DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 have been examined and are rejected. Claims 12-17 are not elected for examination.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claims 8-9, while are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and would be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome and the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues (see page 3) that “It is respectfully submitted that any search for the device of the Group I, claims 1-11, will certainly encompass references for the methods of Groups II, claims 12-17. The groups are inextricably linked in that both Groups involve the same configuration of a BI6/SRv6 framework, capability notice, BFER-to-BFR mapping, Node-SID insertion, SID-vector insertion, and SRH stripping and implementation details for deploying BI6 forwarding when BI6 traffic must traverse legacy or non-compatible devices…Thus, the alleged second Group II presupposes and implements the same BI6/SRH multicast architecture recited and further developed in Group I claims 1-11” and on page 4 “A search of Groups I and II would encompass the same references with respect to these features. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would not place an unnecessary burden on the Examiner to search and examine the groups together, as a search for the Group I claims will certainly encompass references for the Group II claims.”
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A search burden was set forth on pages 4-5 of the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 03/11/2026. The Examiner stated on page 3 that “Invention II does not require providing an Internet Protocol Version (1Pv6) index format including a bitstring configured to address egress routers in a Bit Index Explicit Replication (BEIR) sub domain for Point-to-Multipoint delivery of data for Segment Routing (SR), the bitstring being a Bit-Index-6 format (B16) configured to identify each of the egress routers with a Bit-Forwarding Router id (BFR-id), wherein the BFR-id translates to a Set Identifier (SI) and bitstring, wherein the SI is identified by a SI Locator, the SI Locator is a mutable prefix configured to reach a specific set of the egress routers in the SI, and the 1Pv6 index format includes a Function bit and an Argument bit each configured as a Last Significant Bit (LSB) in an 1Pv6 address as required by Invention I. Likewise, Invention I does not require obtaining at a router a notice of a Bit-Index-6 format (B16) capability of a neighboring device; forming a map of a Bit-Forwarding Egress Router BFER to the nearest Bit- Forwarding Router (BFR) in an egress path; and if a BFR is not connected, inserting the non-connected BFR's Segment ID (SID) into a packet SRH prior to forwarding the packet as required by Invention II.” This difference between the inventions at least requires a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention, and the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The restriction requirement is proper and therefore, maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “sending a packet though a predefined path…” and “sending a packet though a legacy device…”. The term “though” appears to be misspelled and should be “through”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “immediately following ta Routing header”. The term “ta” should be “a”.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 satisfies Step 1 because the claim is a process.
In Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites “providing an Internet Protocol Version (IPv6) index format including a bitstring configured to address egress routers…the SI Locator is a routable prefix configured to reach a specific set of the egress routers in the SI…the IPv6 index format includes a Function bit and an Argument bit each configured as a Last Significant Bit (LSB) in an IPv6 address”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are steps that are performed in the human mind. The step in claim 1 merely involve providing an IPv6 index format. Claim 1 fails to recite limitations that explain how the providing is carried out. The feature of providing an IPv6 index format is performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites no other steps other than the “providing” step. The claim recites no limitations that explain how the providing is carried out. The claim fails to recite limitations that utilize the elements in the claim to improve the technology. While the claim recites the elements “bitstring configured to address egress routers in a Bit Index Explicit Replication (BEIR) subdomain..”, “bitstring being a Bit-Index-6 format (BI6)…”, “the BFR-id translates to a Set Identifier (SI) and bitstring”, “SI is identified by a SI Locator…” and “the IPv6 index format includes a Function bit and an Argument bit…”, these elements are merely information associated with or make up the IPv6 index format and are not utilized by the claim to integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim, as a whole, is directed to a step that qualify as mental processes and abstract idea for which computers are used to perform generic function or merely executing “apply it” to the abstract idea. The additional elements or steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as stated above, the elements are merely information associated with or make up the IPv6 index format and are not utilized by the claim to improve the technology or computer functionality. The elements in the claim are not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 11, claims 2-9 and 11 recite “bitstring is encoded…”, “the multiple SIDs are for one or more of: sending…”, “the SI Locator is present in a destination address…”, “SID vector…”, “Next Header configured identify a type of header immediately following ta Routing header… the Segment List is encoded…”, “encoding an SID stack…”, “the bitstring length is any multiple of 128…”, “the value of Segments Left are set to a length…”, “the SI Locator bit has a size of 48…”, and “Flags to mark presence of the BIER Bitmap in the SRH…” However, these features are mental processes (encoding) or merely information associated with or about the IPv6 index format. While claim 3 recites “the multiple SIDs are for one or more of: sending…”, the “sending…”, these features are merely intended purposes or intended uses. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11 do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
The elements recited in claims 1-9 and 11, when considered individually or in an ordered combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11 are not eligible.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0266189) in view of Filsfils et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0099611).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches A method comprising: providing an Internet Protocol Version (IPv6) index format including a bitstring configured to address egress routers in a Bit Index Explicit Replication (BEIR) subdomain for Point-to-Multipoint delivery of data for Segment Routing (SR), (Xie, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0083 a header format of a BIER packet according to an embodiment. The schematic diagram includes a 32-bit (4-byte) BIER label or BIFT-ID value. The first 20 bits in 32 bits are a BIER label value or a BIFT-ID value, and the last 12 bits in the 32 bits are other information (as shown in the first row in FIG. 2) with a BIER label or BIFT-ID...)
the bitstring being a Bit-Index-6 format (BI6) configured to identify each of the egress routers with a Bit-Forwarding Router id (BFR-id), (Xie, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0112 the BIER domain 2 is divided into only a sub-domain #2 that belongs to an IGP domain 2. In addition, BFR-IDs of the BFER 1 and the BFER 2 in the sub-domain #1 are respectively a BFR-ID 1 and a BFR-ID 2, and BFR-IDs of the BFER 3 and the BFER 4 in the sub-domain #2 are respectively a BFR-ID 1 and a BFR-ID 2...; see paragraph 0311 receiving the BIER packet, the PE 2 determines, based on the bitstring 000001 (bit-index-6 format) in the packet, that the packet needs to be forwarded to a node whose BFR-ID is 1...; see also paragraph 0273)
wherein the BFR-id translates to a Set Identifier (SI) and bitstring, (Xie, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0311 based on the bitstring 000001 in the packet, that the packet needs to be forwarded to a node whose BFR-ID is 1. In the foregoing information configuration process, the BFR-ID 1 is configured on the PE 2, to determine to decapsulate the received BIER packet...; see paragraphs 0273; see paragraph 0079 the two least significant bits in the bitstring are used to indicate that the next-hop node of the BIER packet is a node corresponding to a BFR-ID 1. It is assumed that the bitstring has a total of four bits, and it is stipulated that when a value of a bit in the bitstring is 1, it indicates that the BIER packet is forwarded, or when a value of a bit in the bitstring is 0,...)
wherein the SI is identified by a SI Locator, the SI Locator is a routable prefix configured to reach a specific set of the egress routers in the SI, and (Xie, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0311 based on the bitstring 000001 in the packet, that the packet needs to be forwarded to a node whose BFR-ID (egress router) is 1. In the foregoing information configuration process, the BFR-ID 1 is configured on the PE 2, to determine to decapsulate the received BIER packet...; see paragraphs 0273; see paragraph 0079 the two least significant bits in the bitstring are used to indicate that the next-hop node of the BIER packet is a node corresponding to a BFR-ID 1. It is assumed that the bitstring has a total of four bits, and it is stipulated that when a value of a bit in the bitstring is 1, it indicates that the BIER packet is forwarded, or when a value of a bit in the bitstring is 0,...)
However, Xie does not explicitly teach the IPv6 index format includes a Function bit and an Argument bit each configured as a Last Significant Bit (LSB) in an IPv6 address.
Filsfils teaches the IPv6 index format includes a Function bit and an Argument bit each configured as a Last Significant Bit (LSB) in an IPv6 address. (Filsfils, see fig. 1; see paragraph 0023 represented as an IPv6 address modeled as a Locator and a Function...The Function, as represented by the least significant bits of the address, may be used to identify the action to be performed by the segment (i.e., the node corresponding to the segment). Optionally, the function bits may include local arguments, which are encoded in the last bits of the address...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Xie and Filsfils to provide the technique of the IPv6 index format includes a Function bit and an Argument bit each configured as a Last Significant Bit (LSB) in an IPv6 address of Filsfils in the system of Xie in order to improve performance and avoid causing performance issues (Filsfils, see paragraphs 0002-0003).
Regarding claim 2, Xie-Filsfils teaches wherein the bitstring is encoded in a bitstring part of the BI6. (Xie, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0112 the BIER domain 2 is divided into only a sub-domain #2 that belongs to an IGP domain 2. In addition, BFR-IDs of the BFER 1 and the BFER 2 in the sub-domain #1 are respectively a BFR-ID 1 and a BFR-ID 2, and BFR-IDs of the BFER 3 and the BFER 4 in the sub-domain #2 are respectively a BFR-ID 1 and a BFR-ID 2...; see paragraph 0311 receiving the BIER packet, the PE 2 determines, based on the bitstring 000001 (bit-index-6 format) in the packet, that the packet needs to be forwarded to a node whose BFR-ID is 1...; see also paragraph 0273)
Regarding claim 3, Xie-Filsfils teaches wherein the format comprises multiple Segment IDs (SIDs), wherein the multiple SIDs are for one or more of: sending a packet though a predefined path to a first router of the egress routers in the BIER subdomain; sending a packet though a legacy device that does not support BI6; or sending a packet on to a node that is reachable over a transit LAN. (Xie, see figs. 6(a)-7; see paragraph 0228 where an address list (SID list, SL) carried in the SRH includes the IPv6 address of the specified node and the IPv6 address of the proxy node…; see paragraph 0267 obtained after encapsulation is the BR 2, and the destination unicast address is a local segment identifier (SID)...; see paragraph 0267 after encapsulation is the BR 2, and the destination unicast address is a local segment identifier (SID)… replicates and sends the packet based on bitstring information in the BIER TLV.; it is noted that the limitations following the phrase “are for one or more” (“sending” limitations) are interpreted as intended purpose or intended use)
Regarding claim 4, Xie-Filsfils teaches wherein the SI Locator is present in a destination address in an IPv6 header that provides a map of a Segment Routing Header (SRH). (Xie, see figs. 6(a)-7; see paragraph 0228 encapsulates an SRH at an outer layer of the multicast data packet, where an address list (SID list, SL) carried in the SRH includes the IPv6 address of the specified node and the IPv6 address of the proxy node....)
Regarding claim 5, Xie-Filsfils teaches wherein the SRH comprises an SID vector. (Xie, see figs. 6(a)-7; see paragraph 0228 where an address list (SID list, SL) carried in the SRH includes the IPv6 address of the specified node and the IPv6 address of the proxy node…; see paragraph 0267 obtained after encapsulation is the BR 2, and the destination unicast address is a local segment identifier (SID)...)
Regarding claim 10, Xie-Filsfils teaches further comprising an ingress router that is programmed to execute ingress replication of packets to multiple BIER subdomains, (Xie, see paragraphs 0264-0265 and table in paragraph 0264 performing replication and forwarding based on the BIER information) P20 BIERv6 function (reading BIER information in an extension header destination option header based on a fact that an IPv6 destination address is a multicast address, and replicates and forwards a packet based on the BIER information) PE 2 BIERv6 function (reading BIER information in an extension header destination option header based on the fact that an IPv6 destination address is a multicast address and replicates and forwards a packet based on the BIER information...; see paragraphs 0111-0112 In the BIER domain 1 in FIG. 1, the BFIR 1 and the BFIR 2 are BFIRs, and the BFER 1 and the BFER 2 are BFERs. In the BIER domain 2,...It is assumed that the BIER domain 1 is divided into only a sub-domain #1 that belongs to an IGP domain 1, and the BIER domain 2 is divided into only a sub-domain #2 that belongs to an IGP domain 2. ...)
wherein the ingress router is configured to introduce a path vector as an SID list on each of the packets. (Xie, see figs. 6(a)-7; see paragraph 0228 where an address list (SID list, SL) carried in the SRH includes the IPv6 address of the specified node and the IPv6 address of the proxy node…; see paragraph 0267 obtained after encapsulation is the BR 2, and the destination unicast address is a local segment identifier (SID)...)
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie-Filsfils in view of Li et al. (CN 112787922, see the English translated copy).
Regarding claim 6, Xie-Filsfils teaches all of the features of claims 4. However, Xie-Filsfils does not explicitly teach wherein the SRH comprises: a Next Header configured identify a type of header immediately following ta Routing header;
a Segments Left configured to list the number of route segments remaining;
a Last Entry comprising the index in the Segment List including SID of the last element of the Segment List; and
a Segment List [0..n] configured for the 128-bit IPv6 addresses representing the nth segment in the Segment List,
wherein the Segment List is encoded starting from the last segment of an SR Policy.
Li teaches wherein the SRH comprises: a Next Header configured identify a type of header immediately following ta Routing header; (Li, see page 8, paragraph 2-4 the SRH includes a field for indicating the next Header, a field for indicating the length (Hdr Ext Len) of the SRH header...indicating the Last Entry of the last element in the Segment List, a field for indicating the Flags of the data packet, and a field for indicating the Tag of the same group. The SRH further includes a segment list, which includes a segment list [0], a segment list [1], ..., a segment list [n]. wherein each element in the Segment List corresponds to a SID, each SID can be an IPv6 address or a part of an IPv6 address, each SID is used for identifying a network node or a link...)
a Segments Left configured to list the number of route segments remaining; (Li, see page 3, paragraphs 3-4 where the value of the first field of the specific indication entry corresponds to the value of the remaining segment (segment left, SL) of the SRH of the message...value of the first field is equal to the value of SL in SRH, or the value of the first field is equal to the value of SL in SRH plus n, i.e., the value of the first field = SL + n...)
a Last Entry comprising the index in the Segment List including SID of the last element of the Segment List; and (Li, see page 8, paragraph 2-4 the SRH includes a field for indicating the next Header, a field for indicating the length (Hdr Ext Len) of the SRH header...indicating the Last Entry of the last element in the Segment List, a field for indicating the Flags of the data packet, and a field for indicating the Tag of the same group. The SRH further includes a segment list, which includes a segment list [0], a segment list [1], ..., a segment list [n]. wherein each element in the Segment List corresponds to a SID, each SID can be an IPv6 address or a part of an IPv6 address, each SID is used for identifying a network node or a link...)
a Segment List [0..n] configured for the 128-bit IPv6 addresses representing the nth segment in the Segment List, (Li, see page 8, paragraphs 2-4 the SRH includes a field for indicating the next Header, a field for indicating the length (Hdr Ext Len) of the SRH header...indicating the Last Entry of the last element in the Segment List, a field for indicating the Flags of the data packet, and a field for indicating the Tag of the same group. The SRH further includes a segment list, which includes a segment list [0], a segment list [1], ..., a segment list [n]. wherein each element in the Segment List corresponds to a SID, each SID can be an IPv6 address or a part of an IPv6 address, each SID is used for identifying a network node or a link...)
wherein the Segment List is encoded starting from the last segment of an SR Policy. (Li, see page 8, paragraphs 1-2 where The Segment List in Table 1 is obtained, and then the SRH and the second IPv6 message header are added to the first message to generate the second message, and the SRH includes the Segment List (encoded)...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Xie-Filsfils and LI to provide the technique of a Next Header configured identify a type of header immediately following ta Routing header, a Segments Left configured to list the number of route segments remaining, a Last Entry comprising the index in the Segment List including SID of the last element of the Segment List, and a Segment List [0..n] configured for the 128-bit IPv6 addresses representing the nth segment in the Segment List, wherein the Segment List is encoded starting from the last segment of an SR Policy of Li in the system of Xie-Filsfils in order to improve the flexibility of the message processing (Li, see page 2, paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Xie-Filsfils-Li teaches further comprising: encoding an SID stack to specify a multihop routing chain to the SRH, and (Filsfils, see paragraph 0015 forward the Segment Routing packet with the header-embedded iOAM probes onto the next hop along the Segment Routing Path specified in the SID list…; see paragraph 0022 a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending a segment routing header (SRH) to the packet. ) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 1 is also applied to claim 7.
encoding the bitstring in initial SID locations of the SRH for a BIER bitmap. (Xie, see fig. 6; see paragraph 0267 a router that supports SRv6 and BIER IPv6 forwarding... the destination unicast address is a local segment identifier (SID). The BR 2 can remove the SRH based on the SID and changes the destination address of the IPv6 header into a multicast group address. Further, the BR 2 forwards the BIER packet based on the BIER IPv6 header...)
Regarding claim 11, Xie-Filsfils-Li teaches wherein the SRH comprises Flags to mark presence of the BIER Bitmap in the SRH. (Li, see page 8, paragraph 2-4 the SRH includes a field for indicating the next Header, a field for indicating the length (Hdr Ext Len) of the SRH header...indicating the Last Entry of the last element in the Segment List, a field for indicating the Flags of the data packet, and a field for indicating the Tag of the same group. The SRH further includes a segment list, which includes a segment list [0], a segment list [1], ..., a segment list [n]. wherein each element in the Segment List corresponds to a SID, each SID can be an IPv6 address or a part of an IPv6 address, each SID is used for identifying a network node or a link...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 6 is also applied to claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPub 2023/0121236, which describes a mechanism to create a point to multipoint (P2MP) path using segment routing (SR) in an internet protocol version six (IPv6) network;
U.S. PGPub 2022/0045938, which describes route control with excellent flexibility even in a large-scale multicast transfer system; and
U.S. PGPub 2019/0297000, which describes hierarchical bit indexed replication of multicast packets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights