Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 08/11/2026. Claims 1, 11-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 8 of claim 14 and on line 4 of claim 19: “the first set” should be “the first set of one or more segments”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP Section 2106.03.
Yes. Independent claims 1 and 11 are to an apparatus and independent claim 20 is to a system.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP Section 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes. Claim 1 recites "send, to a second node, a first packet corresponding to one or more segment lists"; Claim 11 recites “receive, from a first node, a first packet corresponding to one or more segment lists; and determine the first network layer based on the first packet”; and Claim 20 recites “send, a first packet corresponding to one or more segment lists; receive the first packet; and determine a second network layer of a segment list based on the first packet”. An evaluation/judgment model (i.e., determine) as claimed is a concept that can be performed in the human mind with or without a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper), as can determine whether or not a network layer is an underlying network (according to the indication information included in the first packet). These are the abstract ideas of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP Section 2106.04(a)(2)(lll).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 5 2106.04(d).
No. Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite additional elements "send the first packet" and “receive the first packet”. These are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP Section 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). These are also additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 55 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 5 2106.05.
No. Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite additional elements "send the first packet" and “receive the first packet”. These are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP Sections 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). These are also additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP Sections 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Claims 1, 11 and 20 also recite “one or more processors; and a memory couple to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors” to perform the steps “send a first packet”, “receive the first packet” and “determine a network layer is an underlying network based on the first packet” correspondingly. The one or more processors and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic processor performing generic computer function of sending, receiving and determining information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 also recite additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP Sections 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). These are also additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP Sections 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not recite limitations which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claims 1, 11 and 20, respectively. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims 1-20 are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DU et al. (US 2022/013179 A1), in view of Niiranen et al. (US 2023/0017470 A1), hereinafter “DU” and “Niiranen” correspondingly.
7. As to claim 1, DU teaches an apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions ([0042]: includes a processor, a memory and a transceiver), which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
send, to a second node, a first packet corresponding to one or more segment lists, wherein each of the one or more segment lists corresponds to one or more segments (FIG. 1, [0140-0141]: the first network node P2 advertises at least one underlay segment identifier, each underlay segment identifier corresponds to one or more of the at least one underlay path between the first network node P2 and the second network node P3), wherein the first packet comprises indication information that indicates whether or not a first network layer of a first set of one or more segments is an underlying network ([0141]: The underlay segment identifier may be referred to as an End.XU SID, where U stands for underlay, which indicates an underlay layer), wherein the underlying network is a network below a layer 3 network ([0126]: the underlay path is a data link layer (i.e., network layer 2) path, a physical layer (i.e., network layer 1) path, or a path constructed by using a tunneling technology).
DU does not explicitly disclose “wherein the indication information occupies one bit, two bits, or three bits of the first packet”.
In the same field of data communication/transmission, Niiranen discloses “the indication information occupies one bit” ([0077]: a data unit (implemented as an indicator) may correspond to at least part of any one or more of the following, in particular relating to the OSI-model: in Layer 1 (Physical Layer) a data unit corresponds to one bit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Niiranen and DU to employ an indication field occupying 1, 2, or 3 bits to identify multiple relationships or specific types of underlying networks (e.g., No Underlying, IPv4, IPV6 or MPLS).
8. As to claim 2, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first set comprises one segment ([0142]: one underlay segment identifier uniquely corresponds to one underlay path/segment. The underlay segment identifier 4 corresponds to the underlay path/segment 4).
9. As to claim 3, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more segments (i.e., segments (O1, O2, O3, O4), (O1, O6, O5, O4)) belong to a first segment list of the one or more segment lists (DU, FIG. 1 and [0142]: one underlay segment identifier may correspond to a plurality of underlay paths/segments. The underlay segment identifier 1 corresponds to the underlay path/segment 1, the underlay path/segment 2, and the underlay path/segment 3), and wherein the indication information further indicates whether or not a second network layer of the first segment list is the underlying network (DU, [0141]: The underlay segment identifier may be referred to as an End.XU SID, where U stands for underlay, which indicates an underlay layer).
10. As to claim 4, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more segments (i.e., segments (O1, O2, O3, O4), (O1, O6, O5, O4), (O2, O3)) belong to one or more segment lists, wherein and the one or more segment lists belong to a candidate path (FIG. 1 and [0142]: one underlay segment identifier may correspond to a plurality of underlay paths/segments. The underlay segment identifier 1 corresponds to the underlay path/segment 1, the underlay path/segment 2, and the underlay path/segment 3), and wherein the indication information further indicates whether or not that a third network layer of the candidate path is the underlying network (DU, [0141]: The underlay segment identifier may be referred to as an End.XU SID, where U stands for underlay, which indicates an underlay layer).
11. As to claim 5, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first packet is a Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) packet or the first packet is a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) packet (DU, [0016]: advertising the at least one underlay segment identifier by using BGP-LS or PCEP).
12. As to claim 6, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein when the first packet is a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) packet (DU, [0016]: advertising the at least one underlay segment identifier by using BGP-LS or PCEP), comprising a segment sub-type length value (Segment Sub-TLV) (DU, [0202]: the packet includes at least one first type-length-value (TLV), and each first TLV includes one underlay segment identifier), and wherein the Segment Sub-TLV comprises the indication information (DU, FIG. 8 and [0203-0204]: the sub-TLV of the first TLV may include a type, a length, and a value).
13. As to claim 7, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the Segment Sub- TLV comprises a flags field, and wherein the flags field comprises the indication information (DU, FIG. 8 and [0203]: the sub-TLV of the first TLV may further include a flag, an algorithm, a weight, and the link).
14. As to claim 10, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein when the first packet is the a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) packet ([0016]: advertising the at least one underlay segment identifier by using BGP-LS or PCEP) comprising a Segment sub-type-length-value (Sub-TLV) (DU, [0202]: the packet includes at least one first type-length-value (TLV), and each first TLV includes one underlay segment identifier), wherein the Segment Sub-TLV comprises a type field, and wherein the type field comprises the indication information (DU, FIG. 8 and [0203-0204]: the sub-TLV of the first TLV may include a type, a length, and a value).
15. As to claim 11, DU-Niiranen teaches an apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions (DU, [0042]: includes a processor, a memory and a transceiver), which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a first node, a first packet corresponding to one or more segment lists, wherein each segment list corresponds to one or more segments (DU, FIG. 1, [0140-0141]: receiving from the first network node P2 advertising at least one underlay segment identifier, each underlay segment identifier corresponds to one or more of the at least one underlay path between the first network node P2 and the second network node P3), wherein the first packet carries indication information, that indicates whether or not a first network layer of a first set of one or more segments is an underlying network (DU, [0141]: The underlay segment identifier may be referred to as an End.XU SID, where U stands for underlay, which indicates an underlay layer), wherein the underlying network is below a layer 3 network (DU, [0126]: the underlay path is a data link layer (i.e., network layer 2) path, a physical layer (i.e., network layer 1) path, or a path constructed by using a tunneling technology), and wherein the indication information occupies one bit, two bits, or three bits (Niiranen, [0077]: a data unit may correspond to at least part of any one or more of the following, in particular relating to the OSI-model: in Layer 1 (Physical Layer) a data unit corresponds to one bit); and determine the first network layer based on the first packet (DU, [0142]: one underlay segment identifier may correspond to a plurality of underlay paths/segments. The underlay segment identifier 1 corresponds to the underlay path/segment 1, the underlay path/segment 2, and the underlay path/segment 3).
16. As to claim 12, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to determine a second network layer of a segment list based on the indication information, wherein the segment list comprises the one or more segments (DU, FIG. 1, [0140-0141]: each underlay segment identifier corresponds to one or more of the at least one underlay path/segment between the first network node P2 and the second network node P3).
17. As to claim 13, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine a third network layer of a candidate path, based on the second network layer, wherein the candidate path comprises the segment list (DU, FIG. 1, [0164]).
18. As to claim 14, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine that the second network layer is the underlying network, when determining, based on the indication information, that the first network layer is the underlying network (DU, FIG. 1, [0124-0126]: any network layers of segments comprising nodes O1, O2, O3, O4, O5 and O6 are underlying networks); determine that the second network layer is a cross-layer network comprising the layer 3 network (FU, FIG. 1, [0012-0013]: any network layers of segments comprising cross-layer nodes P2 and P3 is a cross-layer network), when determining, based on the indication information, that network layers of some segments in the first set are the underlying network and are the layer 3 network, that the second network layer is a cross-layer network comprising the layer 3 network and the underlying network (FU, FIG. 1, [0012-0013]: any network layers of segments comprising cross-layer nodes P2 and P3 is a cross-layer network); and determine that the second network layer is the layer 3 network, when determining, based on the indication information, that the first network layer is the layer 3 network, (DU, FIG. 1, [0004] and [0124-0126]: any network layers of segments comprising nodes P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 are layer 3 networks).
19. As to claim 15, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine that the second network layer is a layer 1 network, when determining, based on the indication information, that the first network layer is the layer 1 network (DU, FIG 1, [0125]: O1, O2, O3, O4 and O5 underlay nodes may be physical layer nodes or data link layer nodes; DU, [0126]: the underlay path is a physical layer path (layer 1) or data link layer path (layer 2)); determine that the second network layer is the layer 2 network, when determining, based on the indication information, that the first network layer is a layer 2 network (DU, FIG.1, [0125]: O1, O2, O3, O4 and O5 underlay nodes may be physical layer nodes or data link layer nodes; [0126]: the underlay path is a physical layer path or data link layer path); and determine that the second network layer is the layer 3 network, when determining, based on the indication information, that the first network layer is a layer 3 network (DU, [0004] and [0124]: the node may advertise at least one endpoint layer 3 cross-connect segment identifier. Each End.X SID is used to identify an IP layer link directly connected to the node).
20. As to claim 16, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine that the third network layer is the underlying network, when network layers of all segment lists comprised in the candidate path are the underlying network (DU, FIG.1, [0125]: O1, O2, O3, O4 and O5 underlay nodes may be physical layer nodes or data link layer nodes; [0126]: the underlay path is a physical layer path or data link layer path); determine that the third network layer is a cross-layer network comprising the layer 3 network and the underlying network, when the network layers of some of the segment lists comprised in the candidate path are the underlying network and some are not the underlying network (DU, FIG. 1, [0012-0013]: any network layers of segments comprising cross-layer nodes P2 and P3 is a cross-layer network); and determine that the third network layer the layer 3 network, when the network layers of all of the segment lists comprised in the candidate path are not the underlying network, (DU, [0004]: the node may advertise at least one endpoint layer 3 cross-connect segment identifier. Each End.X SID is used to identify an IP layer link directly connected to the node; [0124]: P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 represent IP layer nodes and the candidate path comprises IP layer nodes is the layer 3 network).
21. As to claim 17, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine that the third network layer is the layer 1 network when network layers of all segment lists comprised in the candidate path are a layer 1 network (DU, FIG.1, [0125]: O1, O2, O3, O4 and O5 underlay nodes may be physical layer nodes or data link layer nodes, any network layer comprises these nodes is the physical layer network or the data link layer network); determine that the third network layer is the layer 2 network when the network layers of all of the segment lists are a layer 2 network (DU, FIG.1, [0125]: O1, O2, O3, O4 and O5 underlay nodes may be physical layer nodes or data link layer nodes, any network layer comprises these nodes is the physical layer network or the data link layer network); and determine that the third network layer is the layer 3 network when the network layers of all of the segment lists are a layer 3 network (DU, [0124]: P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 represent IP layer nodes and the candidate path comprises IP layer nodes is the layer 3 network).
22. As to claim 18, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine a routing policy based on the first network layer; and control packet forwarding of a second node according to the routing policy (DU, [0013]: different transmission policies are performed for different traffic; and [0117]: When forwarding a data packet, a network device supporting SRv6 queries a local segment identifier table (local SID table) based a destination address (DA) in the data packet to perform, according to a policy related to SID in the local segment identifier table, an operation corresponding to the policy).
23. As to claim 19, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine whether an actual network layer of the first set is consistent with a second network layer indicated by the indication information, by checking, the first set based on the first network layer (DU, [0260]: perform longest matching between the underlay segment identifier and a segment identifier in the local segment identifier table. When a longest match is found, the data packet is sent through an underlay outbound interface bound to the underlay segment identifier).
24. As to claim 20, claim 20 (combination of claims 1 and 11) recites similar limitations as of claims 1 and 11 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DU-Niiranen, in view of PENG et al. (US 2022/0255853 A1), hereinafter “PENG”.
26. As to claims 8-9, DU-Niiranen teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein when the first packet is a Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) packet ([0016]: advertising the at least one underlay segment identifier by using a PCIP), but does not explicitly disclose “the PCEP comprises a segment routing-explicit routing object (SR-ERO) sub-Object, and wherein the SR-ERO sub-Object comprises a flags field, and wherein the flags field comprises the indication information”.
In an analogous art, PENG discloses “the PCEP comprises a segment routing-explicit routing object (SR-ERO) sub-Object ([0026]: in order to represent one SR-TE path, an Explicit Route Object (ERO) is used by the PCEP to describe a corresponding segment list, the ERO contains one or more Segment Routing-Explicit Route Object Sub-objects (SR-ERO Sub-objects) in order, and each SR-ERO Sub-object represents a node segment or an adjacency segment), and wherein the SR-ERO sub-Object comprises a flags field, and wherein the flags field comprises the indication information” ([0026]: FIG. 2 specially illustrates one encapsulation format for the SR-ERO Sub-object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DU-Niiranen and PENG to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to provide specific instructions on how to process each segment in a Segment Routing Traffic Engineering path.
Response to Arguments
27. Applicant’s arguments filed 08/11/2026 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.
28. 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.
29. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
