Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 3/25/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 16, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are p[resented for examination.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 each recites compiling, by the computing device, an object list from the webpage; determining, by the computing device, a number of objects in the object list; compiling, by the computing device, a second object list from the webpage; when the number of objects in the second object list is greater than the number of objects in the object list, determining, by the computing device, a third time to retrieve the webpage addressed at the target URL such that a difference between the second time and the third time is less than a difference between the first time and the second time; and when the number of objects in the second object list is less than the number of objects in the object list, determining, by the computing device, a fourth time to retrieve the webpage addressed at the target URL such that a difference between the second time and the fourth time is greater than the difference between the first time and the second time. Compiling an object list and a second object list are recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Determining a number of objects in an object list, determining a third time, and determining a fourth time are each evaluating steps and are mental processes. Each claim recites additional elements of retrieving, by a computing device and via a network, a webpage addressed at the target URL at a first time, a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; retrieving, by the computing device and via the network, the webpage addressed at the target URL at a second time, a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; when the determined third time occurs, retrieving, by the computing device and via the network, the webpage addressed at the target URL, whereby retrieving when the third time occurs avoids being blocked by a target server located at the target URL, a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and when the determined fourth time occurs, retrieving, by the computing device and via the network, the webpage addressed at the target URL, whereby retrieving when the fourth time occurs avoids being blocked by the target server located at the target URL, a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 10 recites a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory, and claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which are generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraphs 0011-0013 describe drawbacks in of current systems in some e-commerce sites and search engines just not servicing webpage scrape requests, a limited supply of IP addresses for rotating to avoid detection, and system resources being consumed by making redundant or unnecessary webpage scrape requests and CAPTCHA tests. Examiner notes Applicant’s remarks do not cite these issues but do cite the problems discussed in specification paragraph 0028 of some servers detecting request patterns and thus rejecting webpage scrape requests; and some systems randomly changing the frequency of said webpage scrape requests and missing updates to the webpage. Paragraph 0029 discusses how the invention addresses the issues in paragraph 0028 by dynamically updating the frequency of webpage scrape requests (“embodiments herein describe a system to dynamically update scrape time frequency so as to make requests appear organic while maximizing the amount of content scraped from the target web page“) based on the amount of content retrieved and cites an example also showing the frequency of requests updated based on the presence of new content detected in a scrape of the webpage (“Using the news site example above, as the story unfolds and updates are made more rapidly, the system herein may detect the new content, and scrape the news site more rapidly. However, once the news site updates less frequently, the system may detect fewer changes to the content, and reduce the frequency of web scrapes.”). The claim steps do not recite this updating of frequency based on new content plus the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the data gathering steps are recited broadly and amount to receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0034 and 0050 and figure 1 network 120, which are each routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The recited memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory, and non-transitory computer-readable device are still generic components of a computer system. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 11, and 17 each recites dividing a scrape frequency parameter by the number of objects in the object list to determine an update frequency, the scrape frequency parameter specifying a time to wait before retrieving the webpage at the target URL (diving a parameter by a number is a simple mathematical calculation and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and multiplying the update frequency by a maximum number parameter specifying a maximum number of objects expected to be found on the webpage, to determine the third time (multiplying a frequency by a parameter is a simple mathematical calculation and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 3 and 12 each recites wherein retrieving the webpage addressed at the target URL comprises searching HTML at the target URL webpage for a specific content (searching in HTML for data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 4 recites wherein retrieving the webpage addressed at the target URL comprises executing a search via a search feature at the target URL webpage for a specific content (executing a search via a search feature at the target URL is retrieving data from memory at that URL, which is a routine activity per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II).
Claim 5 recites wherein the object list comprises an object, wherein the object is a URL accessible via the webpage at the target URL (an object as a URL is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 6, 13, and 18 each recites determining at least one of: (1) that the object list is empty or (2) that the object list is equal to the second object list (determining that an object list is empty or equal to a prior object list is evaluating and a mental process); and setting the third time to a default time (setting a time is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 7, 14, and 19 each recites wherein determining a number of objects in the object list from the webpage further comprises removing an object from the object list, wherein the object is in a prior object list returned from the target web page by a prior retrieval of the webpage (removing an object from a list is removing data from a list and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claims 8, 15, and 20 each recites wherein the third time to retrieve the webpage at the target URL is further determined based on a determined number of non-overlapping objects in the object list compared to the second object list (determining is evaluating and a mental process). Claim 9 recites wherein the webpage retrieval comprises a plurality of request-response interactions to establish session information for the webpage retrieval (interactions with a computer to establish session information are broadly recited and amount to mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Fariha, Faoija, “How Often Should You Scrape 3 Best Practices Revealed,” teaches best practices for scraping objects from a website, teaches rotating your user agent for scraping requests to avoid detection and blocking, does not teach compiling lists of objects at different times and comparing them to adjust scraping frequency (entire article); and
anonimus10010110, “How frequent can I send http request to website without it being considered as a DoS attack?” teaches user anonimus asking that question regarding scraping objects from the website and receiving comments, does not teach compiling lists of objects at different times and comparing them to adjust scraping frequency (entire article).
Responses to Applicants Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 8-13 of his Remarks Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong One and asserts “the claims recite a detailed solution to the problem recognized by the Inventors (e.g., dynamically updating scrape frequency SO as to make requests appear organic while maximizing the amount of content scraped from the target web page per scrape).” Examiner disagrees as the claims do not recite broad limitations without details showing how the invention dynamically updates web scrape frequency. The claims recite "compiling an object list from the webpage," "determining a number of objects in the object list," "compiling a second object list from the webpage," and determining a third time or a fourth time to retrieve the webpage when the number of objects in the second object list is greater than or less then, respectively, the number of objects in the object list. Each of these actions are recited broadly and use a computer as a tool, and thus they do not recite a specific technical solution and are not rooted in computer technology. For example, a list of objects can be compiled on a piece of paper and the number of said objects on the list determined from said piece of paper. On page 11 Applicant asserts Examiner’s Office Action asserts the claims do not recite updating the frequency based on “new content.” Examiner disagrees and notes this is a true statement as the claims update the frequency based on a comparison between the number of objects in a list of objects compiled at different times (fifth limitation “when the number of objects in the second object list is greater than the number of objects in the object list, determining, by the computing device, a third time to retrieve the webpage addressed at the target URL such that a difference between the second time and the third time is less than a difference between the first time and the second time;” seventh limitation “when the number of objects in the second object list is less than the number of objects in the object list, determining, by the computing device, a fourth time to retrieve the webpage addressed at the target URL such that a difference between the second time and the fourth time is greater than the difference between the first time and the second time;”), not based on whether there is new content in the objects.
On page 12 Applicant discusses subject matter in claims 7 and 8 recite determining new objects (wherein determining a number of objects in the object list from the webpage further comprises removing an object from the object list, wherein the object is in a prior object list returned from the target web page by a prior retrieval of the webpage; and wherein the third time to retrieve the webpage at the target URL is further determined based on a determined number of non-overlapping objects in the object list compared to the second object list, respectively). In addition to Examiner’s responses to this in his 1/27/26 office action, Examiner notes “prior object lists” are not claimed and also note objects may be updated but have the same name thus would be filtered out of the list and any new content in them lost, meaning these claims do not adjust frequency for new content. Furthermore, the additional objects compiled may relate to a website redesign and not new informational content at all, which the broadly recited limitations would miss. Also on page 12 Applicant asserts the insignificant extra-solution activity of retrieving the web page at a third time is the performance of the technical solution but this is not true. The technical solution, as technical as it is, is the determining of the third time based on the number of objects in the object list and second object list, and the retrieval of objects comes after that and does not contribute to the solution at all. Per MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) retrieving the objects at that point is necessary data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Beginning on page 13 of his Remarks Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong Two and excerpts from MPEP 2106.05(a), "important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome," and discusses sections of the specification and the claim limitations reciting a solution. On page 15 Applicant still disagrees that the claims do not specifically recite updating the frequency based on new content but then asserts "the frequency is updated based on the amount of content scraped the second time and is increased when the amount of content scraped the second time is more than the amount of content scraped the first time." Per MPEP 2106.04(d) (“A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”), Examiner still believes the claims recite mental processes which are not integrated into a practical application by the additional elements. For example, retrieving the webpage at a first and second times which is apart from compiling lists of objects and retrieving the webpage at a third time apart from and after the third time is determined do not contribute to or integrate the broadly recited actions into a practical application.
On page 16 Applicant asserts “Rejection of web scraping requests is specific to computers and the blocking of proxy servers is specific to servers,” neither of which is claimed. On pages 16-18 Applicant discusses Step 2B and the DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com case. Applicant asserts “the claims recite a solution that is rooted in computer technology overcoming a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The claims recite a particular way to improve web scraping technology by dynamically adjusting scrape time frequency.” While Examiner believes an argument can be made that web scraping is exclusive to computer networks, Examiner notes the mental process limitations are broad and do not recite a solution that is rooted in computer technology (see example of compiling a list of objects and determining the number of objects in the list on a piece of paper). On page 17 Applicant again states “The claims recite comparing the amount of content scraped in two different web scrapings to determine whether there is a difference between the amount of content scraped and updating the scraping frequency based on the difference,” showing that the claims do not recite updating scraping frequency based on new content in the objects retrieved but based on the number of objects retrieved, which Examiner showed above does not necessarily indicate new content on the webpage. Examiner further quotes from specification paragraph 0048: “Scrape system 110 may compare results of the most recent scrape to prior results to determine whether to update the frequency. If new content is identified in the current scrape [not claimed], scrape system 110 may increase the scrape frequency so content is retrieved sooner. As will be discussed below, the more new content that is identified, the sooner the next scrape may occur. If no new content is identified, scrape system 110 may not update the scrape frequency. [emphasis added]”
On page 19 Applicant asserts “the additional claim elements are not ‘well-understood, routine, conventional.’” Examiner disagrees and showed above how they were insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner showed in the rejection above that the additional elements are routine and conventional per MPEP 2106.054(d) part II.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 5/24/2026
Prosecution Insights