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
The amendments filed on March 17, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 17, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated December 18, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant amended the Title of the invention. Therefore, the previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant alleges, in page 3 of the Remarks, “Xie does not disclose the following features of claim 1: “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””. Supporting the allegation, the Applicant argues, in page 4, “It can be seen from the above recital of Xie that a first routing device obtains an IPv6 data packet that includes an IPv6 extension header. The IPv6 extension header includes first information, indicating that the IPv6 data packet is to be processed only on the data plane of the routing device.”. Applicant continues arguing, in page 5, “It is readily apparent that the data plane is related to fast-path processing which differs from the forwarding plane and the control plane in terms of a technical concept. Xie merely relates to a scheme where first information, indicating IPv6 data packet, is to be processed only on the data plane of fast-path, i.e., there is only one choice for the packet processing, i.e., the data plane, rather than any one of the forwarding plane or the control plane.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation requires the identifier the packet extension header indicates whether the packet is to be processed in control plane or forwarding plane. Therefore, a disclosure of an identifier that indicates the packet has to be processed in forwarding plane is suffice to teach the limitation. Paragraph 0134 of Xie discloses the packet extension header includes a flag to indicate the packet has to be processed in data plane i.e. forwarding plane. Absence of the flag indicates the packet can be processed control plane.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xie et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220191310 A1), hereinafter, Xie.
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 ).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Xie teaches 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 teaches 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).
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 first network node performing the method of claim 8. Accordingly, is rejected under similar rationale.
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 4, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Xie et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 114362985 A), hereinafter, Xie-CN.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Xie teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Xie does not teach further comprising: enabling a CheckSum to be carried in the packet extension header.
Xie-CN teaches teach further comprising: enabling a CheckSum to be carried in the packet extension header (page 10 discloses carrying checksum in extension header as stated “FIG. 3a is a schematic diagram of an IPv4 expansion head provided by the embodiment of the invention. wherein the protocol field is used for indicating the type of the next message head of the expansion head, in one example, the protocol field can be used for indicating the type of the message 2; the checksum field is used for carrying information 3;”).
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 Xie-CN about carrying checksum in extension header. One would be motivated to do that to prevent message tampering (see page 2 of Xie-CN stating “In one implementation, the user message further comprises the second check and checksum of the user message, if the first message is not tampered in the forwarding process, the content of the user message and the content of the original user message are the same, namely: the first checksum and the second checksum are the same.”).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Xie teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Xie does not teach further comprising: enabling a CheckSumld to be carried in the packet extension header, the CheckSumld indicating an algorithm used by the CheckSum.
Xie-CN teaches further comprising: enabling a CheckSumld to be carried in the packet extension header, the CheckSumld indicating an algorithm used by the CheckSum (pages 10 and 11 disclose carrying HMAC Key ID to identify the hash algorithm as stated “the HMAC Key ID field is used for carrying information 1, in one example, the check information 1 is HMAC, then the HMAC Key ID field is used for carrying and calculating to obtain the identification of the key hash algorithm of the check information 1; the HMAC field is used for carrying the check information 1;”).
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 Xie-CN about carrying HMAC Key ID. One would be motivated to do that to identify the correct hash algorithm at the receiving end (see page 2 of Xie-CN stating “As described in S101 above, in one example, the tunnel head of the message 1 may include information 1, information 1 for indicating the hash calculation used by the key and/or algorithm. For this case, the communication device 2 can according to the message 1 in the message 1, determining the key and/or algorithm used when performing the hash check.”).
Claim 10 recites imitations similar to claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 recites imitations similar to claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Xie in view of Xie-CN teach all the limitations of claim 11 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.
Xie-CN 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 (page 2 discloses determining the message is not tamper if the first checksum and second checksum are same “In one implementation, the user message further comprises the second check and checksum of the user message, if the first message is not tampered in the forwarding process, the content of the user message and the content of the original user message are the same, namely: the first checksum and the second checksum are the same.”).
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 Xie-CN about comparing checksums. One would be motivated to do that to verify the integrity of the message and user (see the Abstract of Xie-CN).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Xie-CN and further in view of Ellis (US PGPUB No. US 20110007747 A1), hereinafter, Ellis.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Xie in view of Xie-CN teach all the limitations of claim 5 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Xie-CN 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 Xie-CN 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
March 30, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444