DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/26/26.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 7 and 8) 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.
In particular, the examiner has introduced Narasimhan to disclose the amended limitations, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant makes the same argument for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 (see applicant’s remarks; page 8). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 applies equally as well to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YE (U.S. 2025/0119377 A1) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2021/0250281 A1) and further in view of Narasimhan et al. (U.S. 2024/0129228 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, YE discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a network node of a network deploying segment routing, a data packet, wherein an IPv6 header of the data packet includes a source specific function associated with a source address of the data packet, a destination specific function associated with a destination address of the data packet (see YE; paragraphs 0049, 0051 and 0122; YE discloses a gateway device, i.e. “network node”, receiving a packet with an IPv6 header. The IPv6 header includes a function in the destination IPv6 address, i.e. “a destination specific function associated with a destination address of the data packet”, and function in the source IPv6 address, i.e. “a source specific function associated with a source address of the data packet”);
executing, by the network node, the source specific function for the data packet (see YE; paragraphs 0058, 0059 and 0122; YE discloses receiving the packet and executing a function in destination address and a function in the source address, i.e. “source specific function”, in which the functions can be the same).
While YE discloses a “source specific function”, as discussed above, YE does not explicitly disclose determining, at the network node, whether a source flag in an End node address of the network node is set; and upon determining that the source flag is set, extracting, by the network node, the source specific function.
In analogous art, Li discloses determining, at the network node, whether a source flag in an End node address of the network node is set (see Li; paragraphs 0077, 0137, 0197 and 0200; Li discloses source routing information at a network node and determining flag values corresponding to a destination address, i.e. “…an end node address”, for a packet. It is determined the flag value is set to a specific value, e.g. 1, i.e. “a source flag…is set”, other than the default value 0); and
upon determining that the source flag is set, extracting, by the network node, the source specific function (see Li; paragraphs 0092, 0197, 0199 and 0200; Li discloses a function field is used to indicate to a network node to perform the corresponding function. For example, when the flag value is 1, i.e. “upon determining that the source flag is set”, implementing, at the network node, a segment routing policy, i.e. “extracting, by the network node, the source specific function”. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, the source-specific function can be a policy-based access control for segment routing; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0088).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine YE and Li because they both disclose features of packet processing in segment routing, 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 feature of determining flag values as taught by Li into the system of YE in order to provide the benefit of allowing function operations (see YE; paragraph 0122) to correspond to flag values to better distinguish what functions operations, e.g. network performance calculation or packet forwarding (see Li; paragraph 0092, 0197 and 0200) should be done.
While YE discloses a “source address” and Li discloses “extracting…the source specific function”, as discussed above, the combination of Ye and Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the source address includes a source Segment Identifier (source SID) including the source specific function, and wherein the source flag includes an S-bit carried in an argument field of the End node address, and extracting the source specific function comprises, in response to determining that the S-bit is set, examining the source SID in the source address and extracting the source specific function from the source SID.
In analogous art, Narasimhan discloses wherein the source address includes a source Segment Identifier (source SID) including the source specific function (see Narasimhan; paragraphs 0021, 0024-0026 and 0035; Narasimhan discloses service function chaining and assigning SRv6 SIDs. Such that an address, i.e. “source address”, includes a locator field that identifies the node that instantiates the SID for specific functions, such as, NAT, firewall and DPI, i.e. “source specific function”), and wherein the source flag includes an S-bit carried in an argument field of the End node address (see Narasimhan; paragraphs 0021, 0025 and 0031; Narasimhan discloses the SID includes bits in sub-ranges and can denote or convey specialized end-point behavior and a number of arguments that will have a value to identify both endpoint behavior value and the number of arguments. The SRv6 SID includes a function field and arguments field, i.e. “argument field of the End node”, in which the function identifies the behavior bound to that SID. In particular, a bit, i.e. “S-bit”, can identify the endpoint behavior for the function and the argument, i.e. “an S-bit carried in an argument field of the End node”), and
extracting the source specific function comprises, in response to determining that the S-bit is set, examining the source SID in the source address and extracting the source specific function from the source SID (see Narasimhan; paragraphs 0026, 0031 and 0035; Narasimhan discloses the SID including, i.e. “examining the source SID”, the bit identifying, i.e. “determining that the S-bit is set”, the function, i.e. “…and extracting the source specific function from the source SID”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine YE, Li and Narasimhan because they all disclose features of packet processing in segment routing, 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 feature of service function chaining as taught by Narasimhan into the combined system of YE and Li in order to provide the benefit of allowing function operations (see YE; paragraph 0122) to identify the behavior bound to a particular SID, by allowing for larger SIDs to be implemented (see Narasimhan; paragraphs 0025 and 0029).
Further, YE discloses the additional limitations of claim 8, one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein (see YE; paragraph 0196; YE discloses a machine-readable storage medium storing executable instructions); and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions (see YE; paragraph 0196; YE discloses the instructions executed by a processor).
Further, YE discloses the additional limitations of claim 15, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a network device (see YE; paragraph 0198; YE discloses machine-readable storage medium with executable instructions).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as discussed above, and further the combination of YE, Li and Narasimhan clearly discloses wherein the source flag is set if a value associated with the source flag is 1 (see Li; paragraphs 0077, 0197 and 0200; Li discloses source routing information, such as, the flag value being a specific value of 1, i.e. “…a value associated with the source flag is 1”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of YE, Li and Narasimhan clearly discloses executing, by the network node, the destination specific function after execution of the source specific function (see YE; paragraphs 0058, 0059 and 0122; YE discloses by the gateway device, i.e. “by the network node”, performing the function in the source address and then the function at the destination address, i.e. “the destination specific function after execution of the source specific function”).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of YE, Li and Narasimhan clearly discloses executing the destination specific function if the source flag is not set (see Li; paragraphs 0092, 0192 and 0200; Li discloses performing a corresponding function for the destination address, i.e. “executing the destination specific function”, when a flag value is set to default value 0, i.e. “source flag not set”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of YE, Li and Narasimhan clearly discloses wherein the source specific function is a source ingress replication function, which when executed, implements distributed ingress replication of the data packet to a plurality of destination addresses (see Li; paragraphs 0137, 0196 and 0212; Li discloses a segment routing policy function is generated by an ingress node to distribute from other network nodes, i.e. “ingress replication”, on two paths, i.e. “a plurality of destination addresses”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of YE, Li and Narasimhan clearly discloses wherein the source specific function is a role-based access control function that enables role specific policy implementation for the data packet (Li; paragraphs 0077, 0092, 0197, 0199 and 0200; Li discloses in the source routing information a function, i.e. “source specific function”, field is used to indicate to a network node to perform the corresponding function, such as, implementing a segment routing policy, i.e. “…enables role specific policy implementation for the data packet”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YE (U.S. 2025/0119377 A1) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2021/0250281 A1) and Narasimhan et al. (U.S. 2024/0129228 A1), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Filsfils et al. (U.S. 2019/0288940 A1) (Applicant submitted prior art; see IDS filed on 06/27/24).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above. While, both YE, Li and Narasimhan disclose a “source specific function”, as discussed above, the combination of YE, Li and Narasimhan does not explicitly disclose wherein the source specific function is a per packet Reverse Path Forwarding function specifying a plurality of different types of Reverse Path Forwarding checks to be performed on the data packet.
In analogous art, Filsfils discloses wherein the source specific function is a per packet Reverse Path Forwarding function specifying a plurality of different types of Reverse Path Forwarding checks to be performed on the data packet (see Filsfils; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0053 and 0076; Filsfils discloses segment routing packet policies and functions, i.e. “source specific function”, that include reverse reply path, i.e. “reverse path forwarding function”, for each packet. If a different segment routing policy is reflected in a packet, the reverse segment routing path will be created based on this different segment routing policy, i.e. “different types of Reverse Path Forwarding checks”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine YE, Li, Narasimhan and Filsfils because they all disclose features of packet processing in segment routing, 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 feature of a reverse routing path as taught by Filsfils into the combined system of YE, Li and Narasimhan in order to provide the benefit of efficiencies in communicating segment routing packets in a network (see Filsfils; paragraphs 0030 and 0033).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (U.S. 2024/0163200 A1) discloses setting a S-bit in an IPv6 description.
Tollet et al. (U.S. 2020/0028758 A1) discloses receiving a packet and looking at a list of segments and associated functions in the SRv6 header as well as the destination address and associated function on the IPv6 header.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 08/11/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights