service SID information is a Service SID Type-Length-Value (TLV) having a Service SID TLV type that designates there are the plurality of Service SID Structure information, and the plurality of Service SID Structure information each include a SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV (See paragraph [0130]).
f. As per claims 7 and 16, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Dong et al teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed, cause the PE router, to further perform steps of receiving a configuration for the plurality of SID types for the SRv6-based BGP service (See paragraph [0130]).
g. As per claims 8 and 17, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Dong et al teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed, cause the PE router, to further perform steps of exchanging a capability with one or more other PE routers in the SRv6 network (See paragraph [0137], the PE 24 receives the BGP message advertised by the PE 27, a first sub sub TLV used by the PE 27 to advertise a processing capability of the PE 27 serving as a egress node of the tunnel B); and for any of the one or more other PE routers supporting the BGP Update message containing Service SID information along with the plurality of Service SID Structure information, performing the advertising (See paragraph [0066 and 0118]).
h. As per claims 9 and 18, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Dong et al teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed, cause the PE router, to further perform steps of for any of the one or more other PE routers not supporting the BGP Update message containing Service SID information along with the plurality of Service SID Structure information, advertising the SRv6-based BGP service with a BGP Update message containing Service SID information along with a single Service SID Structure information (See paragraph (See paragraph [0117]).
i. As per claim 19, Dong et al teaches a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker in a Segment Routing over Internet Protocol version 6 (SRv6) network, the BGP speaker comprising circuitry configured to: receive an advertisement for a SRv6-based BGP service at an egress Provider Edge (PE) router capable of supporting a plurality of Segment Identifier (SID) types in terms of structure, wherein the advertisement is a BGP Update message containing Service Segment Identifier (SID) information along with a plurality of Service SID Structure information, including one for each of the plurality of SID types (See paragraph [0117, 0122]); and transmit a packet for the SRv6-based BGP service to the egress PE router in the SRv6 network, with a corresponding SID based on one of the plurality of SID types (See paragraph [0122 and 0130]). However, Dong et al fails to teach wherein the Service SID information comprises a single Service SID, and the plurality of Service SID Structure information define respective SID structure encodings for the plurality of SID types in a Segment Routing Header (SRH).
Liu et teaches wherein the Service SID information comprises a single Service SID, and the plurality of Service SID Structure information define respective SID structure encodings for the plurality of SID types in a Segment Routing Header (SRH) (See paragraph [0004, 0011, 0053]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Liu et al in the claimed invention of Dong in order to for the SID network programming function type is matched with an SID network programming function type (See paragraph [0011]).
j. As per claim 20, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described. Dong et al teaches wherein the corresponding SID is selected based on one of capability of another PE router and local policy (See paragraph [0143]).
5. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U U.S. Publication No. 2023/0300065 to Dong et al in view of U.S Publication No. 2024/0121178 to Liu et al as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0154895 Hedge et al.
a. As per claims 6 and 15, Dong et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Dong et al teaches an uncompressed Sid (See paragraph [0130], A value field of the sub sub TLV includes the indication information used to indicate the processing capability of the PE 24, where a length of the value field is indicated by a length field of the sub sub TLV. In some embodiments, the length of the value field of the sub sub TLV may be 1 bit). However, Dong et al teaches wherein the plurality of SID types include an uncompressed SID and a micro SID (uSID).
Hedge et al teaches wherein the plurality of SID types include a micro SID (uSID) (See paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hedge et al in the claimed invention of Dong et al in order to provide efficient IPv6 routing , enhance network scalability and performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 3 and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights