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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 May 2026 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 recite “wherein the DOH is located after the RH in the IPv6 packet”. It is unclear as to what is meant by “located after”.
Claims 1-20 also recite “wherein the IPv6 packet further comprises a routing header”. However, the claims further recite “wherein the IPv6 packet does not further comprise the RH”. This directly contradicts what is already recited and renders the scope of the claim unclear.
Examiner will apply prior art as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) written description rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
However, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained. The claims continue to have clarity issues similar or the same which have been previously explained. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s statement that “The specification as filed describes the arrangement of IPv6 extension headers and illustrates configurations in which a DOH appears after a routing header, as shown in Fig. 4 and described in the accompanying text at ¶ [0124], which describes scenarios in which a DOH appears after a routing header within the IPv6 packet structure”. However, after consideration of Applicant’s support, simply reciting that a header is “located after” another header in such a packet structure does not clearly convey what this means in terms of the scope of the claim and its procedural/structural limitations, especially given that the claims later recite “parsing the DOH” “based on a policy” when the claims earlier required that the “intermediate node”/”network device” “is not designated to parse [the] destination options header” and that “the policy is independent of the existing IPv6 parsing rules”, leading to the interpretation that a particular yet unclaimed “parsing” procedure is required. Given that the claim also contradicts itself by reciting that the “IPv6 packet further comprises a routing header” or “the IPv6 packet does not further comprise the RH”, in view of the disclosure, the embodiments that Applicant points to appear to be not clearly expressed in the current claim language, further undermining Applicant’s view that the claim is clear by simply reciting that a header is “located after” another header.
Therefore, the claims remain unclear as to their true scope and further amendment in accordance with the disclosure is required.
Conclusion
An updated search did not reveal additional prior art that is relevant to the claimed invention or to the broader disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. C. Neurauter, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-3918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/G. C. Neurauter, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights