DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendments filed November 8, 2024. Claim(s) 13-14 and 25-26 have been amended. Claim(s) 19-24 have been canceled. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-18 and 25-26 is/are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/4/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim’s 17 limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language “send” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: location server [0092].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beeram et al. (US 2022/0141095 A1, hereinafter Beeram).
As to Claim 1, Beeram discloses a method for verifying slicing information, applied in a segment routing-multi-protocol label switching (SR-MPLS) network, comprising:
sending, by an initiation node, a first message, wherein slicing information to-be-verified is carried in the first message, such that a receiving node verifies whether the slicing information carried in the first message is consistent with local information of the receiving node ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.).
As to Claim 2, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) echo request or an MPLS echo reply is further carried in the first message ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an MPLS OAM echo packet.).
As to Claim 3, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein in a case that the MPLS echo request is carried in the first message, after sending the first message by the initiation node, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the initiation node, a second message returned by the receiving node according to a verification result, and determining the verification result according to the second message, wherein the second message comprises the MPLS echo reply ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0079-0081]), where Beeram discloses an echo reply message.).
As to Claim 4, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein in a case that the MPLS echo reply is carried in the first message, before sending the first message by the initiation node, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the initiation node, an MPLS echo request message ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0053, 0079-0081]), where Beeram discloses sending/receiving echo request/reply.).
As to Claim 5, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein in response to determining that the MPLS echo request is carried in the first message, sending, by an initiation node, the first message comprises:
sending, by the initiation node, the first message to an egress node; and receiving, by the initiation node, a second message returned by the egress node according to a verification result comprises ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.):
receiving and determining, by the initiation node, the verification result from the egress node, wherein the verification result is that the egress node inquires an own local entry and verifies whether a slice identifier (ID) in a sub-type-length-value (sub-TLV) of a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) TLV is consistent with that in the local entry ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053, 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 6, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein in response to determining that the MPLS echo request is carried in the first message, sending, by an initiation node, the first message further comprises:
sending, by the initiation node, the first message to the receiving nodes one by one, and triggering slicing information verification of each of the receiving nodes by an MPLS label of the slicing information to-be-verified, wherein the MPLS echo request comprises verifying a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) TLV, the FEC TLV comprises sub-TLV information and/or TLV information of downstream detailed mapping (DDM), and the sub-TLV information comprises first slicing information ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053, 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 7, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein sending, by the initiation node, the first message comprises:
receiving, by the initiation node, the MPLS echo request message, wherein the MPLS echo request message comprises a reply path (RP) TLV, the RP TLV comprises forwarding equivalence class (FEC) information of a reply path, and the FEC information comprises first slicing information ((Beeram; [0053-0081]), where Beeram discloses the ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. The DDMAP sub-TLV may include a type of the TLV, length of the TLV, flags, a slice identifier, a slice label, and a bandwidth a committed information rate (CIR), committed burst size (CBS), excess information rate (EIR), or excess burst size (EBS). Before responding with an echo reply message, a router may, in addition to including the forwarding information (e.g., DS labels, DS interface, etc.), include the per slice or per Diffsery class information in the DDMAP sub-TLV.); and
sending, by the initiation node, the first message through the reply path, wherein the reply path is located and matched by the receiving node according to the FEC information, the first message comprises an MPLS label stack and an MPLS echo reply corresponding to the reply path, and the MPLS echo reply comprises the RP TLV ((Beeram; [0053-0081]), where Beeram discloses the ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. The DDMAP sub-TLV may include a type of the TLV, length of the TLV, flags, a slice identifier, a slice label, and a bandwidth a committed information rate (CIR), committed burst size (CBS), excess information rate (EIR), or excess burst size (EBS). Before responding with an echo reply message, a router may, in addition to including the forwarding information (e.g., DS labels, DS interface, etc.), include the per slice or per Diffsery class information in the DDMAP sub-TLV.); and.
As to Claim 8, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein sending, by the initiation node, the first message further comprises:
receiving, by the initiation node, an MPLS echo request message, and setting an R identifier in the MPLS echo request message ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an MPLS OAM echo packet.); and
sending, by the initiation node, the first message, wherein a reverse path target forwarding equivalence class stack TLV is carried in the MPLS echo reply of the first message, and first slicing information is carried in the reverse path target forwarding equivalence class stack TLV ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.).
As to Claim 9, Beeram discloses a method for verifying slicing information, used in a segment routing-multi-protocol label switching (SR-MPLS) network, comprising:
receiving, by a receiving node, a first message sent by an initiation node, and verifying whether the slicing information carried in the first message is consistent with local information of the receiving node ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0079-0081]), where Beeram discloses an echo request/reply message.).
As to Claim 10, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the receiving node verifies whether the slicing information carried in the first message is consistent with the local information of the receiving node by satisfying a triggering condition, wherein the triggering condition comprises at least one of the following conditions:
a router alert option comprised in an internet protocol (IP) header; IP time to live (TTL) expiration; MPLS time to live (TTL) expiration; a label being an MPLS router alert label; and a destination IP being within a range of 127/8 ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0079-0081]), where Beeram discloses an echo request/reply message.).
As to Claim 11, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein a multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) echo request or an MPLS echo reply is further carried in the first message ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0053, 0081]), where Beeram discloses a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in an MPLS OAM echo packet. The TLV may represent downstream detailed mapping sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 12, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein in a case that the MPLS echo request is carried in the first message, after verifying, by the receiving node, whether the slicing information carried in the first message is consistent with local information of the receiving node, the method further comprises:
returning, by the receiving node, a second message to the initiation node, such that a verification result is determined by the initiation node, wherein the second message comprises the MPLS echo reply ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0053, 0081]), where Beeram discloses a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in an MPLS OAM echo packet. The TLV may represent downstream detailed mapping sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 13, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein in response to determining that the MPLS echo request is carried in the first message, receiving, by the receiving node, the first message sent by the initiation node further comprises:
allocating, by the receiving node, a segment identifier associated with first slicing information ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.); and
locally generating, by the receiving node, a mapping entry between the segment identifier and the first slicing information ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.); and
verifying, by the receiving node, whether the first slicing information is consistent with local information of the receiving node comprises ((Beeram; [0053, 0081]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.):
inquiring, by the receiving node, an own local entry according to the first message, verifying whether a slice ID in sub-TLV information of a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) TLV is consistent with that in the local entry ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.); and
returning, by the receiving node, a verification result to the initiation node, such that the initiation node confirms the verification result, and determines whether the first slicing information is verified ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 14, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein in response to determining that the MPLS echo request is carried in the first message, receiving, by the receiving node, the first message sent by an initiation node further comprises:
allocating, by the receiving node, a segment identifier associated with first slicing information ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.); and
locally generating, by the receiving node, a mapping entry between the segment identifier and the first slicing information ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.); and
verifying, by the receiving node, whether the first slicing information is consistent with local information of the receiving node comprises ((Beeram; Figs. 8A-8C; [0053, 0079-0081]), where Beeram discloses an echo reply message.):
triggering, by the receiving node, slicing information verification of each of the receiving nodes according to an MPLS label of the slicing information to-be-verified in the first message, wherein the MPLS echo request comprises verifying a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) TLV, the FEC TLV comprises sub-TLV information and/or TLV information of downstream detailed mapping (DDM), and the sub-TLV information comprises the first slicing information ((Beeram; Fig. 8C; [0053 0081]), where Beeram discloses forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A TLV including network slicing downstream QoS profile information. For example, the TLV may represent a downstream detailed mapping (DDMAP) sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 15, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein in response to determining that the MPLS echo reply is carried in the first message, receiving, by the receiving node, the first message sent by an initiation node further comprises:
receiving, by the receiving node, the first message sent by the initiation node through a reply path, wherein the reply path is located and matched by the receiving node according to forwarding equivalence class (FEC) information, the first message comprises an MPLS label stack and an MPLS echo reply corresponding to the reply path, the MPLS echo reply comprises an RP TLV, the RP TLV comprises the FEC information of the reply path, and the FEC information comprises first slicing information ((Beeram; [0053-0081]), where Beeram discloses the ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. The DDMAP sub-TLV may include a type of the TLV, length of the TLV, flags, a slice identifier, a slice label, and a bandwidth a committed information rate (CIR), committed burst size (CBS), excess information rate (EIR), or excess burst size (EBS). Before responding with an echo reply message, a router may, in addition to including the forwarding information (e.g., DS labels, DS interface, etc.), include the per slice or per Diffsery class information in the DDMAP sub-TLV.).
As to Claim 16, Beeram discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the receiving, by the receiving node, the first message sent by an initiation node further comprises:
receiving, by the receiving node, the first message, wherein a reverse path target forwarding equivalence class stack TLV is carried in the MPLS echo reply of the first message, and first slicing information is carried in the reverse path target forwarding equivalence class stack TLV ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.).
As to Claim 17, Beeram discloses an apparatus for verifying slicing information, used in a segment routing-multi-protocol label switching (SR-MPLS) network, comprising:
an initiation module, configured to send a first message, wherein slicing information to-be-verified is carried in the first message, such that a receiving node verifies whether the slicing information carried in the first message is consistent with local information of a receiving node ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an ingress and transit router. A determination can be made whether the slice selector (i.e. MPLS label) is pointing to the correct slice. The ingress router may compose the target forwarding equivalence class (FEC) stack in the MPLS echo packet. A transit router may validate the top label. A replying router maps objects for each interface.).
As to Claim 18, Beeram discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein a multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) echo request or an MPLS echo reply is carried in the first message ((Beeram; [0053]), where Beeram discloses an MPLS OAM echo packet.).
As to Claim 25, Beeram discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to, when executed by a processor (Beeram; Fig. 1), implement the method as claimed in claim 1.
As to Claim 26, Beeram discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor (Beeram; Fig. 1), wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the method as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M THIEU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7475 and fax number is (571) 270-8475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 Gillis can be reached at (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.
/BENJAMIN M THIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 2.18.2026