DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on April 28, 2026. Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12-19 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant in Pages 11-13 of the Remarks argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, could not be accomplished mentally or using a pen and paper, even if the claims recite an abstract idea the claimed invention is directed to an improvement, and when considered as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
If the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claim 2 covers several steps, such as the identify, select, coordinate, associate, and confirm steps in claim 1 and the identifying, managing, and associating steps in claim 2, that recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the limitations recited in said steps, which is discussed in detail in the current 101 rejection below.
The remaining steps in the claims that are identified as reciting additional elements, are only adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, are recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions, and are applying the exception using generic computer components, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology.
Additionally, dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 19 cover additional steps that also recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed in detail in the 101 rejection below.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that Vanasco and Davis do not teach or even suggest the features of amended independent claim 1 or its analogous claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 12-19 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
For the above reasons, Examiner states that rejection of the current Office action is proper.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 10, the phrase “a spider manage and distributed spider servers” should be “a spider manage and distributed spidering servers”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a website identifier configured to identify websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database, thereby improving website search efficiency” in claim 1.
“a script initializer configured to select and launch website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified by the website identifier” in claim 1.
“a spider manager and distributed spider servers, the spider manager configured to dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers and coordinate execution of the website-specific scripts at scale” in claim 1.
“the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites” in claim 1.
“an information associator configured to receive the identifying information and associate the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type-specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles” in claim 1.
“a validator configured to confirm associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles, thereby further improving accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles” in claim 1.
“wherein the information associator is further configured to associate the identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles by matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual” in claim 3.
“wherein the information associator is further configured to assign a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and to determine an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile” in claim 4.
“wherein the database is configured to maintain, for each user profile identifying information selected from the group consisting of names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, geographic information and images” in claim 7.
“wherein the script initializer is further configured to select a website-script based on a characteristic of an identified and selected website” in claim 13.
“wherein the validator is further configured to delay confirming an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identify records are retrieved at a later time” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “a website identifier configured to identify websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database, thereby improving website search efficiency” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “a website identifier configured to identify websites to be spidered”, “spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database”, and “thereby improving website search efficiency” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “a script initializer configured to select and launch website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified by the website identifier” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “a script initializer configured to select and launch website-specific scripts”, “select and launch website-specific scripts”, and “scripts appropriate to the websites identified by the website identifier” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “a spider manager and distributed spider servers, the spider manager configured to dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers and coordinate execution of the website-specific scripts at scale, the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “the spider manager configured to dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers”, “coordinate execution of the website-specific scripts at scale”, and “the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “an information associator configured to receive the identifying information and associate the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type-specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “using data-type-specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “a validator configured to confirm associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles, thereby further improving accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles” in independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “a validator configured to confirm associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles” and “thereby further improving accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “identifying websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database, thereby improving website search efficiency” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “identifying websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database” and “thereby improving website search efficiency” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “launching website-specific scripts” and “scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “managing spidering of the identified websites using multiple distributed spider servers, including coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts across the multiple distributed spider servers and retrieving, via the multiple distributed spider servers identifying information for a given user from the identified and selected websites” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “including coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts across the multiple distributed spider servers” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles” in independent claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “using data-type specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles to further improve accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles” in dependent claim 3 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles” and “before updating the profiles and partial profiles to further improve accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the information associator is further configured to assign a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and to determine an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile” in dependent claim 4 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “associator is further configured to assign a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information” and “associator is further configured… to determine an association confidence score” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a likelihood that the retrieved identifying information matches identifying information in a stored profile or partial profile based on a predicted likelihood that the match exceeds a predefined threshold, which may be a confidence score” in dependent claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a likelihood” and “based on a predicted likelihood that the match exceeds a predefined threshold, which may be a confidence score” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises assigning a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and determining an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile” in dependent claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “assigning a weighted score to a user profile” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the script initializer is further configured to select a website-script based on a characteristic of an identified and selected website” in dependent claim 13 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “wherein the script initializer is further configured to select a website-script based on a characteristic of an identified and selected website” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein the validator is further configured to delay confirming an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identify records are retrieved at a later time” in dependent claim 15 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “delay confirming an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identify records are retrieved at a later time” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected includes launching website-specific scripts based on characteristics of the websites” in dependent claim 17 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected includes launching website-specific scripts based on characteristics of the websites” are not described in the specification as claimed.
The limitation “wherein confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles the validator includes delaying an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identifying information is retrieved at a later time” in dependent claim 19 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the features “wherein confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles the validator includes delaying an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identifying information is retrieved at a later time” are not described in the specification as claimed.
Dependent claims 3, 7, 12, 14, 16, and 18 inherit the same deficiencies of their base claims, therefore, they are also indefinite.
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 2, 8, 9, and 16-19 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the websites identified and selected" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the websites…selected” in the claim.
Dependent claims 8, 9, and 16-19 inherit the same deficiencies of their base claims, therefore, they are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 1 and 2 respectively recite a spidering and association
system and a computer-implemented method, which are directed to a statutory category such as a process, machine, or an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“…identify websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile…thereby improving website search efficiency”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify websites to be spidered based on relevance of a stored user profile or partial user profile, thereby mentally or using a pen and paper improving website search efficiency.
“…select…website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified…”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper select website-specific scripts appropriate to identified websites.
“…and coordinate execution of the website-specific scripts at scale…”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper coordinate execution of website-specific scripts at scale.
“…and associate the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type-specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper associate retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type-specific association matching techniques to mentally or using a pen and paper improve accuracy of stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper correctly associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles.
“… confirm associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles, thereby further improving accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles”.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper confirm associations of retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles before the profiles and partial profiles are updated to mentally or using a pen and paper improve accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles.
The limitations, as recited above, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 2 recites the limitations:
“identifying websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored…thereby improving website search efficiency”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify websites to be spidered based on relevance of a stored user profile or partial user profile, thereby mentally or using a pen and paper improving website search efficiency.
“managing spidering of the identified websites…including coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts across the multiple distributed spider servers…”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper manage spidering of identified websites by mentally or using a pen and paper coordinating execution of website-specific scripts across multiple distributed spider servers.
“associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper associate retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper using data-type specific association matching techniques that mentally or using a pen and paper improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper correctly associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles.
“confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles to further improve accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles”.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper confirm associations of retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles before the profiles and partial profiles are updated to mentally or using a pen and paper further improving accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles.
The limitations, as recited above, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a database storing user profiles and partial user profiles, the user profiles and partial user profiles including identifying information of the user”, which is a step of storing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“a script initializer configured to…and launch website-specific scripts… appropriate to the websites identified by the website identifier”, which is a step of launching scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a spider manager and distributed spider servers, the spider manager configured to dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers…”, which is a step of dispatching or transmitting data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“…the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites…”, which is a step of executing dispatched scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“…and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites”, which is a step of retrieving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“an information associator configured to receive the identifying information…”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a spidering and association system for aggregating identifying information available from public sources, comprising:”, “a database”, “a website identifier configured to”, “stored in the database”, “a script initializer configured to”, “website-specific scripts”, “by the website identifier”, “a spider manager and distributed spider servers, the spider manager configured to”, “the distributed spidering servers”, “of the website-specific scripts”, “the distributed spidering servers configured to”, “an information associator configured to”, and “a validator configured to” in the steps in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 2 recites the limitations:
“storing user profiles and partial user profiles in a database, the user profiles and partial user profiles including identifying information of a user”, which is a step of storing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected”, which is a step of launching scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“…and retrieving, via the multiple distributed spider servers identifying information for a given user from the identified and selected websites”, which is a step of retrieving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a computer-implemented method of aggregating public web data for a unified identity profile, comprising:”, “in a database”, “stored in the database”, “website-specific scripts”, “using multiple distributed spider servers”, “of the website-specific scripts”, “across the multiple distributed spider servers”, and “via the multiple distributed spider servers” in the steps in claim 2 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 2 recite the same additional elements as identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a database storing user profiles and partial user profiles, the user profiles and partial user profiles including identifying information of the user”, which is a step of storing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“a script initializer configured to…and launch website-specific scripts… appropriate to the websites identified by the website identifier”, which is a step of launching scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a spider manager and distributed spider servers, the spider manager configured to dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers…”, which is a step of dispatching or transmitting data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“…the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites…”, which is a step of executing dispatched scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“…and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites”, which is a step of retrieving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“an information associator configured to receive the identifying information…”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 2 recites the limitations:
“storing user profiles and partial user profiles in a database, the user profiles and partial user profiles including identifying information of a user”, which is a step of storing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected”, which is a step of launching scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“…and retrieving, via the multiple distributed spider servers identifying information for a given user from the identified and selected websites”, which is a step of retrieving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…associate the identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles by matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper associate identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper matching patterns among identity attributes and by mentally or using a pen and paper automatically predicting a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the information associator is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…assign a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and to determine an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper assign a weighted score to a user profile based on identifying information and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the information associator is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the database is configured to maintain, for each user profile identifying information selected from the group consisting of names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, geographic information and images”, which is a step of maintaining or storing data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
The additional elements “wherein the database is configured to maintain” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a likelihood that the retrieved identifying information matches identifying information in a stored profile or partial profile based on a predicted likelihood that the match exceeds a predefined threshold, which may be a confidence score”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper associate retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper using data-type specific association matching techniques by mentally or using a pen and paper matching patterns among identity attributes and mentally or using a pen and paper automatically predicting a likelihood that the retrieved identifying information matches identifying information in a stored profile or partial profile based on mentally or using a pen and paper predicting a likelihood that the match exceeds a predefined threshold, which may be a confidence score, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises assigning a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and determining an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper associate retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper using data-type specific association matching techniques by mentally or using a pen and paper assigning a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and mentally or using a pen and paper determining an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein each of the distributed spider servers are located in a different geographic area to increase coverage and performance”, which are just additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…select a website-script based on a characteristic of an identified and selected website”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select a website-script based on a characteristic of an identified and selected website, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the script initializer is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the retrieved identifying information includes one or more data-types of a name, email address, location or image”, which is a step of retrieving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…delay confirming an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identify records are retrieved at a later time”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper delay confirming an association of retrieved identity records with stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identify records are retrieved at a later time, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the validator is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 recites additional limitations, such as:
“locating the distributed spider servers in different geographical locations”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper locate distributed spider servers in different geographical locations, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “the distributed spider servers” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected includes launching website-specific scripts based on characteristics of the websites”, which is a step of launching scripts. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the retrieved identifying information includes one or more data-types of a name, email address, location or image”, which is a step of retrieving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles…includes delaying an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identifying information is retrieved at a later time”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 2, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper confirm associations of retrieved identifying information with stored profiles and partial profiles by mentally or using a pen and paper delaying an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identifying information is retrieved at a later time, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “the validator” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 3, 4, 7-9, and 12-19 are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-4, 7-9, and 12-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanasco (US Pub 2010/0274815) in view of Lawrence (US Pub 2006/0004814) and in further view of Goodwin (US Pub 2003/0154196).
With respect to claim 1, Vanasco discloses a spidering and association system for aggregating identifying information available from public sources (Vanasco in [0003], [0028], and [0042] discloses discovering and indexing identity information of members of one or more social network websites; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity), comprising:
a database storing user profiles and partial user profiles, the user profiles and partial user profiles including identifying information of the user (Vanasco in [0120] and [0192] discloses relationships recorded in a datastore, storing information in a database; Vanasco in [0201] and [0465] discloses storing identity information and relationships in database, datastore for identity data such as profile information; storing, editing, and aggregating profile information and metadata);
a website identifier configured to identify websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database, thereby improving website search efficiency (Vanasco in [0156] and [0157] discloses discovered identities known to the system are indexed and/or analyzed, learning and analysis comes from information gleaned through API/system queries, manual input, or parsing publicly available webpages, routinely performing online spidering of the internet to look for identities to index; Vanasco in [0754] and [0755] discloses the system working with automated contact/profile importing systems that spider the internet at large; Vanasco in [0216] and [0520] discloses utilizing a script to scrape information and then provide the information to the system, application or script that taking information from the system and updating accounts with it; Vanasco in [0472] and [0488] discloses profile data efficiently managed by the system, the system able to efficiently index, route, or make available identity-specific information to multiple systems and persons);…
a spider manager and…servers, the spider manager configured to dispatch spidering work… (Vanasco in [0156] and [0157] discloses discovered identities known to the system are indexed and/or analyzed, learning/analysis comes from information gleaned through API/system queries, manual input, or parsing publicly available webpages, routinely performing online spidering of the internet to look for identities to index; Vanasco in [0754] and [0755] discloses the system working with automated contact/profile importing systems that spider the internet at large; Vanasco in [0336] and [0464] discloses the system offers centralized management of multiple accounts across multiple networks using tools to manage online identities through managing, indexing, and syndicating data, content, and knowledge of content associated with each identity; Vanasco in [0847] discloses tracking servers operated by the system, information feeding identity analytics servers; here Vanasco does not explicitly disclose distributed spider servers and dispatching spidering work across the distribute spidering servers and coordinate execution of the website-specific scripts at scale, the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites, but the Lawrence and Goodwin references disclose the features, as discussed below);
an information associator configured to receive the identifying information and associate the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type-specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles (Vanasco in [0003], [0028], and [0042] discloses discovering and indexing identity information of members of one or more social network websites; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity); and
a validator configured to confirm associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles, thereby further improving accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles (Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses for an identity the system attempts to locate and return corresponding identity records concerning the believed validity of that identity, utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity; Vanasco in [0779] and [0850] discloses providing information needed to accurately identify and index user, active profiling accurately identifies users across networks using verified and predicted identities).
Vanasco discloses a system managing spidering the internet for information from identified websites and the system comprising multiple servers, however, Vanasco does not explicitly disclose:
a script initializer configured to select and launch website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified by the website identifier;
…distributed spider servers…dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers and coordinate execution of the website-specific scripts at scale, the distributed spidering servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites;
The Lawrence reference discloses a script initializer configured to select and launch website-specific scripts appropriate to websites identified by a website identifier (Lawrence in [0064] discloses a system comprising multiple servers distributed and/or otherwise coupled and/or connected; Lawrence in [0108] and [0110], discloses system including website monitoring device that keeps track of information stored on and/or available from websites, determines when new, changed, and/or updated information is available from any monitored websites, website monitoring device running or controlling a script associated with each website to be monitored, script defining how it’s associated website is to be monitored in order to determine whether information on the website has been updated, script indicating that the website has changed, each website monitored by the system may have a separate extraction script, extraction scripts coded using a number of web task tools that assist in creation of executable spiders for download and extraction tasks, tool configured to navigate to a monitored website and instructed to follow certain links to a desired page, tool configured to fin particular areas on the desired page that include relevant or desired information, tool used to monitor website and extract and collect information from the website for further processing by the system).
distributed servers, dispatching spidering work, and coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts at scale, the distributed servers configured to execute the dispatched scripts against the identified websites and to retrieve identifying information associated with a user from the identified websites (Lawrence in [0064] discloses a system comprising multiple servers distributed and/or otherwise coupled and/or connected; Lawrence in [0108] and [0110], discloses system including website monitoring device that keeps track of information stored on and/or available from websites, determines when new, changed, and/or updated information is available from any monitored websites, website monitoring device running or controlling a script associated with each website to be monitored, script defining how it’s associated website is to be monitored in order to determine whether information on the website has been updated, script indicating that the website has changed, each website monitored by the system may have a separate extraction script, extraction scripts coded using a number of web task tools that assist in creation of executable spiders for download and extraction tasks, tool configured to navigate to a monitored website and instructed to follow certain links to a desired page, tool configured to fin particular areas on the desired page that include relevant or desired information, tool used to monitor website and extract and collect information from the website for further processing by the system; here Lawrence does not explicitly disclose distributed spider servers, dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers, but the Goodwin reference discloses the feature, as discussed below)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Vanasco and Lawrence, to have combined Vanasco and Lawrence. The motivation to combine Vanasco and Lawrence would be to monitor changes in website information by running or controlling a script associated with each website (Lawrence: [0108]).
Vanasco discloses a system spidering websites and the system including multiple servers, and Lawrence discloses a system comprising distributed servers and dispatching spidering work and coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts by the system comprising the distributed servers, however, Vanasco and Lawrence do not explicitly disclose:
distributed spider servers, dispatch spidering work across the distributed spidering servers…;
The Goodwin reference discloses distributed spider servers and dispatching spidering work across the distributed spidering servers (Goodwin in [0011] and [0060] discloses distributing knowledge processing and gathering tasks to a plurality of servers in a distributed architecture, spidering processes are distributed over various servers, a first server includes one or more types of spider processes enabled, while a second server includes one or more types of spider processes different from those of the first server; Goodwin in [0080] discloses spidering processes, such as web spider distributed over a plurality of servers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Vanasco, Lawrence, and Goodwin, to have combined Vanasco, Lawrence, and Goodwin. The motivation to combine Vanasco, Lawrence, and Goodwin would be to gather information form disparate systems by distributing knowledge gathering tasks to different servers in a distributed architecture (Goodwin: [0005] and [0011]).
With respect to claim 2, Vanasco discloses a computer-implemented method of aggregating public web data for a unified identity profile (Vanasco in [0003], [0028], and [0042] discloses discovering and indexing identity information of members of one or more social network websites; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity), comprising:
storing user profiles and partial user profiles in a database, the user profiles and partial user profiles including identifying information of a user (Vanasco in [0120] and [0192] discloses relationships recorded in a datastore, storing information in a database; Vanasco in [0201] and [0465] discloses storing identity information and relationships in database, datastore for identity data such as profile information; storing, editing, and aggregating profile information and metadata);
identifying websites to be spidered based on relevance of a user profile or partial user profile stored in the database, thereby improving website search efficiency (Vanasco in [0156] and [0157] discloses discovered identities known to the system are indexed and/or analyzed, learning and analysis comes from information gleaned through API/system queries, manual input, or parsing publicly available webpages, routinely performing online spidering of the internet to look for identities to index; Vanasco in [0754] and [0755] discloses the system working with automated contact/profile importing systems that spider the internet at large; Vanasco in [0216] and [0520] discloses utilizing a script to scrape information and then provide the information to the system, application or script that taking information from the system and updating accounts with it; Vanasco in [0472] and [0488] discloses profile data efficiently managed by the system, the system able to efficiently index, route, or make available identity-specific information to multiple systems and persons);…
managing spidering of the identified websites…including coordinating execution…and retrieving…identifying information for a given user from the identified and selected websites (Vanasco in [0156] and [0157] discloses discovered identities known to the system are indexed and/or analyzed, learning/analysis comes from information gleaned through API/system queries, manual input, or parsing publicly available webpages, routinely performing online spidering of the internet to look for identities to index; Vanasco in [0754] and [0755] discloses the system working with automated contact/profile importing systems that spider the internet at large; Vanasco in [0336] and [0464] discloses the system offers centralized management of multiple accounts across multiple networks using tools to manage online identities through managing, indexing, and syndicating data, content, and knowledge of content associated with each identity; Vanasco in [0847] discloses tracking servers operated by the system, information feeding identity analytics servers; here Vanasco does not explicitly disclose managing spidering of the identified websites using multiple distributed spider servers, including coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts across the multiple distributed spider servers and retrieving, via the multiple distributed spider servers, but the Lawrence and Goodwin references disclose the features, as discussed below);
associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques that improve accuracy of the stored profiles and partial profiles through correct association of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles (Vanasco in [0003], [0028], and [0042] discloses discovering and indexing identity information of members of one or more social network websites; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity); and
confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles before updating the profiles and partial profiles to further improve accuracy of the profiles and partial profiles (Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses for an identity the system attempts to locate and return corresponding identity records concerning the believed validity of that identity, utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity; Vanasco in [0779] and [0850] discloses providing information needed to accurately identify and index user, active profiling accurately identifies users across networks using verified and predicted identities).
Vanasco discloses a system managing spidering the internet for information from identified websites and the system comprising multiple servers, however, Vanasco does not explicitly disclose:
launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected;
managing spidering of the identified websites using multiple distributed spider servers, including coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts across the multiple distributed spider servers and retrieving, via the multiple distributed spider servers…;
The Lawrence reference discloses launching website-specific scripts appropriate to websites identified and selected (Lawrence in [0064] discloses a system comprising multiple servers distributed and/or otherwise coupled and/or connected; Lawrence in [0108] and [0110], discloses system including website monitoring device that keeps track of information stored on and/or available from websites, determines when new, changed, and/or updated information is available from any monitored websites, website monitoring device running or controlling a script associated with each website to be monitored, script defining how it’s associated website is to be monitored in order to determine whether information on the website has been updated, script indicating that the website has changed, each website monitored by the system may have a separate extraction script, extraction scripts coded using a number of web task tools that assist in creation of executable spiders for download and extraction tasks, tool configured to navigate to a monitored website and instructed to follow certain links to a desired page, tool configured to fin particular areas on the desired page that include relevant or desired information, tool used to monitor website and extract and collect information from the website for further processing by the system).
managing spidering of the identified websites using multiple distributed servers, including coordinating execution of the website-specific and retrieving, via the multiple distributed servers (Lawrence in [0064] discloses a system comprising multiple servers distributed and/or otherwise coupled and/or connected; Lawrence in [0108] and [0110], discloses system including website monitoring device that keeps track of information stored on and/or available from websites, determines when new, changed, and/or updated information is available from any monitored websites, website monitoring device running or controlling a script associated with each website to be monitored, script defining how it’s associated website is to be monitored in order to determine whether information on the website has been updated, script indicating that the website has changed, each website monitored by the system may have a separate extraction script, extraction scripts coded using a number of web task tools that assist in creation of executable spiders for download and extraction tasks, tool configured to navigate to a monitored website and instructed to follow certain links to a desired page, tool configured to fin particular areas on the desired page that include relevant or desired information, tool used to monitor website and extract and collect information from the website for further processing by the system; here Lawrence does not explicitly disclose managing spidering using multiple distributed spider servers, but the Goodwin reference discloses the feature, as discussed below)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Vanasco and Lawrence, to have combined Vanasco and Lawrence. The motivation to combine Vanasco and Lawrence would be to monitor changes in website information by running or controlling a script associated with each website (Lawrence: [0108]).
Vanasco discloses a system spidering websites and the system including multiple servers, and Lawrence discloses a system comprising distributed servers and dispatching spidering work and coordinating execution of the website-specific scripts by the system comprising the distributed servers, however, Vanasco and Lawrence do not explicitly disclose:
managing spidering…using multiple distributed spider servers …;
The Goodwin reference discloses managing spidering using multiple distributed spider servers (Goodwin in [0011] and [0060] discloses distributing knowledge processing and gathering tasks to a plurality of servers in a distributed architecture, spidering processes are distributed over various servers, a first server includes one or more types of spider processes enabled, while a second server includes one or more types of spider processes different from those of the first server; Goodwin in [0080] discloses spidering processes, such as web spider distributed over a plurality of servers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Vanasco, Lawrence, and Goodwin, to have combined Vanasco, Lawrence, and Goodwin. The motivation to combine Vanasco, Lawrence, and Goodwin would be to gather information form disparate systems by distributing knowledge gathering tasks to different servers in a distributed architecture (Goodwin: [0005] and [0011]).
With respect to claim 3, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the information associator is further configured to associate the identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles by matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a match between identity data records that belong to the same individual (Vanasco in [0035] discloses verified identities are used as waypoints in calculating relationships, and help create statistical models discerning the kind, quality, and patterns of information sharing typical to users of networks or services, which is a model trained on identity data; Vanasco in [0178] discloses calculating a weighted point value for a relationship utilizing scoring/matching techniques, calculating a percentage of likelihood that two identities belong to the same identity; Vanasco in [0425] discloses threshold of probability needed for a matching identity; Vanasco in [0742] and [0745] discloses predicting a match between identities; Vanasco in [0850] discloses tracking users across networks for comparative profiling based on cross-site data, active profiling of social networks allows accurate identification of users across networks using a basis of verified and predicted identities).
With respect to claim 4, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses he system of claim 1, wherein the information associator is further configured to assign a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and to determine an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile (Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0039] and [0178] discloses a score reflecting likelihood of identities being related to one another and the likelihood of them representing the same identity, calculating a weighted point value for a relationship utilizing scoring/matching techniques; Vanasco in [0291] and [0729] discloses grouping identities using verified links or high probability confidence scores, calculating probabilities of identities being related to one another, the result is scored with a probability; Vanasco in [0604] discloses amplifying profile when a particular type/field of data is present in one or more profiles, having same information associated with more than one profile gives added weight to its relevance).
With respect to claim 7, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the database is configured to maintain, for each user profile identifying information selected from the group consisting of names, usernames, email addresses, demographic information, geographic information and images (Vanasco in [0018] and [0022] discloses identity information including email address, account name, URL, real name, screen name, social profile id, domain information etc.; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes; Vanasco in [0404], [0612], and [0706]-[0711] discloses profiles and accounts in social networks like myspace and Friendster, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn etc.; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0201] and [0465] discloses storing identity information and relationships in database, datastore for identity data such as profile information; storing, editing, and aggregating profile information and metadata; Vanasco in [0610] and [0650] discloses relating disparate identities from different sources to one another to form an aggregated identity).
With respect to claim 8, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the method of claim 2, wherein associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises matching patterns among identity attributes and automatically predicting a likelihood that the retrieved identifying information matches identifying information in a stored profile or partial profile based on a predicted likelihood that the match exceeds a predefined threshold, which may be a confidence score (Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes; Vanasco in [0035] discloses verified identities are used as waypoints in calculating relationships, and help create statistical models discerning the kind, quality, and patterns of information sharing typical to users of networks or services, which is a model trained on identity data; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0039] and [0178] discloses a score reflecting likelihood of identities being related to one another and the likelihood of them representing the same identity, calculating a weighted point value for a relationship utilizing scoring/matching techniques; Vanasco in [0178] discloses calculating a weighted point value for a relationship utilizing scoring/matching techniques, calculating a percentage of likelihood that two identities belong to the same identity; Vanasco in [0291] and [0729] discloses grouping identities using verified links or high probability confidence scores, calculating probabilities of identities being related to one another, the result is scored with a probability; Vanasco in [0425] discloses threshold of probability needed for a matching identity; Vanasco in [0742] and [0745] discloses predicting a match between identities; Vanasco in [0604] discloses amplifying profile when a particular type/field of data is present in one or more profiles, having same information associated with more than one profile gives added weight to its relevance; Vanasco in [0850] discloses tracking users across networks for comparative profiling based on cross-site data, active profiling of social networks allows accurate identification of users across networks using a basis of verified and predicted identities).
With respect to claim 9, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the method of claim 2, wherein associating the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles using data-type specific association matching techniques comprises assigning a weighted score to a user profile based on the identifying information and determining an association confidence score indicative of whether the identifying information is associated with the user profile (Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes; Vanasco in [0036] and [0598] discloses creating an aggregated profile of information, producing a profile from multiple identities belonging to a single individual by aggregating the information; Vanasco in [0039] and [0178] discloses a score reflecting likelihood of identities being related to one another and the likelihood of them representing the same identity, calculating a weighted point value for a relationship utilizing scoring/matching techniques; Vanasco in [0291] and [0729] discloses grouping identities using verified links or high probability confidence scores, calculating probabilities of identities being related to one another, the result is scored with a probability; Vanasco in [0604] discloses amplifying profile when a particular type/field of data is present in one or more profiles, having same information associated with more than one profile gives added weight to its relevance).
With respect to claim 12, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses he system of claim 1, wherein each of the distributed spider servers are located in a different geographic area to increase coverage and performance (Lawrence in [0064] discloses multiple servers distributed and coupled and/or connected; Goodwin in [0060] and [0077] discloses spider processes distributed over various servers, servers distributed within an intranet, distributed remotely through internet, such as distributed across a plurality of intranets through internet, distributed in a combination of intranet and internet; Goodwin in [0078] and [0080] discloses spider processes distributed over a plurality of servers for utilizing network resources and load balancing).
With respect to claim 13, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the script initializer is further configured to select a website-script based on a characteristic of an identified and selected website (Lawrence in [0064] discloses a system comprising multiple servers distributed and/or otherwise coupled and/or connected; Lawrence in [0108] and [0110], discloses system including website monitoring device that keeps track of information stored on and/or available from websites, determines when new, changed, and/or updated information is available from any monitored websites, website monitoring device running or controlling a script associated with each website to be monitored, script defining how it’s associated website is to be monitored in order to determine whether information on the website has been updated, script indicating that the website has changed, each website monitored by the system may have a separate extraction script, extraction scripts coded using a number of web task tools that assist in creation of executable spiders for download and extraction tasks, tool configured to navigate to a monitored website and instructed to follow certain links to a desired page, tool configured to fin particular areas on the desired page that include relevant or desired information, tool used to monitor website and extract and collect information from the website for further processing by the system).
With respect to claim 14, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the retrieved identifying information includes one or more data-types of a name, email address, location or image (Vanasco in [0018] and [0022] discloses identity information including email address, account name, URL, real name, screen name, social profile id, domain information etc.; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes; Vanasco in [0404], [0612], and [0706]-[0711] discloses profiles and accounts in social networks like myspace and Friendster, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn etc.; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0201] and [0465] discloses storing identity information and relationships in database, datastore for identity data such as profile information; storing, editing, and aggregating profile information and metadata; Vanasco in [0610] and [0650] discloses relating disparate identities from different sources to one another to form an aggregated identity).
With respect to claim 15, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the validator is further configured to delay confirming an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identify records are retrieved at a later time (Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses for an identity the system attempts to locate and return corresponding identity records concerning the believed validity of that identity, utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity; Vanasco in [0779] and [0850] discloses providing information needed to accurately identify and index user, active profiling accurately identifies users across networks using verified and predicted identities; Lawrence in [0180] and [0110] discloses monitoring websites to determine if new, changed, or updated information is available, each time a website is monitored a hash code is generated, if a page is updated or changed the code will change and the website monitoring script will indicate that the website has changed, extracting the information from the changed page; Goodwin in [0022], [0081], [0093] discloses spiders working on a repository and continuing on to the next repository indicated in their queue only after they finish processing the prior repository, after being processed information is analyzed to determine a type and then the information is indexed, after processing is complete work queues generating process statistics reports).
With respect to claim 16, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising locating the distributed spider servers in different geographical locations (Lawrence in [0064] discloses multiple servers distributed and coupled and/or connected; Goodwin in [0060] and [0077] discloses spider processes distributed over various servers, servers distributed within an intranet, distributed remotely through internet, such as distributed across a plurality of intranets through internet, distributed in a combination of intranet and internet; Goodwin in [0078] and [0080] discloses spider processes distributed over a plurality of servers for utilizing network resources and load balancing).
With respect to claim 17, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the method of claim 2, wherein launching website-specific scripts appropriate to the websites identified and selected includes launching website-specific scripts based on characteristics of the websites (Lawrence in [0064] discloses a system comprising multiple servers distributed and/or otherwise coupled and/or connected; Lawrence in [0108] and [0110], discloses system including website monitoring device that keeps track of information stored on and/or available from websites, determines when new, changed, and/or updated information is available from any monitored websites, website monitoring device running or controlling a script associated with each website to be monitored, script defining how it’s associated website is to be monitored in order to determine whether information on the website has been updated, script indicating that the website has changed, each website monitored by the system may have a separate extraction script, extraction scripts coded using a number of web task tools that assist in creation of executable spiders for download and extraction tasks, tool configured to navigate to a monitored website and instructed to follow certain links to a desired page, tool configured to fin particular areas on the desired page that include relevant or desired information, tool used to monitor website and extract and collect information from the website for further processing by the system).
With respect to claim 18, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the retrieved identifying information includes one or more data-types of a name, email address, location or image (Vanasco in [0018] and [0022] discloses identity information including email address, account name, URL, real name, screen name, social profile id, domain information etc.; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes; Vanasco in [0404], [0612], and [0706]-[0711] discloses profiles and accounts in social networks like myspace and Friendster, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn etc.; Vanasco in [0029], [0031], and [0174] discloses aggregating user identity information, aggregating user profile data, matching profiles and identities based on similar attributes, display trends; Vanasco in [0201] and [0465] discloses storing identity information and relationships in database, datastore for identity data such as profile information; storing, editing, and aggregating profile information and metadata; Vanasco in [0610] and [0650] discloses relating disparate identities from different sources to one another to form an aggregated identity).
With respect to claim 19, Vanasco in view of Lawrence and in further view of Goodwin discloses the method of claim 2, wherein confirming the associations of the retrieved identifying information with the stored profiles and partial profiles the validator includes delaying an association of the retrieved identity records with the stored profiles and partial profiles until additional identifying information is retrieved at a later time (Vanasco in [0181], [0560], and [0821] discloses for an identity the system attempts to locate and return corresponding identity records concerning the believed validity of that identity, utilizing aggregated trends of validated inter-network identities, return identity records based on validity of identity, proving validity; Vanasco in [0779] and [0850] discloses providing information needed to accurately identify and index user, active profiling accurately identifies users across networks using verified and predicted identities; Lawrence in [0180] and [0110] discloses monitoring websites to determine if new, changed, or updated information is available, each time a website is monitored a hash code is generated, if a page is updated or changed the code will change and the website monitoring script will indicate that the website has changed, extracting the information from the changed page; Goodwin in [0022], [0081], [0093] discloses spiders working on a repository and continuing on to the next repository indicated in their queue only after they finish processing the prior repository, after being processed information is analyzed to determine a type and then the information is indexed, after processing is complete work queues generating process statistics reports).
Remarks
The relevant prior art of record that are not used in claim rejections but are pertinent to the claims or disclosure are:
Holtzman (US Pub 2001/0027439), which discloses obtaining user profile information from a server accessible via the internet by using a script for a site, profile and script workers, and web spiders monitoring and polling websites to see if pages have changed and updating the script for that site.
Konopnicki (US Pub 2009/0216773), which discloses web spider automatically gathering and indexing information from websites and automated scripts able wot browse the web.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZWANUL MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
