Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 1/5/2026 where claims 1- 12 are pending and ready for examination.
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 Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments submitted on 1/5/2026 in their entirety (Pages 5-9)/ Applicant’s arguments are moot based on the new prior art rejection as set forth below. The new prior art of record Marzorati US 20210288959) provides one of ordinary skill in the to contemplate the newly amended claim(s).
Applicant has not properly traversed the Examiner’s Official Notices with respect to dependent claims 8 and 9. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.03, facts subject to Official Notice that are not timely and properly traversed are deemed admitted. Accordingly, the subject matter of dependent claims 8 and 9 is considered Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
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 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lew in(US 11,637,812) in view of Haugh (US 7,287,077) and in further view of Marzorati US (20210288959)
Regarding claim 1, Lewin discloses a computer-implemented method of sending a user’s request for a proxy service from a user’s device to a target service, using a proxy service infrastructure comprising an ingress proxy and at least two outbound proxy servers, wherein the ingress proxy is configured to receive the user’s request and establish a connection to one of the outbound proxy servers, while each of the outbound proxy servers is configured to accept a connection from the ingress proxy server and establish a connection to the target service, the method comprising:
creating a service configuration comprising a table mapping, for a particular user, to a corresponding outbound proxy server (Lewin;
see e.g. Column 8, Lines 30 – 40 “Forward proxy operator 220 is configured to perform one or more forward proxy server operations and /or functions ... based on routing rules 222”
The routing rules 222 constitute the service configuration of the ingress (forward) proxy. These rules determine how messages from a given user or traffic class are handled including the selection of which outbound proxy or next hope is used. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that such routing rules are implemented as lookup tables or mappings – i.e. a data structure mapping users, policies, or ports to outbound proxies.)
b. storing the service configuration within the ingress proxy server (Lewin;
see e.g. Column 8, Lines 30 – 40 “Forward proxy operator 220 is configured to perform one or more forward proxy server operations and /or functions ... based on routing rules 222”
The routing rules 222 are expressly resident within the forward proxy operator 220. Because the ingress proxy performs its functions “Based on routing rules 222” the configuration is stored locally within the proxy (see e.g. Fig. 2));
receiving, from a user’s device and by the ingress proxy, a service request for proxy service, addressed (Lewin;
see e.g. Column 12, Lines 36 – 57” ... initial entry point for incoming electronic communications, from originating computing devices such as originating device 502, which are handled by a chain of forward proxy servers ...”
The originating device sends an electronic communications to the first proxy for routing policy evaluation implying the user’s identity is determined . Thus the ingress proxy receives a suer request from a user’s device, addressed to the proxy server itself, and the request inherently identifies the user as authentication is performed l see e.g. Column 8, Lines 30 – 40);
selecting the table mapping for the identified user from the stored service configuration(Lewin;
see e.g. Column 8, Lines 30 – 40 “Forward proxy operator 220 is configured to perform one or more forward proxy server operations and /or functions ...authentication, policy evaluation based on routing rules 222”
When the ingress proxy authenticates a user and applies policy evaluation, it selects the appropriate routing rules subset corresponding to that user. Functionally this is equivalent to selecting the user’s mapping (or “table”) from the stored configurations to determine how that user’s traffic should be handled);
selecting, by the ingress proxy, an outbound proxy server mapped the selected table mapping (Lewin
see e.g. Column 8, Lines 30 – 40 “Forward proxy operator 220 is configured to perform one or more forward proxy server operations and /or functions ...authentication, policy evaluation based on routing rules 222”
see e.g. Column 6, Lines 31 – 35 “... originating device ... dynamic forward proxy chaining”
The ingress proxy applies its routing rules to determine which outbound (next hop) proxy server should handle the request. The disclosure of “dynamic forward proxy chaining” confirms that the first proxy selects another proxy (the last forward proxy) for forwarding – precisely the claimed selection of an outbound proxy server mapped at the ingress proxy); and
forwarding, by the ingress proxy, the service request through the selected outbound proxy server, to the target service (Lewin;
see e.g. Column 6, Lines 31 – 35 “... originating device via forward proxy server (e.g. first forward proxy server ... dynamic forward proxy chaining”
The first proxy sends the user request through the last proxy (the destination proxy) via the dynamic forward proxy chaining. To the destination device/
Lewin doe not expressly disclose every single element associated with a routing table )“The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process”) and therefore does not expressly disclose :
TCP/UDP-port number in a plurality of TCP/UDP- port numbers
ingress proxy TCP/UDP port number
the service request comprising a username field defining parameters of a proxy service configuration including an identification of a user
However in analogous art Haugh discloses: )J
TCP/UDP-port number in a plurality of TCP/UDP- port numbers(Haugh
See e.g. Column 7, Lines 1 -10 “... a plurality of access reservation tables 121, each corresponding to a particular one of the ports provided /supported by server 205 ... tables are dynamically accessed ... request for the port”)
See e.g. Column 6, Lines 15 – 31 “...to reserve TCP/UDP ports for specific users, groups, named applications and combinations thereof ...”_)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haugh’s TCP/JDP port scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and controlling network traffic.
Lewin in view of Haugh disclose:
a. creating a service configuration comprising a table mapping, for a particular user, for each respective TCP/UDP-port number in a plurality of TCP/UDP- port numbers to a corresponding outbound proxy serve (The combined solution as Haugh provides for a table mapping with respect to the TCP/UDP ports;
See e.g. Column 7, Lines 1 -10 “... a plurality of access reservation tables 121, each corresponding to a particular one of the ports provided /supported by server 205 ... tables are dynamically accessed ... request for the port”)
See e.g. Column 6, Lines 15 – 31 “...to reserve TCP/UDP ports for specific users, groups, named applications and combinations thereof ...”);
c. receiving, from a user’s device and by the ingress proxy, a service request for proxy service, addressed to a specified ingress proxy TCP/UDP port number (The combined solution as Haugh provides for a table mapping with respect to the TCP/UDP ports
See e.g. Column 7, Lines 1 -10 “... a plurality of access reservation tables 121, each corresponding to a particular one of the ports provided /supported by server 205 ... tables are dynamically accessed ... request for the port”)
See e.g. Column 6, Lines 15 – 31 “...to reserve TCP/UDP ports for specific users, groups, named applications and combinations thereof ...”)
e. selecting, by the ingress proxy, an outbound proxy server mapped to the ingress proxy TCP/UDP port number in the selected table mapping; (The combined solution as Haugh provides for a table mapping with respect to the TCP/UDP ports
See e.g. Column 7, Lines 1 -10 “... a plurality of access reservation tables 121, each corresponding to a particular one of the ports provided /supported by server 205 ... tables are dynamically accessed ... request for the port”)
See e.g. Column 6, Lines 15 – 31 “...to reserve TCP/UDP ports for specific users, groups, named applications and combinations thereof ...”)
Lewin in view of Haugh does not expressly disclose
the service request comprising a username field defining parameters of a proxy service configuration including an identification of a user
However in analogous art Marzorati discloses:
the service request comprising a username field defining parameters of a proxy service configuration including an identification of a user (Marzorati;
[0034] At 304, the proxy 204 generates a secret 214, a user hash (e.g., userHash 212) and an application hash (e.g., appHash 218) using the received new secret client data from step 302. The secret 214 may include, for example, a random number, a salt file, a salt file that is encrypted, or other forms of secret generation that an entity may use. For example, the proxy 204 receives an HTTP request from the client 202 and upon receiving the request, the proxy 204 identifies and has access to the client's 202 username ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Marzorati’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of processing service requests.
Regarding claim 2, Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the service request uses any one of proxy protocols: HTTP proxy protocol and SOCKSS (Lewin;
See e.g. Column ,Lines 9 – 10 “... HTTP GET REQUEST))
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haugh’s TCP/JDP port scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and controlling network traffic.
Regarding claim 3, Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati disclose The method of claim 2, wherein the forwarding (f) comprises forwarding the service request to the target service on the specified TCP/UDP port number.(The combined solution per Haugh provides for the request to be resolved with respect ot its TCP/UDP port number
See e.g. Haugh Column 6, Lines 15 – 31 “...to reserve TCP/UDP ports for specific users, groups, named applications and combinations thereof ...”)
Regarding claim 4. Lewin iv view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the ingress proxy server is a part of a proxy service provider’s infrastructure (The combined solution with proxy components is a service and facilitated by an entity or provider;
see e.g. Column 23, Lines 15 - 16 )
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haugh’s TCP/JDP port scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and controlling network traffic.
Claims 5,6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat (US 2021/0144096)
Regarding claim 5., Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati disclose the method of claim 1, Lewin does not expressly disclose wherein the table mapping identifies the at least two outbound proxy servers with respective IP addresses of said at least two outbound proxy servers.
The Examiner has interpreted the feature above to represent parallel proxy servers
However in analogous art Plat teaches:
wherein the table mapping identifies the at least two outbound proxy servers with respective IP addresses of said at least two outbound proxy servers.(Plat; Plat teaches proxy server may be distrusted I in a parallel fashion;
see e.g. [0012] “r, a proxy server, a cache unit or cache server or caching element, a network-connected storage unit, a Network Function (NF), a NF implemented using a hardware component and/or software component, a virtualized NF, a cloud-based NF, or other such entities which may operate in series and/or in parallel or in a distributed architecture.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Plat’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies in managing and controlling network traffic.
Regarding claim 6, Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose The method of claim 5, wherein the outbound proxy servers are data center servers having their public IP addresses assigned from a pool(The combined solution per Plat provides for proxy server infrastructure to be located in cloud (i.e. data center)
see e.g. [0012] “r, a proxy server, a cache unit or cache server or caching element, a network-connected storage unit, a Network Function (NF), a NF implemented using a hardware component and/or software component, a virtualized NF, a cloud-based NF, or other such entities which may operate in series and/or in parallel or in a distributed architecture.)
The Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pool of outbound proxy servers – each identified by IP address – in order to increase throughput, provide redundancy, or distribute load balancing among multiple proxy instances as duplication of parts to achieve predictable results is a well-known design expedient (MEPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 8, Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose The method of claim 5, Lewin does not expressly disclose wherein the ingress proxy server stores from 2 to 65,535 IP addresses of outbound proxy servers.
However the subject matter above is Applicant Admitted Prior Art and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this scheme . The motivation being for the purposes of optimizing network address schemes and optimization.
Regarding claim 9.Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose The method of claim 5, Lewin does not expressly disclose wherein the ingress proxy server, for each authorized user, specifies ingress proxy TCP/UDP port numbers from the range from 8,000 to 65,535, whereby any one of those TCP/UDP port numbers can be associated with IP addresses of the outbound proxy servers assigned to that user.
However the subject matter above is Applicant Admitted Prior Art and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this scheme for the purposes of optimizing network address schemes and optimization.
It would have been obvious to implement or incorporate this feature in the system of the combined references to provide flexibility and optimization of network services by allowing each authorized user to be assigned available and unreserved ports for association with outbound proxy IP addresses.
Regarding claim 11, Lewin in view of Plat and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the mappings of ingress proxy TCP/UDP port numbers to outbound proxy servers IP addresses are assigned to the user by the proxy service provider (One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that any proxy based networking management environment inherently involves a proxy service provider, namely the entity that owns or operates the proxy infrastructure and assigns connection parameters such as TCP/UDP port numbers and proxy/IP addresses) to its users or clients.
The prior art references Lewin and Haugh each describe a proxy service or proxy server that manages user access through assigned ports, tables, or configuration mappings... When a user connects to such a proxy service, the provisioning of access parameters – including assigned port numbers and destination proxy addresses is necessarily performed by the service provider component of the system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin in view of Waugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat and in further view of Dey (US 2007/0083723)
Regarding claim 7, Levin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose The method of claim 5, wherein TCP/UDP port numbers are associated to outbound proxy IP addresses by the ingress proxy server, using an available list of the outbound proxy servers in the same order as originally provided by an asset store, and the ingress proxy server associates TCP/UDP port numbers to outbound proxy IP addresses sequentially, starting from the first associated TCP/UDP port number.(The combination of Lewin, Haugh, and Plat renders the claim obvious because each reference contributes an established, complimentary aspect of network proxy behavior. Lewin provides the ingress/outbound proxy farmwork. Haugh provides the table and TCPUDPDD port association, and Plat provides the ordered pool of multiple proxies within a distributed (parallel or series) architecture. Sequential association of TCP/UDP port numbers to proxy IP’s in the same order as la list provided by an asset store would have been an obvious and predictable design choice to a person of ordinary skill seeking orderly and deterministic proxy selection.
As evidence of the rationale above Dey discloses:
Sequential IP addresses (Dey; Dey teaches IP address may be assigned sequentially;
See e.g. Abstract
“ ... High level network addresses can be assigned using a set of sequential network addresses for each blade server. A range of high level network addresses is assigned to each blade server”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dey’s IP address scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and controlling network traffic.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat and in further view of Swain (US 11,418,582)
Regarding claim 10, :Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose The method of claim 5, Lewin does not expressly disclose wherein one or more outbound proxy servers associated within the ingress proxy server can be changed to different one or more outbound proxy servers, without disabling the ingress proxy server during that change
However in analogous art Swain discloses:
one or more outbound proxy servers associated within the ingress proxy server can be changed to different one or more outbound proxy servers, without disabling the ingress proxy server during that change(Swain; Swain teaches a dynamic rebinding of communication sessions on the back end so that the Application session remains intact. This technique is readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art to contemplate said feature;
see e.g. Column 20, Lines 39 – “At an operation 640, client device 602 may maintain an active communication session with server 606 through the active connections as server 606 migrates through the different connections based on the priorities of the connections. Thus, client device 602 may maintain an active communication session with server 606 despite server 606 continuously changing the connections that server 606 uses to provide client device 602 with the data packets for the communication session:
The method explicitly teaches maintaining an ongoing session between a client device and a server even as the server changes the underlying connection path used for that transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this describes a dynamic re-binding or re-association mechanism allowing a network endpoint (such as a proxy or server) to switch its active connection channel without interrupting the session. Accordingly, this reference contemplates the claimed feature of changing one or more outbound proxy servers while marinating ingress operation and session continuity, achieving the same prose of uninterrupted service during network reconfiguration or load balancing transitions.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Swain’s technique. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of maintain and controlling network traffic.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat and in further view of Thomas (US 2024/0045801).
Regarding claim 12, Kewin in view of Haugh and in further view of Marzorati and in further view of Plat disclose The method of claim 11,Lewin does not expressly disclose further comprising:
determining whether the TCP/UDP port number indicates to use a random outbound proxy server IP address from the list of outbound proxy IP addresses, assigned to the user, and
when the TCP/UDP port number is determined to indicate use of the random outbound proxy server IP address, randomly selecting an IP address from the list of outbound proxy IP addresses to use in forwarding to the service request.
However in analogous art Thomas discloses:
determining whether the TCP/UDP port number indicates to use a random outbound proxy server IP address from the list of outbound proxy IP addresses, assigned to the user (Thomas; Thomas teaches match action rules associated with tables which subsequently could trigger the random IP address selection;
[0045] A group table entry may be identified by a group identifier. A group table entry generally allows the packets of a matching flow to be forwarded to the following: a random port on a group of ports (for load-balancing), a first live port on a group of ports (for failover), and all ports on a group of ports (for multicasting). Thus, a group table entry allows a network device to dispose a packet to multiple ports.
[0031] The processors 122 forward the packets using a flow database 132, which includes a number of forwarding tables such as flow tables and group tables. These forwarding tables may be generated based on instructions from the network device and/or a network controller (e.g., an SDN controller). Each table includes one or more table entries. FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary flow table entry 101 and an exemplary group table entry 111 according to one embodiment.
Hence Thomas describes that packet forwarding behavior is determined by which group table entry the packet matches. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a packet is identifying attributes such as TCP/UDP destination port number – are standard matching fields used to select corresponding group entry. Accordingly, when a group entry associated with particular port number specifies random forwarding among a group of ports, the system reflectively uses that port value as the trigger condition for ransom selection. Each port in the group may correspond to a distinct outbound proxy IP address, therefore when traffic is received on that port, of the network device performs random selection among the available outbound proxy IP addresses for forwarding corresponding directly the claimed “determining .. and randomly selectin” steps.
), and
when the TCP/UDP port number is determined to indicate use of the random outbound proxy server IP address, randomly selecting an IP address from the list of outbound proxy IP addresses to use in forwarding to the service request (Subsequent to the determination based on a trigger, match, or indicator as detailed by Thomas a random IP address may be selected from a list of the outbound IP addresses to use in forwarding the service request (Kewin/Haugh)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Thomas’ scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and controlling network traffic.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights