CTNF 19/092,026 CTNF 79895 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to application filed March 27, 2025. This application is a Continuation of PCT filed on 9/13/2023, and claims foreign priority to Chinese application filed on 9/28/22. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination. Drawings The drawings filed on 3/27/25 are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20, recites a "communication system". It appears that the scope of the limitation “communication system” encompasses software-only embodiments since the claims fail to mention any hardware or physical computer components. Software is not statutory because it is simply abstract ideas, could be a program per se, and is not directed to actual physical devices. For a claim like this to be statutory, it is required to be tied to physical/hardware components. These claims do meet this criterion and are therefore deemed non-statutory. [See MPEP Chapter 2106.01 Section I] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-10 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. In claim 1, for example: line 4 recites “a forwarding path” and line 8 recites “a target path”. The relationship between these paths is unclear. It is unclear if these refer to the same path or if they are different or if they are interdependent on each other in some way that affects the rest of the claim. line 5 recites “a segment identifier” twice, and line 10 also recites “a segment identifier”. The distinction between each of these recitations is unclear. It is unclear if they are all the same identifier or if each of them are different, which would then require different type of naming of the limitation. line 10 recites “… that identifies the target path…”. However the previous identifiers are mentioned to identify a node and not a path. Therefore it is unclear if this is referring to the previous identifiers or if it is referring to a different identifier. In claim 2, line 4 recites “wherein a value of the first identifier”. It is unclear if this is referring to the identifier itself or to the positive integer, or to some other claim element. In claim 3, lines 2-3 recite “a total hop count” and “the value N”. The relationship between these 2 limitations is unclear. The “based on” language in the claim creates ambiguity since it is not explained in any way. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 thus inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1. Therefore claims 2-11 are rejected based upon the same rationale given above. Claims 12-20 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4,6-8,10,12-15,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton et al (US Publication 20090092054) in view of Samdanis et al (US Publication 20150163126) . In reference to claim 1, Compton teaches a path fault detection method, comprising: obtaining, by a network device, a first packet, wherein the first packet comprises a segment list, wherein the segment list comprises a plurality of sequentially arranged segment identifiers (SIDs), wherein the segment list identifies a forwarding path of the first packet, and wherein the segment list comprises a segment identifier of a first node and a segment identifier of a second node; (see at least ¶s 20,21, which teach obtaining notification packets comprising a segment list of nodes arranged in sequence and which identify a forwarding path, and comprising node identifiers) forwarding, by the network device, the first packet based on the segment list; (see at least ¶s 24,26, which teach forwarding the packet based on the segment list) and detecting, by the network device, a status of a target path based on the first packet, wherein the target path is the first node and the second node, and wherein a segment identifier that is in the segment list and identifies the target path. (see at least ¶s 27,28, which teach detecting an error status of the path based on the packet, and where the path is between the nodes and the identifiers indicate the path) Compton fails to explicitly teach wherein the target path is a shortest path between the first node and the second node, and wherein a segment identifier that is in the segment list and that identifies the target path indicates a loose path. However, Samdanis teaches link-state routing data traffic reliably through a network, and discloses a shortest path between nodes, and loose source routing for route segment identification (see Samdanis, at least Abstract & ¶s 2,3,38,46,47). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Compton based on the teachings of Samdanis for the purpose of improving routing efficiency and reducing routing costs. In reference to claim 2, Compton teaches the identifier indicates discarding a packet after a number of hops, and where a value of the identifier is decreased by 1 after every hop (see Compton at least ¶ 29). In reference to claim 3, Compton teaches the total hop count, and determining the value based on the total hop count of the target path (see Compton at least ¶ 29). In reference to claim 4, Compton teaches multiple packets and segment lists (see Compton at least ¶s 20,21). In reference to claim 6, Compton teaches packet information and hop count (see Compton at least ¶s 17-19). In reference to claim 7, Compton teaches second identifiers for inbound/outbound packet communication (see Compton at least ¶s 20,23). In reference to claim 8, Compton teaches detecting and discarding packets in response to error conditions (see Compton at least ¶s 24-29). In reference to claim 10, Compton teaches determining paths are normal or faulty based on receiving or not receiving a packet response (see Compton at least ¶s 23,24,29). Claims 12-15,17-20 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5,9,11,16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton et al (US Publication 20090092054) in view of Samdanis et al (US Publication 20150163126) in further view of China Telecom Corp, herein “CTC” (WIPO Document #: CN114338514) . In reference to claim 5, Compton fails to explicitly teach performing, by the network device, committed access rate based control on the first packet, wherein a CAR based control indicates threshold of a transmission rate of the packet per unit time M, wherein M is a positive integer. However, CTC teaches network detection method utilizing SBFD packets via a probe path, and discloses rate based control of the packets utilizing a threshold packet rate (see CTC, at least Summary & Description corresponding to Figs 1-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Compton based on the teachings of CTC for the purpose of efficient management of a transmission path and improving routing performance. In reference to claim 9, CTC teaches a flag field in the segment router header, see above citations. It would have been obvious for one been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Compton based on the teachings of CTC for the purpose as given in claim 5 above. In reference to claim 11, CTC teaches SBFD, see above citations. It would have been obvious for one been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Compton based on the teachings of CTC for the purpose as given in claim 5 above. Claim 16 is a slight variations of the rejected claims above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale. Conclusion For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. ( See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06 ) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification. In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892. Contact & Status Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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. /Ramy M Osman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 June 15, 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/092,026 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/092,026 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/092,026 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/092,026 Page 5 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/092,026 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/092,026 Page 7 Art Unit: 2457
Prosecution Insights