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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on July 1, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 6, , 7, 12, and 14 have been amended. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 18 have been cancelled. New claims 23-26 have been added. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, 17, and 19-26 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 17, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action dated April 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 § 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 23-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein calculation content of the CheckSum comprises: the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, excluding the variable part; or the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, including the variable part.”. The limitation is unclear. The content of Hop-by-Hop Options Header part is not defined. Therefore, it is not clear what constitutes the variable part and from what the variable part is excluded.
Claims 24-26 recites similar limitation.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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 (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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220191310 A1), hereinafter, Xie, further in view of Maikeru et al. (Japanese Patent Document No. JP H0678024 A), hereinafter, Maikeru.
Regarding claim 1:
Xie teaches:
A packet sending method, comprising:
receiving a packet, wherein the packet is to be examined or processed by any node along a packet delivery path (Fig. 8, step S801, shows obtaining a packet to be examined by a second routing device (any node) along the packet delivery path as shown in Fig. 7. Also see paragraph 0087);
enabling an identifier to be carried in a packet extension header of the packet, wherein the identifier indicates that information carried in the packet is processed in a control plane or a forwarding plane (Fig. 8, step S802 and paragraph 0090 discloses including first information in the packet for indicating how the packet to be processed. Paragraph 0134 discloses the packet extension header includes a flag (identifier) to indicate whether the packet is processes in data plane (forwarding plane). Absence of the flag indicates the packet can be processed control plane);
sending the packet (Fig. 8, step S802, discloses sending the packet as explained in paragraph 0109 ).
Xie does not each wherein the method further comprises enabling a CheckSum to be carried in the packet extension header, further comprising: enabling a CheckSumld to be carried in the packet extension header, the CheckSumld indicating an algorithm used by the CheckSum.
Maikeru teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling a CheckSum to be carried in the packet extension header, further comprising: enabling a CheckSumld to be carried in the packet extension header, the CheckSumld indicating an algorithm used by the CheckSum ( page 8 discloses checksum offset field and algorithm field 72 (CheksumId) indicating checksum algorithm as stated “For example, FIG. 8 shows an outgoing packet 60 constructed in the storage device 11. The outgoing packet 60 includes a checksum control header 61, a link level header 62, an IP header 63, a transport header 64 and user data 65. The checksum control header has a starting offset field 71, It is shown as including a stop offset field 75, an algorithm field 72, a direction field 73, an insert field 74 and an insert offset field 76. The start offset field 71 indicates the byte where the checksum should start. The stop offset field 75 indicates the stop offset, that is, the number of bytes to perform the checksum. Field 72 also indicates the checksum algorithm used (TCP, UDP, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to incorporate the teaching of Maikeru about carrying checksum and checksum algorithm indicator. One would be motivated to do that to maintain data integrity by calculating checksum using the checksum algorithm indicator ( see page 2 of Maikeru as stated “The network adapter receives the network packet from the network, for example, in a packet storage device, for the network packet received from the network. Network packets are transferred from the network adapter to main memory. During this transfer, the network adapter calculates a checksum for network packets. The network adapter adds a checksum on the network packet that is transferred to main memory.”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Xie in view of Maikeru teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Xie further teaches wherein the packet is an Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet (paragraph 0086 discloses the packet is a IPv6 packet).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Xie in view of Maikeru teach all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Xie further teaches wherein the packet extension header is an IPv6 packet extension header Hop-by-Hop Options Header (paragraph 0088 discloses packet extension header HBH).
Regarding claim 7:
Xie teaches:
A packet sending method, comprising:
receiving a packet, wherein the packet carries an identifier in a packet extension header of the packet, and the identifier indicates that information carried in the packet is processed in a control plane or a forwarding plane (Fig. 8, step S803, discloses receiving a packet by the second routing device as stated in paragraph 0110 “Step S803: The second routing device receives the IPv6 packet from a previous-hop routing device.”. Paragraph 0090 discloses including first information in the packet for indicating how the packet to be processed. Paragraph 0134 discloses the packet extension header includes a flag (identifier) to indicate whether the packet is processes in data plane (forwarding plane). Absence of the flag indicates the packet can be processed control plane);
processing, according to the identifier, the packet in the control plane or the forwarding plane (Fig. 8, step S804, discloses processing the packet in data plane based on the first information as explained in paragraph 0112).
Xie does not each wherein the method further comprises enabling a CheckSum to be carried in the packet extension header, further comprising: enabling a CheckSumld to be carried in the packet extension header, the CheckSumld indicating an algorithm used by the CheckSum.
Maikeru teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling a CheckSum to be carried in the packet extension header, further comprising: enabling a CheckSumld to be carried in the packet extension header, the CheckSumld indicating an algorithm used by the CheckSum ( page 8 discloses checksum offset field and algorithm field 72 (CheksumId) indicating checksum algorithm as stated “For example, FIG. 8 shows an outgoing packet 60 constructed in the storage device 11. The outgoing packet 60 includes a checksum control header 61, a link level header 62, an IP header 63, a transport header 64 and user data 65. The checksum control header has a starting offset field 71, It is shown as including a stop offset field 75, an algorithm field 72, a direction field 73, an insert field 74 and an insert offset field 76. The start offset field 71 indicates the byte where the checksum should start. The stop offset field 75 indicates the stop offset, that is, the number of bytes to perform the checksum. Field 72 also indicates the checksum algorithm used (TCP, UDP, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to incorporate the teaching of Maikeru about carrying checksum and checksum algorithm indicator. One would be motivated to do that to maintain data integrity by calculating checksum using the checksum algorithm indicator ( see page 2 of Maikeru as stated “The network adapter receives the network packet from the network, for example, in a packet storage device, for the network packet received from the network. Network packets are transferred from the network adapter to main memory. During this transfer, the network adapter calculates a checksum for network packets. The network adapter adds a checksum on the network packet that is transferred to main memory.”).
Claim 8 recites imitations similar to claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 recites imitations similar to claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed towards a first network node performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is directed towards a second network node performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed towards a first network node performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 is directed towards a first network node performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 22 is directed towards a second network node performing the method of claim 8. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Maikeru and further in view of Ellis (US PGPUB No. US 20110007747 A1), hereinafter, Ellis.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Xie in view of Maikeru teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Xie does not teach further comprising: updating the algorithm of the CheckSum at a preset time.
Ellis teaches further comprising: updating the algorithm of the CheckSum at a preset time (paragraph 0034 discloses changing hash algorithm periodically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to incorporate the teaching of Ellis about changing hash algorithm periodically. One would be motivated to do that to minimize the risk of leaking the hash algorithm to an attacker (see of paragraph 0003 of Ellis).
Claim 14 recites imitations similar to claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Maikeru and further in view of Pani et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20150124643 A1), hereinafter, Pani.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Xie in view of Maikeru teach all the limitations of claim 7 as shown above.
Xie does not teach further comprising: comparing, with the first CheckSum carried in the packet, a second CheckSum calculated according to the algorithm indicated by the CheckSumld, to determine whether the packet is a legal packet.
Pani teaches further comprising: comparing, with the first CheckSum carried in the packet, a second CheckSum calculated according to the algorithm indicated by the CheckSumld, to determine whether the packet is a legal packet (paragraph 0087 discloses calculating checksum and determining authenticity of the packet by comparing checksum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to incorporate the teaching of Pani about calculating checksum and determining authenticity. One would be motivated to do that to prevent malicious attach (see of paragraph 0087 of Pani).
Claim 13 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Maikeru further in view of Pani, and further in view of Nguyen (US Patent No. US 7453874 B1), hereinafter, Nguyen.
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Xie in view of Maikeru and Pani teach all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Xie does not teach further comprising: if calculation content of the CheckSum comprises a variable part, then after updating the variable part, recalculating a third CheckSum according to a CheckSum calculation method indicated by the CheckSumld, and updating the first CheckSum in the packet with the third CheckSum.
Nguyen teaches teach further comprising: if calculation content of the CheckSum comprises a variable part, then after updating the variable part, recalculating a third CheckSum according to a CheckSum calculation method indicated by the CheckSumld, and updating the first CheckSum in the packet with the third CheckSum (Col. 4, lines 65-67, and Col. 5, lines 1-6, discloses the packet has variable header part and after modifying header filed , recalculating checksum and sending the packet with recalculated checksum as stated “The method steps comprise receiving a data packet containing a header checksum field at a network switch (step 20), computing a partial one's complement sum from the original header checksum (step 30), modifying one or more header fields of the data packet header (step 40), updating the header checksum field with a new header checksum value that reflects the changes made to the header fields (step 50), and transmitting the network data packet with the modified header to its next hop (step 60).”. Also see the Abstract stating “The updated checksum then replaces the original data packet checksum in the network data packet.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to incorporate the teaching of Nguyen about recalculating checksum with modified packet. One would be motivated to do that because nodes often modified packet to complete the routing and recalculated checksum ensures maintaining integrity downstream (see Col. 1, lines 55-65, of Nguyen).
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Xie in view of Maikeru teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Xie teaches wherein the packet is an Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) packet, and the packet extension header is an IPv6 packet extension header Hop- by-Hop Options Header; [[wherein calculation content of the CheckSum comprises: the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, excluding the variable part; or the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, including the variable part]] (paragraph 0088 discloses packet extension header HBH).
Xie does not teach wherein calculation content of the CheckSum comprises: the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, excluding the variable part; or the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, including the variable part.
Nguyen teaches wherein calculation content of the CheckSum comprises: the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, excluding the variable part; or the Hop-by-Hop Options Header part, including the variable part (Col. 4, lines 65-67, and Col. 5, lines 1-6, discloses calculating checksum of variable header part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to incorporate the teaching of Nguyen about calculating checksum of variable header part. One would be motivated to do that because nodes often modified packet to complete the routing and recalculated checksum ensures maintaining integrity downstream (see Col. 1, lines 55-65, of Nguyen).
Claims 24-26 recites similar limitations. Accordingly, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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.
August 4, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights