Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/628,749

Emulating Web Browser in a Dedicated Intermediary Box

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 07, 2024
Examiner
ALRIYASHI, ABDULKADER MOHAMED
Art Unit
2447
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Bright Data Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
254 granted / 380 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
406
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 380 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered. Claim status in the amendment received on 1/5/2025: Claims 1, 20 and 26 have been amended. Claims 17-19 and 21-25 have been canceled. Claims 1-16, 20 and 26 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-16, 20 and 26 are 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. As to claim 1, There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first device” recited in line 4. The claim further recites the limitation “the first device”, at least in line 9. There are multiple antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is not clear which first device the limitation is referring to. Appropriate correction is required. As to the claim(s) that are dependent on claim(s) 1, the dependent claim(s) are also rejected under 112(b) for the same reason of their base claim(s). 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. Claim(s) 1-16, 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degroat (Pub. No.: US 20170104829 A1) in view of Jenkins et al. (Patent No.: US 9298843 B1). As to claim 1, Degroat teaches a method for use with a web server that stores a content identified by a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the method comprising: storing, by a first device, a group of profiles where each of the profiles in the group is associated with a distinct respective fingerprint data (fig. 5A, 310 and paragraph [0043], “a user-agent identifier 314 which specifies a particular user-agent type and configuration”); identifying, by the first device, the content (paragraph [0027], “specific page”); selecting, by the first device, a first profile from the group (paragraph [0027], select a first user agent 12); forming, by the first device, a first request for the identified content, the first request includes the URL and uses, or is based on, the first profile (paragraph [0027], “retrieved and parsed”); sending, by the first device to the web server over the Internet, the first request, so that the first profile is identifiable by the web server (paragraph [0027], “retrieved and parsed”); receiving, by the first device from the web server over the internet, a first response, in response to the sending of the first request (paragraph [0027], retrieved data); checking for determining whether the first response is a proper response that comprises the content (paragraph [0027], “If the crawl performed by the user agent 12 is insufficient to identify the desired information or define a document with sufficient particularity”); and responsive to the determining that the first response is not a proper response (paragraph [0027], “If the crawl performed by the user agent 12 is insufficient to identify the desired information or define a document with sufficient particularity”) performing the steps of: selecting, by the first device, a second profile from the group (paragraph [0027], select a different user agent); forming, by the first device, a second request for the identified content, the second request includes the URL and uses, or is based on, the second profile (paragraph [0027], “selectively and iteratively retrieve and/or parse the document from the network resource with a different user agent”); sending, by the first device to the web server over the Internet, the second request, so that the second profile is identifiable by the web server (paragraph [0027], “selectively and iteratively retrieve and/or parse the document from the network resource with a different user agent”); receiving, by the first device from the web server over the internet, a second response, in response to the sending of the second request (paragraph [0027], “selectively and iteratively retrieve and/or parse the document from the network resource with a different user agent”); and checking for determining whether the second response is a proper response that comprises the content (paragraph [0027], “Different user agents may be used until a document is parsed to sufficient particularity or all of the user agents have been used”), wherein the first and second profiles include different settings, different configurations, different user profiles, or different cookies or history, or any combination thereof (paragraph [0024], “…exploring and analyzing various network resources and their relationships through the use of multiple user-agents with varying capabilities and configurations…”). Degroat does not explicitly teach executing a web browser associated with a group of profiles. However, in the same field of endeavor (accessing online contents) Jenkins teaches executing, by a first device, a web browser (col. 3, lines 48-52, “For example, the network computing provider can instantiate, or cause to have instantiated, an instance of a virtual machine that includes a software browser application capable of requesting resources from a communication network”); storing, by a first device, a group of profiles that are associated with the web browser, where each of the profiles in the group is associated with a distinct respective fingerprint data (col. 3, lines 38-42, “the client computing device (or network computing provider) can utilize processed user agent information to modify, update or verify the user agent information that will be specified for the requested content” and fig. 12). Based on Degroat in view of Jenkins, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate executing a web browser associated with a group of profiles (taught by Jenkins) with fetching content using a group of profiles (taught by Degroat) in order to utilize the browser instance to facilitate the processing of content requests according to user agent information as motivated by Jenkins (col. 7, lines 9-17). As to claim 2, Please see (paragraph [0039]). As to claim 3, Please see (paragraph [0027]). As to claim 4, Please see (paragraph [0027]). As to claim 5, Please see (paragraph [0027]). As to claim 6, Please see (paragraph [0039]). As to claim 7, Please see (paragraph [0029]). As to claim 8, Please see (paragraph [0039]). As to claim 9, Please see (paragraph [0039]). As to claim 10, Please see (paragraph [0039]). As to claim 11, Please see (paragraph [0041]). As to claim 12, Please see (paragraph [0041]). As to claim 13, Please see (paragraph [0041]). As to claim 14, Please see (paragraph [0041]). As to claim 15, Please see (paragraph [0047]). As to claim 16, Please see (paragraph [0047]). As to claim 20, Please see (paragraph [0047]). As to claim 26, Please see (paragraph [0026]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST. 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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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. /Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 1/6/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 18, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591688
CONTEXT-AWARE CRYPTOGRAPHIC INVENTORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574429
LINK PERFORMANCE PREDICTION AND MEDIA STREAMING TECHNOLOGIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563083
EVENT-DRIVEN COLLECTION AND MONITORING OF RESOURCES IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556404
IMPERSONATION DETECTION USING AN AUTHENTICATION ENFORCEMENT ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12547730
AUTOMATED INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM HARDENING OPTIMIZATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
67%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+4.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 380 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