Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/597,444

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING PROTOCOL ACCELERATOR PROXY SERVICES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 06, 2024
Examiner
PATEL, CHIRAG R
Art Unit
2454
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
614 granted / 706 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
720
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 706 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 114143382A) in view of Chattopadhyay et al. – hereinafter Chattopadhyay (US 2005/0050203) / Bishop, M., Ed. (June 2022). HTTP/3. RFC 9114. doi:10.17487/RFC9114. ) – hereinafter Bishop. As per claim 1, Ma discloses a method, comprising: receiving, at a first protocol accelerator proxy, at the source site a data communication, via a first protocol, wherein the data communication is received from a first computer application at the source site, and wherein data received with the data communication is formatted for transport by the first protocol; reformatting, by the first protocol accelerator proxy, the data received with the data communication to be sent with a second protocol; (Disclosure of invention: first proxy device binds a client source IP address with the second connection port to enable the first proxy device to communicate with a server ; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the client side and the IP network is a WAN network Disclosure of invention: Second proxy device binds a client source IP address with the fourth connection port so as to enable the second proxy device to communicate with a server; and the second proxy equipment binds the IP address of the server with the third connecting port so as to enable the client to communicate with the second proxy equipment.; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the destination code and the IP network is a WAN network) the data received with the data communication formatted in the second protocol to a gateway for a destination site, and the gateway for the destination site is configured to receive the data communication formatted in the second protocol to a second protocol accelerator proxy at the destination site;. (abstract, The invention provides a bilateral acceleration data transmission method applied to a bilateral acceleration data transmission system, and relates to the technical field of network communication. Comprising the following steps: a first proxy device receives request information sent by a client through a TCP protocol, converts the request information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the request information to a second proxy device through the UDP protocol; the second proxy device receives the request information through a UDP protocol, converts the request information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the request information to the server through the TCP protocol; the second proxy device receives response information sent by the server through the TCP protocol, converts the response information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the response information to the first proxy device through the UDP protocol; and the first proxy device receives the response information through the UDP protocol, converts the response information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the response information to the client through the TCP protocol.; Fig. 2; Disclosure of invention: first proxy device binds a client source IP address with the second connection port to enable the first proxy device to communicate with a server ; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the client side; Disclosure of invention: Second proxy device binds a client source IP address with the fourth connection port so as to enable the second proxy device to communicate with a server; and the second proxy equipment binds the IP address of the server with the third connecting port so as to enable the client to communicate with the second proxy equipment.; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the destination code) reformatting, by the second protocol accelerator proxy, the data received with the data communication of the first protocol; and sending the data received with the data communication to a second computer application at the destination site via the first protocol (abstract: the second proxy device receives response information sent by the server through the TCP protocol, converts the response information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the response information to the first proxy device through the UDP protocol; and the first proxy device receives the response information through the UDP protocol, converts the response information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the response information to the client through the TCP protocol.; Fig. 2; Disclosure of invention: Second proxy device binds a client source IP address with the fourth connection port so as to enable the second proxy device to communicate with a server; and the second proxy equipment binds the IP address of the server with the third connecting port so as to enable the client to communicate with the second proxy equipment.; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the destination code)Ma fails to disclose wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) , wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP.) The teachings of Ma fail to disclose sending the data received with the data communication to a gateway for the source site, wherein the gateway for the source site is configured to communicate, via a wide area network (WAN), the data received with the data communication formatted in the second protocol to a gateway for a destination site, and the gateway for the destination site is configured to receive the data communication formatted in the second protocol to a second protocol accelerator proxy at the destination site; and wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) , wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP. Chattopadhyay discloses sending the data received with the data communication to a gateway for the source site, wherein the gateway for the source site is configured to communicate, via a wide area network (WAN), the data received with the data communication formatted in the second protocol to a gateway for a destination site, and the gateway for the destination site is configured to receive the data communication formatted in the second protocol to a second protocol accelerator proxy at the destination site;. ([0030]; By implementing the same communication stack, the computers can communicate in a peer-to-peer fashion, with each of the machines capable of functioning as a sender, a router, or a receiver of messages. When the routing computer 166 receives the connection message sent by the origin computer, its transport layer 192 passes the message to its communication layer 194, which in turn passes the message to the message layer 196. The message layer 196 checks the header of the message and sees that the routing computer is not the final destination of the message.; [0032]; By way of example, in the message delivery illustrated in FIG. 5, the origin computer 160 may support only TCP, while the target computer 162 may support only UDP. The two computers can still communicate with each other, however, if the routing computer 166 supports both TCP and UDP. When the routing computer 166 receives a message from the origin computer 160 via TCP, it converts it to a UCP message and forwards the message to the target computer 162 via UDP. In the reverse direction, the routing computer converts messages from the target computer 162 via UDP to TCP messages and sends them to the origin computer 160 via TCP.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Ma to be modified so that the request from the proxy at the source site and destination pass through routers or gateways in the network. This would have been advantageous because it would have yielded predicable results of sending, receiving, or routing network communications across the internet. The combined teachings of Ma / Chattopadhyay fail to disclose wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) , wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP. Bishop discloses wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) , wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP. (4.2: Header Fields, An intermediary transforming an HTTP/1.x message to HTTP/3 MUST remove connection-specific header fields as discussed in Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP], or their messages will be treated by other HTTP/3 endpoints as malformed.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the combined teachings of Ma / Chattopadhyay to be modified so that the router across the WAN translates between HTTP/1 and HTTP/3 protocol. This would have been beneficial it would have reduced latency and improved security on the internet. As per claim 4, Ma / Chattopadhyay / Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Ma discloses wherein the first computer application is a client application. (abstract, The invention provides a bilateral acceleration data transmission method applied to a bilateral acceleration data transmission system, and relates to the technical field of network communication. Comprising the following steps: a first proxy device receives request information sent by a client through a TCP protocol) As per claim 5. Ma / Chattopadhyay / Bishop disclose the method of claim 4. Ma discloses wherein the second computer application is a server application. (abstract, and sends the request information to the server through the TCP protocol) As per claim 6, Ma / Chattopadhyay / Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Ma discloses wherein a transport layer protocol underlying the first protocol is a transmission control protocol (TCP). ((abstract, The invention provides a bilateral acceleration data transmission method applied to a bilateral acceleration data transmission system, and relates to the technical field of network communication. Comprising the following steps: a first proxy device receives request information sent by a client through a TCP protocol) As per claim 7, Ma / Chattopadhyay / Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Ma discloses wherein a transport layer protocol underlying the second protocol is a user datagram protocol (UDP). (abstract, a first proxy device receives request information sent by a client through a TCP protocol, converts the request information into a UDP protocol format) As per claim 8, Ma discloses a system, comprising: a system, comprising: a source site comprising a source system, a first protocol accelerator proxy, a destination site comprising a destination system, a second protocol accelerator proxy, wherein: the first protocol accelerator proxy is configured to receive a data communication from the source system via a first protocol, the data communication comprising data formatted for transport by the first protocol; to reformat the data for transport by a second protocol; and to send the data formatted for transport by the second protocol; the second protocol accelerator proxy is configured to receive the data formatted for transport by the second protocol; to reformat the data to the first protocol, and to send the data to the destination system via the first protocol. (abstract, The invention provides a bilateral acceleration data transmission method applied to a bilateral acceleration data transmission system, and relates to the technical field of network communication. Comprising the following steps: a first proxy device receives request information sent by a client through a TCP protocol, converts the request information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the request information to a second proxy device through the UDP protocol; the second proxy device receives the request information through a UDP protocol, converts the request information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the request information to the server through the TCP protocol; the second proxy device receives response information sent by the server through the TCP protocol, converts the response information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the response information to the first proxy device through the UDP protocol; and the first proxy device receives the response information through the UDP protocol, converts the response information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the response information to the client through the TCP protocol.; Fig. 2; Disclosure of invention: first proxy device binds a client source IP address with the second connection port to enable the first proxy device to communicate with a server ; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the client side; Disclosure of invention: Second proxy device binds a client source IP address with the fourth connection port so as to enable the second proxy device to communicate with a server; and the second proxy equipment binds the IP address of the server with the third connecting port so as to enable the client to communicate with the second proxy equipment.; Examiner note: This shows the proxy is on the destination code) Ma fails to disclose a first gateway, a second gateway ; and to send the data formatted for transport by the second protocol to the first gateway, the first gateway is configured to communicate, vis a Wide Area Network (WAN), the data received with the data communication Formatted in the second protocol to the second gateway; the second gateway is configured to receive the data communication formatted in the second protocol to the second protocol accelerator proxy, and wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP). Chattopadhyay discloses a first gateway, a second gateway ; and to send the data formatted for transport by the second protocol to the first gateway, the first gateway is configured to communicate, vis a Wide Area Network (WAN), the data received with the data communication formatted in the second protocol to the second gateway; the second gateway is configured to receive the data communication formatted in the second protocol to the second protocol accelerator proxy. ([0030]; By implementing the same communication stack, the computers can communicate in a peer-to-peer fashion, with each of the machines capable of functioning as a sender, a router, or a receiver of messages. When the routing computer 166 receives the connection message sent by the origin computer, its transport layer 192 passes the message to its communication layer 194, which in turn passes the message to the message layer 196. The message layer 196 checks the header of the message and sees that the routing computer is not the final destination of the message.; [0032]; By way of example, in the message delivery illustrated in FIG. 5, the origin computer 160 may support only TCP, while the target computer 162 may support only UDP. The two computers can still communicate with each other, however, if the routing computer 166 supports both TCP and UDP. When the routing computer 166 receives a message from the origin computer 160 via TCP, it converts it to a UCP message and forwards the message to the target computer 162 via UDP. In the reverse direction, the routing computer converts messages from the target computer 162 via UDP to TCP messages and sends them to the origin computer 160 via TCP.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Ma to be modified so that the request from the proxy at the source site and destination pass through routers or gateways in the network. This would have been advantageous because it would have yielded predicable results of sending, receiving, or routing network communications across the internet. The combined teachings of Ma / Chattopadhyay fail to disclose and wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP). Bishop discloses wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) (4.2: Header Fields, An intermediary transforming an HTTP/1.x message to HTTP/3 MUST remove connection-specific header fields as discussed in Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP], or their messages will be treated by other HTTP/3 endpoints as malformed.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the combined teachings of Ma / Chattopadhyay to be modified so that the router across the WAN translates between HTTP/1 and HTTP/3 protocol. This would have been beneficial it would have reduced latency and improved security on the internet. As per claim 11, please see the discussion under claim 4 as similar logic applies. As per claim 12, please see the discussion under claim 5 as similar logic applies. As per claims 13, please see the discussion under claim 6 as similar logic applies. As per claim 14, please see the discussion under claim 7 as similar logic applies Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 114143382A) in view of Bishop, M., Ed. (June 2022). HTTP/3. RFC 9114. doi:10.17487/RFC9114. ) – hereinafter Bishop. As per claim 15, Ma discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which instructions, when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising: receiving a data communication from a first computer application via a first protocol, and wherein data received with the data communication is formatted for transport by the first protocol, reformatting the data received with the data communication to be sent with a second protocol reformatting the data received with the data communication to be sent with the first protocol; and sending the data received with the data communication to a second computer application at the destination site via the first protocol. (abstract, The invention provides a bilateral acceleration data transmission method applied to a bilateral acceleration data transmission system, and relates to the technical field of network communication. Comprising the following steps: a first proxy device receives request information sent by a client through a TCP protocol, converts the request information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the request information to a second proxy device through the UDP protocol; the second proxy device receives the request information through a UDP protocol, converts the request information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the request information to the server through the TCP protocol; the second proxy device receives response information sent by the server through the TCP protocol, converts the response information into a UDP protocol format, and sends the response information to the first proxy device through the UDP protocol; and the first proxy device receives the response information through the UDP protocol, converts the response information into a TCP protocol format, and sends the response information to the client through the TCP protocol.; Fig. 2) Ma fails to disclose send the data over a wide area network via a first gateway to a second gateway, and wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1 of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP); wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP. Chattopadhyay discloses send the data over a wide area network via a first gateway to a second gateway. ([0030]; By implementing the same communication stack, the computers can communicate in a peer-to-peer fashion, with each of the machines capable of functioning as a sender, a router, or a receiver of messages. When the routing computer 166 receives the connection message sent by the origin computer, its transport layer 192 passes the message to its communication layer 194, which in turn passes the message to the message layer 196. The message layer 196 checks the header of the message and sees that the routing computer is not the final destination of the message.; [0032]; By way of example, in the message delivery illustrated in FIG. 5, the origin computer 160 may support only TCP, while the target computer 162 may support only UDP. The two computers can still communicate with each other, however, if the routing computer 166 supports both TCP and UDP. When the routing computer 166 receives a message from the origin computer 160 via TCP, it converts it to a UCP message and forwards the message to the target computer 162 via UDP. In the reverse direction, the routing computer converts messages from the target computer 162 via UDP to TCP messages and sends them to the origin computer 160 via TCP.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Ma to be modified so that the request from the proxy at the source site and destination pass through routers or gateways in the network. This would have been advantageous because it would have yielded predicable results of sending, receiving, or routing network communications across the internet. The combined teachings of Ma / Chattopadhyay fail to teach wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) , wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP. Bishop discloses wherein the first protocol is version 1.0 or version 1.1. of the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) , wherein the second protocol is version 3.0 of HTTP. (4.2: Header Fields, An intermediary transforming an HTTP/1.x message to HTTP/3 MUST remove connection-specific header fields as discussed in Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP], or their messages will be treated by other HTTP/3 endpoints as malformed.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Ma / Chattopadhyay be modified so that the router across the WAN translates between HTTP/1 and HTTP/3 protocol. This would have been beneficial it would have reduced latency and improved security on the internet. As per claims 18, please see the discussion under claims 4 and 5 as similar logic applies. As per claim 19, please see the discussion under claim 6 as similar logic applies. As per claim 20, please see the discussion under claim 7 as similar logic applies. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from theexaminer should be directed to Chirag R Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-7966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00AM to 6:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, theexaminer's supervisor, Glenton Burgess, can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceedingis assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status informationfor published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or PublicPAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available throughPrivate PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PrivatePAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll free). /Chirag R Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598120
METHOD FOR IMPROVING CONNECTION POOL EFFICIENCY TO IMPROVE OBJECT STORAGE ACCESS PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587479
ROUND-TRIP TIME AND EXPLICIT CONGESTION NOTIFICATION SIGNALS FOR BANDWIDTH UTILIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585514
CONTENT DELIVERY NETWORK-BASED ROUTING OF APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE REQUESTS TO CLOUD SERVICE INSTANCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562982
Simple Fast Convergence using static pseudowire in a dual homing configuration
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556486
PACKET SEQUENCING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 706 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