Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/925,523

PACKET PROCESSING METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Oct 24, 2024
Examiner
GREENE, JOSEPH L
Art Unit
2443
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
347 granted / 550 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
598
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§103
61.0%
+21.0% vs TC avg
§102
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 550 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application. 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: it is directed towards a computer-readable storage medium that contains code. The specification defines said medium (0206) by stating that it “includes but is not limited to one or more of the following: a read-only memory (ROM), a programmable ROM (PROM), an erasable PROM (EPROM), a flash memory, an electrically EPROM (EEPROM), and a hard drive”. Because the claim is not limited to the afore-listed mediums, the system could be directed to signals per se, which is not one of the statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the computer, upon which the code is executed, appears to be a general purpose computer and not specifically part of the claimed invention. Thus, the claim is directed towards signals per se. 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. Claim(s) x - - x are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0014888 A1), in view of Peng et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0126801 A1), hereinafter Peng. 2. With respect to claims 1, 12, and 20, Dutta taught a packet processing method (0091), comprising: receiving, by a first network device, a first packet comprising a data packet (0091); determining, by the first network device, a second packet based on the first packet and a first segment identifier (0094), wherein: the second packet is an internet protocol version 6 packet comprising the data packet and the first SID (0096), the first SID comprises at least one multiprotocol label switching label (0094), the at least one MPLS label indicates to use a label forwarding path determined by using the at least one MPLS label to implement IPv6 forwarding (0093-0094); and forwarding, by the first network device, the second packet based on the label forwarding path (0097). However, Dutta did not explicitly state that the MPLS label had a first prefix and the first prefix indicates that the first SID carries the at least one MPLS label (0087). On the other hand, Peng did teach that the MPLS label had a first prefix (0087) and the first prefix indicates that the first SID carries the at least one MPLS label (0087). Both of the systems of Dutta and Peng are directed towards managing packet forwarding and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Dutta, to utilize specific packet forwarding components such as MPLS prefix’s, as taught by Peng, in order to accurately forward packet data. Furthermore, Dutta likely already possesses such a feature but it is simply, not explicitly stated. 3. As for claims 2 and 13, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Dutta taught wherein the first packet is the data packet (0091); and the determining, by the first network device, the second packet based on the first packet and the first SID comprises: performing, by the first network device, IPv6 encapsulation on the first packet based on the first SID, to obtain the second packet (0091). 4. As for claims 3 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Peng taught wherein the second packet comprises an IPv6 basic header, the IPv6 basic header comprises a destination address field, and the DA field is used to carry the first SID (0090). 5. As for claims 4 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Dutta taught wherein the second packet comprises an IPv6 extension header, and the IPv6 extension header comprises the first SID (0096). 6. As for claims 5 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4 and 15 (respectively). In addition, Dutta taught wherein the IPv6 extension header further comprises a second SID; and the second SID comprises the first prefix and at least one MPLS label; or the second SID comprises at least one MPLS label (0016, where this, at least, teaches the second limitation). 7. As for claims 6 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Peng taught wherein the first SID comprises a locator and a function, the locator is used to carry the first prefix, and the function is used to carry the at least one MPLS label (0084 & 0087). 8. As for claims 7 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). In addition, Peng taught wherein the forwarding, by the first network device, the second packet based on the label forwarding path comprises: forwarding, by the first network device, the second packet based on a first MPLS label and a corresponding MPLS forwarding entry, wherein the first MPLS label is a 1st MPLS label encapsulated after the first prefix in the first SID (0058). 9. As for claims 8 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 7 and 18 (respectively). In addition, Dutta taught wherein the MPLS forwarding entry indicates to insert a second MPLS label into the second packet (0092); and the forwarding, by the first network device, the second packet based on a first MPLS label and a corresponding MPLS forwarding entry comprises: performing, by the first network device, IPv6 encapsulation on the second packet to generate a third packet, wherein the third packet is an IPv6 packet, and the third packet comprises the second MPLS label (0092); and sending, by the first network device, the third packet through an outbound interface corresponding to the second MPLS label in the MPLS forwarding entry (0004, where the multiple packets include the nth packet, which includes a third packet). 10. As for claim 9, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Dutta taught wherein the MPLS forwarding entry indicates to insert a second MPLS label into the second packet; and the forwarding, by the first network device, the second packet based on a first MPLS label and a corresponding MPLS forwarding entry comprises: encapsulating, by the first network device, the second MPLS label before the first MPLS label in the second packet, to generate a third packet; and sending, by the first network device, the third packet through an outbound interface corresponding to the second MPLS label in the MPLS forwarding entry (0092, where the encapsulation can be seen in 0091). 11. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Dutta taught wherein the at least one MPLS label is a short label (0092). 12. As for claim 11, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Dutta taught wherein the first network device is an ingress device or an intermediate forwarding device of the label forwarding path (0097). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (a) Chen et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0154902 A1), 0035. (b) Liu (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0171183 A1), 0178. (c) Filsfils et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0092043 A1), 0046. (d) Sajassi et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2009/0196298 A1), 0037. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm. 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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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. /JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12568075
METHOD, SYSTEM AND APPARATUS OF AUTHENTICATING USER AFFILIATION FOR AN AVATAR DISPLAYED ON A DIGITAL PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567425
ENCODING METHOD AND DECODING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566897
ANTI-TAMPER CIRCUIT, LED CABINET AND LED DISPLAY SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563049
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A.I.-BASED MALWARE ANALYSIS ON OFFLINE ENDPOINTS IN A NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12531830
METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR DEVICE IP STATUS CHECKING AND CONNECTION ORCHESTRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.9%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 550 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month