DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 05/30/2024. Claims 4, 10, 16, 19, and 20 are amended in the preliminary amendments filed on 05/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable subject matter.
Regarding claims 7-12, the claims are determined to be directed to software per se based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole. The apparatus claims as a whole appear to lack sufficient structure since the apparatus is merely various modules that are applied to a network device (i.e. the network device is not part of the apparatus), and the specification does not specify that the modules are strictly hardware. Software per se is not directed to one of the four statutory categories, i.e. non-statutory and not patentable, as established in Gottschalk v. Benson. Refer to MPEP 2106(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, “A machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon machine executable instructions” as recited in the claim (line 1) is not limited in the specification to exclude transitory forms of signal transmission. The aforementioned medium can therefore be interpreted to be directed to transitory forms of signal transmission. Transitory forms of signal transmission are not directed to one of the four statutory categories, i.e. non-statutory and not patentable, as established in In re Nuijten. Refer to MPEP 2106(I).
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 1-20 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 13), the claim recites “if the destination address is a locally configured proxy SID, sending a second service message on the forwarding path, and sending the original service message to a Service Function (SF) node” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to whether “sending the original service message to a Service Function (SF) node” is conditional to “if the destination address is a locally configured proxy SID”, which makes the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. For clarity, Examiner suggests Applicant to consider (1) removing the comma by amending “path, and” to “path and” if the phrase is conditional or (2) reciting the phrase in a separate line if the phrase is not conditional, in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 13), the claim recites “a first in-situ flow detection option” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in-situ flow detection” does not appear to be a term of art, and although the second in-situ flow detection seems to suggest association with replication flag information, it is not definite as to what the first in-situ flow detection option would exactly entail without further details. Examiner suggests Applicant to consider further clarifying the first in-situ flow detection option and the utilization thereof in the forwarding process (e.g., incorporating claim 2) in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20, which claim dependency from claims 1, 7, and 13, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13 above.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 2022/0191138 A1, hereinafter “Dong”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0263758 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 7, 13, 19, and 20), Dong discloses:
A method for message sending, which is applied to a network device, comprising:
receiving a first service message, which comprises a destination address, receiving service packet comprising destination address and SRH with SID list indicating forwarding path, Dong: [0045], [0053]);
if the destination address is a locally configured proxy SID, sending a second service message on the forwarding path (forwarding service packet through forwarding path based on local SID table and SRH including routing type and flags fields, Dong: [0042], [0045], [0056]).
Dong does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a first service message, which comprises a first in-situ flow detection option,
sending the original service message to a Service Function (SF) node;
wherein, the second service message comprises a second in-situ flow detection option, which comprises replication flag information for indicating that the second service message is a replication message of the first service message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches:
receiving a first service message, which comprises a first in-situ flow detection option (receiving first packet with copy flag field comprising copy flag, Zhang: [0229]),
sending the original service message to a Service Function (SF) node (node receiving first packet to store SRH of first packet, Zhang: [0229]);
wherein, the second service message comprises a second in-situ flow detection option, which comprises replication flag information for indicating that the second service message is a replication message of the first service message (copy flag field comprising copy flag indicating that second packet is copy of first packet, Zhang: [0229]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dong in view of Zhang in order to further modify the method of forwarding service packet comprising destination address and SRH from the teachings of Dong with the method of utilizing copy flag field in message forwarding from the teachings of Zhang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved network reliability, transmission reliability, and SRH synchronization reliability (Zhang: [0172], [0177], [0322]).
Regarding claim 6, Dong-Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Dong-Zhang further discloses:
wherein the in-situ flow detection option of the second service message comprises a reserved field carrying the replication flag information (copy flag field comprising copy flag: Zhang: [0229]).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Zhang et al. (US 2022/0263758 A1: Packet Transmission Method, Proxy Node, and Storage Medium), Li et al. (US 2020/0389391 A1: Packet Processing Method and Apparatus), Zhang et al. (US 2021/0377173 A1: Data Forwarding Method and Related Apparatus), and Nainar et al. (US 10812378 B2: System and Method for Improved Service Chaining).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446