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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
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 7/6/2026 in their entirety (Pages 5-9).
Applicant argues that Haugh’s access reservation tables are used for determining whether a user, group, or application may bind to a particular port, rather than for selecting an outbound proxy server. This argument is not persuasive because Haugh is relied upon for its express teaching of a structured association between particular users and particular ports, while Lewin is relied upon for the routing rules and selection of an outbound proxy server for forwarding a service request. The proposed rejection does not require Haugh’s binding operation itself to perform outbound -proxy selection, rather, the rejection applies Haugh’s known user/port mapping structure to Lewin’s proxy-routing framework so that the port/user association is used in making the outbound routing determination. The fact that Haugh employs its user/port mapping for access authorization does not negate its teaching of the underlying mapping structure or render that structure unsuitable for use in Lewin’s routing configuration. Moreover, one cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejection is based on their combined teachings. See MPEP 2145(IV); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981)
The Examiner notes for purpose of appeal, the use of TCP/UDP port information in both ingress and egress processing of network sessions was known in the art. For example Averi (US 8125907) expressly teaches ingress and egress flow processing wherein TCP/UDP sessions are identified by a tuple comprising a source IP address, source TCP/UDP prort, target IP address, and target UDP port.
See e.g. Column 11, Lines 62 – Column 12, Lines 7:
The egress flow processing stage 70 and ingress flow processing stage 73 and are responsible for the APN flow processing. For purposes of discussion in this document, a network session is defined as the set of traffic that is managed as a unit for processing by an APN. This is a direct mapping to RFC2663, section 2.3 definition of a session for network address translation, which states, "TCP/UDP sessions are uniquely identified by the tuple of (source IP address, source TCP/UDP port, target IP address, target TCP/UDP port). ICMP query sessions are identified by the tuple of (source IP address, ICMP query ID, target IP address). All other sessions are characterized by the tuple of (source IP address, target IP address, IP protocol)."
RFC 2663 states:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes for purposes of appeal, the user-specific TCP/UDP port assignment environment was known in the art.
Haugh (US 2005004422) states ([0040]):
[0040] The present invention provides the ability to reserve TCP/UDP ports for specific users, groups, named applications and combinations thereof at the server. The invention enables a system administrator to define who/what resource can bind itself to a port, and the invention then provides automated/dynamic methods to control which server programs are allowed to bind the port. The invention allocates specific port numbers for access by only specific users and/or application occurs within the server based on system needs (determined by the system administrator). With these “high priority” or authorized accesses that require specific ports, the invention eliminates the contention for access by reserving the ports to pre-determined userIDs, groupIDs, etc. Bind system software of the server’s network adapter is modified to include a check of the access permission table associated with the particular port whenever a port is requested.
Chien (US 8,214,899) states (Column 7, Lines 5 -13):
In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, an online service or network node gathers information about accesses to an account and makes that information available to the account owner and/or other authorized user. When an account is accessed, the authentication service on the network node logs a timestamp
The Examiner further notes, for purposes of appeal, that Applicant has mischaracterized the prior art by attacking the references in a piecemeal fashion, and more importantly, has presented no evidence of unexpected results from the combined invention.
MPEP 716.02(b) states:
716.02(b) Burden on Applicant [R-08.2012]
I. BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTS ARE UNEXPECTED AND SIGNIFICANT
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data
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 Lewin(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, for a particular user, a service configuration comprising a table mapping, that maps 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 the 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 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, the corresponding outbound proxy server for the selected table (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 corresponding 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, for a particular user, a service configuration comprising a table that maps 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 the 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, the corresponding outbound proxy server for 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: HTTP proxy protocol and SOCKSS proxy protocol (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 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 is assigned to the user by a 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.
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