DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 04/01/2026.
2. Claims 1, 3-9, 19, 21-28, are pending in this application.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 19, 21, 24, 27, have been amended.
4. Claims 2, 20, have been cancelled.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued that:
a. Xie fails to cure the deficiency of Xu. Xie discloses a packet processing method. In this method, a first device receives a first packet sent by a second device, where the first packet includes a first SRH. The first device determines that segment left (SL) in the first SRH is equal to 1 or updated SL is equal to 0. In response to determining that the first packet includes the first segment identifier and that the SL is equal to 1 or the updated SL is equal to 0 (it indicates that the first segment identifier is a penultimate segment identifier in the SRH), the first device performs the operation of deleting the first SRH in the first packet, and performs the encapsulation operation to generate the second packet, to reduce occupied bandwidth resources in a subsequent transmission process (see paragraphs [0005] and [0009] of Xie).
Xie only discloses when a segment identifier (e.g., BSID) included in the SRH indicates to perform an encapsulation operation and the segment identifier is a penultimate segment identifier in the SRH, the PSP operation cannot be implemented (see paragraph [0094] of Xie). However, performing an encapsulation operation means that the current packet needs to be encapsulated in a specific format. That is, the current packet has not yet been encapsulated. This is obviously different from the marking information of the present invention, which indicates whether the first SRH is an SRH encapsulated by BSID by taking a value of either the first value or the second value. That is, the marking information within the SRH in the packet after encapsulation indicates how the current first SRH has been encapsulated.
In addition, in Xie, a segment identifier indicates a segment for transmitting the first packet, which is in the form of the address of the segment (see paragraph [0007] of Xie). It does not take two different values, nor is it used to indicate whether the first SRH is an SRH encapsulated by a BSID (Applicant’s remarks, pages 10-11).
In response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a note, the examiner would like to point out that the claim language recites:
wherein the marking information takes a value of a first value or a second value,
wherein when the value of the marking information is the first value, it is indicated that the first SRH is an SRH encapsulated by a binding segment identifier (BSID), and
wherein when the value of the marking information is the second value, it is indicated that the first SRH is not an SRH encapsulated by a BSID.
As such, the claims can be reasonably read as the marking information is either the first or second value, and if it is the first value, then the first value limitation needs to be taught but not the second value limitation as the marking information is not the second value. If the marking information is the second value, then the second value limitation needs to be taught but not the first value. If applicant intends the claims to read on both values, such should be claimed. With compact prosecution in mind, the examiner has stated how both values would be taught, but again, only one value would need to be shown in the prior art.
Nonetheless, Xie disclosed that the device determines that the SL field in the SRH is equal to either 1 or 0 (or essentially N-1)(Paragraphs 9, 85). The SRH is encapsulated into packets and includes a segment identifier list of the SRH (Paragraph 3, Figure 1). Therefore, when the packet is received, if it has SRH section along with the IPv6 packet header, it is encapsulated. The SL information is encapsulated with the SRH information (see Figure 1), and if the SL information is 1 or the updated SL information is 0, then the first SRH on the first packet is deleted and a second packet is generated and encapsulated with the updated SRH information (Paragraph 9). Xie goes on to disclose that upon receiving each packet, the SL value in the SRH is decreased by 1 until it gets to 1 or 0 (Paragraph 81). When the marking information is any other value (i.e., N-1), the node knows it needs to encapsulate (i.e., no encapsulated by the BSID) the packet with an SRH header based on the path that the packet needs to take (Paragraph 87). When the value of the SL reaches the destination and is 0, it is decapsulated and the packet is forwarded based on the destination address (Paragraph 91).
b. Furthermore, in the comments on the original claim 2 at page 5 of the Office Action, the examiner alleges that "in response to the SL is equal to 1 or the updated SL is equal to 0, the encapsulation operation is performed" in Xie discloses the marking information taking the first value or the second value to indicates whether the first SRH is an SRH encapsulated by a BSID in claim 1 of the present application. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In Xie, SL equal to 1 is the same as updated SL equal to 0, and both indicate that the first segment identifier is a penultimate segment identifier in the SRH. In this case, the first device performs the operation of deleting the first SRH on the first packet, and performs the encapsulation operation to generate the second packet (see paragraph [0009] of Xie). Although SL can be equal to 0 or 1, SL is the basic structure of the SRH of the packet in the packet forwarding process in the SRv6 field, and is used to indicate the number of remaining nodes and also indicate the address of the next node to be obtained in the packet forwarding process. The SL is not limited to take value of 1 or 0, and its value is determined based on the number of segment identifiers to be processed, and will be changed with the change of the number of segment identifiers to be processed. The SL cannot indicate how an SRH is encapsulated at all. In addition, in Xie, it is determined whether the first segment identifier is the penultimate segment identifier in the SRH in response to a result of determining whether SL is 0, so as to perform the operation of deleting the first SRH on the first packet, and perform the encapsulation operation to generate the second packet. That is to say, SL can at most indicate the operation of deleting the SRH, but it cannot indicate how an SRH is encapsulated (Applicant’s remarks, pages 11-12).
In response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the SL is essentially N-1. If the SL is 1 or 0 certain operations are performed on the packet. In order to know the SL, the packet must be encapsulated with the SRH information. If the SL is 1, or if and updated SL is 0, the device knows to delete the first packet and generate a second packet by encapsulating the updated SRH information into it.
c. In addition, in the comments on claim 1 at page 4 of the Office action, the examiner states that "segment identifier" in Xie equals to the marking information, while the examiner states that "segment left SL" in Xie equals to the marking information in the comments on claim 2 at page 5 of the Office Action. These comments are contradictory and unreasonable.
Furthermore, the segment identifier and the segment left SL are completely different concepts. As mentioned above, the segment identifier is used to indicate the segment that transmits the first packet, which is in the form of the address of the segment. While the segment left SL is used to indicate how many segment identifiers remain. For example, a segment left SL equal to 1 (or an updated SL equal to 0) indicates that the first segment identifier is the penultimate segment identifier in the SRH, and correspondingly, a segment left SL equal to 0 indicates that the first segment identifier is the last segment identifier in the SRH. In addition, as mentioned above, neither "segment identifier" nor "segment left SL" in Xie discloses that marking information indicates whether the SRH is encapsulated by a BSID (Applicant’s remarks, pages 12-13).
In response: The examiner is equating the segment identifier and SL as the same in order to determine how to process the packet. Xie discloses that the segment identifier and the SL is determined in order to determine whether the first SRH is still required. Xie states that the SL is essentially the segment identifier (see Paragraph 121, ‘using a segment identifier indicated by SL=0’).
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 19-26, 28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2023/0283588) in view of Xie et al. (US 2024/0297844).
Regarding claim 1, Xu disclosed:
A packet processing method, which is applied to a first network device (Figure 2, communication apparatus 1) and comprises:
receiving a first packet (Paragraph 70, Figure 2, S101, communication apparatus 1 obtains packet 1);
forwarding a second packet (Paragraph 74, packet 2), the second packet comprises a first segment routing header (SRH) (Paragraph 60, SRH) and the first packet (Paragraph 74, re-encapsulate packet 2 to obtain packet 1), and the first SRH comprises marking information (Paragraph 83, TLV field) (Paragraph 60, packets are SRv6 packets that include a segment routing header (SRH). Paragraph 74, communication apparatus 1 receiving packet 2, re-encapsulates packet 2 to obtain packet 1 including the signature and determines that packet 2 passes through key node 1 in the forwarding process. Paragraph 83, Figure 3, the SRH of the packets include an extended TLV field, the TLV fields including type, length, reserved node type, S/T/N flags, sequence number, timestamp, nonce, and signature)
While Xu disclosed marking information (see above), Xu did not explicitly disclose the marking information indicates encapsulation basis of the first SRH; wherein the marking information takes a value of a first value or a second value; wherein when the value of the marking information is the first value, it is indicated that the first SRH is an SRH encapsulated by a binding segment identifier (BSID); and wherein when the value of the marking information is the second value, it is indicated that the first SRH is not an SRH encapsulated by a BSID.
However, in an analogous art, Xie disclosed the marking information indicates encapsulation basis of the first SRH (Paragraph 94, a segment identifier in the SRH indicates to perform an encapsulation operation);
wherein the marking information takes a value of a first value ( Paragraph 9, value of 1) or a second value (Paragraph 9, value of 0) (Paragraph 9, the device determines that the segment left (SL) in the SRH is equal to 1 or 0);
when the value of the marking information is the first value, it is indicated that the first SRH is an SRH encapsulated by a BSID (Xie, Paragraph 31, if the SL is equal to 1, perform the encapsulation operation);
when the value of the marking information is the second value, it is indicated that the first SRH is not an SRH encapsulated by a BSID (Xie, Paragraph 91, when the SL value is 0, the node decapsulates (i.e., not encapsulated by BSID) the packet, deletes the IPv6 header and the SRH and forwards the packet).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Xu with Xie because the references involve SRv6 packets with SRH headers determining how to process the packets, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the encapsulation basis of Xie with the teachings of Xu in order to improve efficiency in packet forwarding (Xie, Paragraph 127).
Regarding claims 19, 28, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1. Claim 19 recites a processor (Xu, Paragraph 41, processor), a transceiver (Xu, Paragraph 43, transceiver unit), and a machine readable storage medium (Xu, Paragraph 46, computer readable storage medium). Claim 28 recites a non-transitory machine readable storage medium (Xu, Paragraph 46, computer readable storage medium). Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 3, 21, the limitations of claims 1, 19, have been addressed. Xu and Xie disclosed:
wherein before forwarding the second packet, the method further comprises:
if a destination address of the first packet is a locally configured binding segment identifier BSID, encapsulating an IPv6 header and a first SRH in an outer layer of the first packet to obtain the second packet, the first SRH comprises marking information, and the marking information takes a value of the first value (Xie, Paragraph 95, when a BSID x1 is configured on node B, an SRH of an SRv6 packet sent by node A to node B includes the segment identifier x1 and the next segment identifier D. Node B reads the next segment as segment D from the SRH and updates the original IPv6 header by using the segment identifier D. A new IPv6 header is encapsulated based on receiving the packet and the outer IPv6 header is stripped and the packet is forwarded based on an inner IPv6 packet header with a destination D); or,
if a next hop of a routing table entry matched by the first packet is an SRv6 Policy, encapsulating the IPv6 header and the first SRH in the outer layer of the first packet to obtain the second packet, the first SRH comprises marking information, and the marking information takes a value of the second value.
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, 22, the limitations of claims 1, 19, have been addressed. Xu and Xie disclosed:
wherein the first SRH comprises a flags field, and 1 bit in the flags field carries the marking information (Xu, Paragraph 83, Figure 3, the SRH of the packets include an extended TLV field, the TLV fields including type, length, reserved node type, S/T/N flags, sequence number, timestamp, nonce, and signature).
Regarding claims 5, 23, the limitations of claims 1, 19, have been addressed. Xu and Xie disclosed:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving a third packet sent by a second network device, the third packet comprises at least one layer of SRH and IPv6 header, and an SRH in each layer comprises marking information (Xie, Paragraph 128, the second packet includes a second header and a second segment identifier. The second header includes the IPv6 basic header. Paragraph 130, the second packet is generated to include a third segment identifier (thereby making it a third packet as it is changed from its original form);
identifying marking information comprised in an SRH layer-by-layer from an SRH in the outermost layer until a second SRH whose marking information is a second value is identified, and determining that a subsequent part of the second SRH in the third packet is an original packet (Xie, Paragraph 83, a new IPv6 basic header and SRH are added to an original data packet. Paragraph 146, re-encapsulating the packet based on the path information by encapsulating a new IPv6 header into an outer layer).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 6, 24, the limitations of claims 5, 23, have been addressed. Xu and Xie disclosed:
wherein the first network device is connected with a service function node (Xie, Figure 2C showing Nodes A, B, P, C, D, connected together);
after determining that the subsequent part of the second SRH in the third packet is the original packet, the method further comprises: if a destination address of an IPv6 header in the outermost layer of the third packet is a locally configured static proxy segment identifier (SID) or a dynamic proxy SID, forwarding the original packet to the service function node (Xie, Paragraph 136, before sending the packet, the node receives segment identifier information sent by the previous node. The segment identifier information includes an SID value (an IPv6 address). Paragraph 138, the final destination node is node D); or,
if the destination address of the IPv6 header in the outermost layer of the third packet is a locally configured masquerading proxy SID, updating the destination address of the IPv6 header in the outermost layer to an address of a last network device of a forwarding path indicated by the second SRH to obtain a fourth packet, and forwarding the fourth packet to the service function node.
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 7, 25, the limitations of claims 6, 24, have been addressed. Xu and Xie disclosed:
wherein after forwarding the fourth packet to the service function node, the method further comprises: receiving a fifth packet sent by the service function node (Xie, Paragraph 95, packet sent by node A to node B);
updating a destination address of an IPv6 header in the outermost layer of the fifth packet to an address of a next network device in a forwarding path indicated by the SRH in the outermost layer, to obtain a sixth packet (Xie, Paragraph 95, node B updates a destination address in the original IPv6 header. Paragraph 94, this could be inserting a new outer IPv6 header including the SRH. As the packet has been changed from its last iteration, it is now considered a sixth packet);
forwarding the sixth packet in the forwarding path indicated by the SRH in the outermost layer (Xie, Paragraphs 94-95, forwarding the packet to destination node C based on the IPv6 packet header in the SRH).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 8, 26, the limitations of claims 7, 25, have been addressed. Xu and Xie disclosed:
wherein, before obtaining the fourth packet, the method further comprises: exchanging a source address of the IPv6 header in the outermost layer of the third packet with a source address included in the IPv6 header in a same layer as the second SRH (Xie, Paragraphs 95-97, when receiving a packet the destination address in the original IPv6 header is updated each time until the packet reaches the destination node. Paragraph 99, a newly inserted SRH sequentially includes segment identifiers of node C and P and a source address of node B (as node B forwarded the packet). With each forwarding, the source address will be changed to the node that forwarded it);
before obtaining the sixth packet, the method further comprises: exchanging a source address of the IPv6 header in the outermost layer of the fifth packet with a source address included in the IPv6 header in a same layer as the second SRH (Xie, Paragraphs 155-157, node A sending the packet to node B with node A as the source address. Node B receives the packet and encapsulates the packet with node B as the start point (i.e., source address) and node C as the end point).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Claims 9, 27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2023/0283588) in view of Xie et al. (US 2024/0297844) and Ji (US 2022/0070085).
Regarding claims 9, 27, the limitations of claims 5, 23, have been addressed. Xu and Xie did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the third packet is a traceroute packet;
after determining that the subsequent part of the second SRH in the third packet is the original packet, the method further comprises: sending a lifetime time to live (TTL) timeout packet to the second network device, a destination address of the TTL timeout packet is a source address of the IPv6 header in a same layer as the second SRH.
However, in an analogous art, Ji disclosed wherein the third packet is a traceroute packet (Paragraph 46, Figure 7, packet for a traceroute reaches a node);
after determining that the subsequent part of the second SRH in the third packet is the original packet, the method further comprises: sending a lifetime time to live (TTL) timeout packet to the second network device, a destination address of the TTL timeout packet is a source address of the IPv6 header in a same layer as the second SRH (Paragraph 8, when encapsulating an IPv6 packet with another IPv6 header when entering or leaving a SRv6 segment, TTL propagation mode applies. Paragraphs 57-59, using Hop Limit as TTL for SRv6. Each traceroute responding node detects a local Hop Limit operation and replies to the traceroute initiator (i.e., second network device) with the Hop Limit operation mode (i.e., lifetime TTL timeout). As the device is the traceroute initiator, the source address is the destination address).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Xu and Xie with Ji because the references involve SRv6 packets with SRH headers determining how to process the packets, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the traceroute packet of Ji with the teachings of Xu and Xie in order to help adjust TTL in the whole label stack (Ji, Paragraph 41).
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 Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights