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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " each SID in the SRv6 network ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as while the claims previously recite a SRv6 network, the claims do not previously recite SIDs in such a network.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filsfils et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0204469), hereinafter Filsfils, and further in view of Xie et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0297844), hereinafter Xie.
Regarding claim 1, Filsfils disclosed a method for providing a deterministic reply path in a Segment Routing over Internet Protocol version 6 (SRv6) network (SRv6 network, ¶[0019]), the method comprising: transmitting, from a sending node (ingress node, ¶[0049]), a monitoring request packet (directing, i.e., transmitting, a probe message/packet, i.e., monitoring request packet, ¶[0020], [0063]) that includes information defining a reply path through the SRv6 network, wherein the reply path information is embedded in the monitoring request packet to enable a receiving node to return a reply along a predetermined path specified by the sending node (probe query messages, i.e., monitoring request packet, with added, i.e., embedded, return path information, i.e., reply path information, used to send probe response messages back to ingress node, i.e., enable a receiving node to return a reply, ¶[0064]).
Filsfils did not disclose:
transmitting, from a sending node, a monitoring request packet that includes information defining both a forward path and a reply path through the SRv6 network (emphasis added).
Xie disclosed:
transmitting, from a sending node, a monitoring request packet that includes information defining a forward path (encapsulating forwarding path information in a packet, ¶[0003], [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring request packet of Filsfils to include information defining a forward path as claimed, because doing so would have been use of known technique (i.e., embedding forward path information in a packet for a SRv6 network) to improve similar devices/methods/products (i.e., the SRv6 network packet of Filsfils) in the same way.
Regarding claim 10, Filsfils and Xie disclosed the method wherein the forward path or the reply path utilizes Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) or Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of SRv6 processing (SID flavors including PSP and USP, Xie, ¶[0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Filsfils disclosed a sending node configured to provide a deterministic reply path in a Segment Routing over Internet Protocol version 6 (SRv6) network (SRv6 network, ¶[0019]), the sending node comprising circuitry configured to: transmit a monitoring request packet (directing, i.e., transmitting, a probe message/packet, i.e., monitoring request packet, ¶[0020], [0063]) that includes information defining a reply path through the SRv6 network, wherein the reply path information is embedded in the monitoring request packet to enable a receiving node to return a reply along a predetermined path specified by the sending node (probe query messages, i.e., monitoring request packet, with added, i.e., embedded, return path information, i.e., reply path information, used to send probe response messages back to ingress node, i.e., enable a receiving node to return a reply, ¶[0064]).
Filsfils did not disclose:
transmit a monitoring request packet that includes information defining both a forward path and a reply path through the SRv6 network (emphasis added).
Xie disclosed:
transmit a monitoring request packet that includes information defining both a forward path and a reply path through the SRv6 network (encapsulating forwarding path information in a packet, ¶[0003], [0077]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Filsfils and Xie disclosed the sending node where in the forward path or the reply path utilizes Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) or Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of SRv6 processing (SID flavors including PSP and USP, Xie, ¶[0082]).
Claims 2-4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filsfils (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0204469) and Xie (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0297844) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0283733), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 2, Filsfils and Xie disclosed the method as detailed above. Filsfils and Xie did not disclose the method wherein the monitoring request packet includes a Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) or Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) payload for monitoring an SRv6 Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel in the forward path.
Li disclosed:
wherein the monitoring request packet includes a Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) or Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) payload for monitoring an SRv6 Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel in the forward path (OAM packet including a BFD packet, ¶[0082], [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Filsfils and Xie wherein the monitoring request packet includes a Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) payload as claimed, because doing so would have been use of known technique (i.e., OAM packets as BFD packets) to improve similar devices/methods/products (i.e., the packet of Filsfils and Xie) in the same way.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Filsfils, Xie, and Li disclosed the method further comprising receiving, at the sending node, a reply packet along the predetermined path, wherein the reply packet is formed by the receiving node using the reply path information without requiring a local BFD session configuration on the receiving node (return path information used to send probe response messages back to ingress node, Filsfils, ¶[0064]).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Filsfils, Xie, and Li disclosed the method wherein the monitoring request packet includes (a) a first Segment Routing Header (SRH) specifying the forward path (SRH including forwarding path information, Xie, ¶[0003], [0077]); and (b) a second SRH specifying the reply path, such that the receiving node processes or discards the first SRH upon arrival and utilizes the second SRH to send the reply packet along the predetermined path (probe message header, i.e., SRH, including return path, Filsfils, ¶[0064]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filsfils (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0204469), Xie (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0297844), and Li (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0283733) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mittal et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0141362), hereinafter Mittal.
Regarding claim 5, Filsfils, Xie, and Li disclosed the method as detailed above. Filsfils, Xie, and Li did not disclose the method wherein the reply path information includes a Binding Segment Identifier (B-SID) associated with a reverse SRv6 TE tunnel, such that the reply packet is forwarded in-band over the reverse SRv6 TE tunnel.
Mittal disclosed:
wherein the reply path information includes a Binding Segment Identifier (B-SID) associated with a reverse SRv6 TE tunnel, such that the reply packet is forwarded in-band over the reverse SRv6 TE tunnel (return path including reverse BSID, i.e. B-SID associated with reverse SRv6 tunnel, ¶[0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Filsfils, Xie, and Li wherein the reply path information includes a Binding Segment Identifier (B-SID) associated with a reverse SRv6 TE tunnel, such that the reply packet is forwarded in-band over the reverse SRv6 TE tunnel as claimed, because doing so would have allowed for a more efficient BFD procedure (Mittal, ¶[0003]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filsfils (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0204469) and Xie (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0297844) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Mizrahi et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0126061), hereinafter Mizrahi.
Regarding claim 6, Filsfils and Xie disclosed the method as detailed above. Filsfils and Xie did not disclose the method wherein the monitoring request packet includes an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) packet, and the reply path information is encoded as a Type-Length-Value (TLV) extension in an ICMPv6 header.
Mizrahi disclosed:
wherein the monitoring request packet includes an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) packet (loopback request, i.e., monitoring request packet, including ICMP, ¶[0148]), and the reply path information is encoded as a Type-Length-Value (TLV) extension in an ICMPv6 header (TLV header including loopback request information, i.e., reply path information, ¶[0103], [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Filsfils and Xie wherein the monitoring request packet includes an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) packet and the reply path information is encoded as a Type-Length-Value (TLV) extension in an ICMPv6 header as claimed, because doing so would have standardized return information for probing (Mizrahi, ¶[0010]-[0011]).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filsfils (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0204469) and Xie (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0297844) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Peng et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0126801), hereinafter Peng.
Regarding claim 9, Filsfils and Xie disclosed the method as detailed above. Filsfils and Xie did not disclose the method wherein each SID in the SRv6 network is formatted as a classical SID having 128 bits or a micro SID having a length of 16 bits, and wherein the reply path information can include either or both types of SIDs.
Peng disclosed:
wherein each SID in the SRv6 network is formatted as a classical SID having 128 bits or a micro SID having a length of 16 bits, and wherein the reply path information can include either or both types of SIDs (SRH containing SIDs of a mixture of lengths including 16-bit and classical 128-bit, ¶[0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Filsfils and Xie wherein each SID in the SRv6 network is formatted as a classical SID having 128 bits or a micro SID having a length of 16 bits and wherein the reply path information can include either or both types of SIDs as claimed, because doing so would have improved compression and convenience (Peng, ¶[0039]).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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 R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights