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 .
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 7/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/10/2024 and 01/14/2026 complies with the provisions of M.P.E.P 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration filed on 7/30/2024 has been considered as to the merits.
Abstract
The Abstract filed on 7/30/2024 has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 7/30/2024 have been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claims 10 and 17 recite the limitations “receiving/receive…; and extract/extracting…”. The term “and” need to be remove from the claims.
Claim Interpretations
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.
Claim 19 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 is" a cloud name evaluation service configured to… " in claim 19. According to the MPEP 2181, section II.B indicates that when the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. For this case, the claim involves a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function (In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); and see In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)). And see, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239)).
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 20 is dependent on claim 19. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rejection as claim 19 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 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 19 recites the limitation “a cloud name evaluation service configured to...”, is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general-purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. For this case, the claim involves a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function (In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); and see In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)). And see, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239)). Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to recite the limitation as “a hardware processor implementing a first document classification controller in order to overcome the rejection. Claim 20 is depending on claim 19. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 19 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a could resource”, which is not mention in the specification. Further, the term “could”, which raises doubt and possibility as whether operation follow the term will perform. It is not an absolute indicated process. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “rejecting the candidate name in response to the score being outside the predetermined threshold range”. The claim provides no guidance as to what/how this step of rejecting the candidate name is identified and performed as such. Applicant is required for clarification/correction is required. Applicant is reminder that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “reject the candidate name in response to the score being outside the predetermined threshold range”. The claim provides no guidance as to what/how this step of rejecting the candidate name is performed as such. Applicant is required for clarification/correction is required. Applicant is reminder that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “accepting or rejecting the candidate cloud resource name for use in the cloud platform based on the score”. The claim provides no guidance as to what condition and how this step of accepting and rejecting the candidate name is identified and performed as such. Applicant is required for clarification/correction is required. Applicant is reminder that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13 and 19
Step 1:
Claims 1, 13 and 19 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“receiving...; receiving...; receiving...; comparing…; assign…”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “receiving...; receiving...; receiving...; comparing…; assign…”, in the context of the claim encompasses one can manually or mentally with the aid of pen and paper.
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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements:
“providing…; rejecting/reject…; accepting/accept…”, amount to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“cloud platform; system; cloud service; respective cloud service; cloud resource; cloud platform; cloud endpoints ” is a mere implementation using a computer. It is at best generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning (see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“processor(s), Memory, displayer, non-transitory computer readable storage media” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
“providing…; rejecting/reject…; accepting/accept…”. These are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
“processor(s), Memory, displayer, non-transitory computer readable storage media”, amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: relevant court decision: the followings are example of the court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see versata Dev. Group, Inc. v SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Looking at the claim(s) as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and the claim(s) appear(s) to be ineligible.
Claims 2-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 13 and 19 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stockdale et al., (US 2019/0260784 A1), hereinafter “Stockdale”.
Claim 1, Stockdale discloses a method comprising:
- receiving a user input including a candidate name for a system resource of a system (par. [0059] &[0166], system user the input data with the privacy alias from the aliasing module substituted for the data value in that data field, wherein a data field name input for a user to enter a data field name; and par. [0044], a data value (e.g. the time, the name of the device, the operating system, IP addresses, etc.);
- providing a similarity check query to a vector matching engine containing a dataset of keywords derived from the system (par. [0032], the comparison module to apply one or more models trained on different aspects of this process, and the cyber threat module to identify cyber threats based on comparisons by the comparison module. While an email module is an example mentioned, a similar module may be applied to other communication systems, such as text messaging and other possible vectors for malicious activity; and par. [0051], The clustering module can cluster the data value of each data field with other data values based on the similarity of the data value string (e.g. may be textual, numerical, etc.). Whether the data value should be anonymized is based upon its string similarity to the data values of the data fields which are still on that predefined list), the similarity check query including the candidate name (par. [0047] The clustering module can cluster the data values with other data values having similar characteristics with identified privacy levels used in the network to infer a privacy level associated with that data field…a list of defined data fields which usually contain personally identifiable data, such as but not limited to: usernames, passwords, IP addresses, hostnames, etc.);
- receiving a score from the vector matching engine, the score indicating a degree of similarity between the candidate name and at least one keyword of the dataset contained in the vector matching engine (par. [0067] and [0080], when the behavioral pattern analysis of any individual behavior or of the chain as a group is believed to be indicative of a malicious threat, then a score of how confident the defense system is in this assessment of identifying whether the unusual pattern was caused by a malicious actor is created. Next, also assigned is a threat level parameter (e.g. score or probability) indicative of what level of threat does this malicious actor pose to the system));
- comparing the score to a predetermined threshold range (par. [0054]-[0055], comparing the privacy level of the data field to a permission threshold on a user-by-user basis. The permission level of each system user is configurable to be set on the graphical user interface of the cyber threat appliance, wherein the permission module may begin by using a black list and in some cases, a white list also. A black list describes data fields to be anonymized before display. The optional white list describes data fields to be left transparent to a system user; and par. [0062], comparing the threat risk parameter to a benchmark matrix having a set of benchmark scores to determine an autonomous response. The autonomous response module is configured to identify at least one autonomous response to take in response to the cyber threat based on the threat risk parameter.); and
- rejecting the candidate name in response to the score being outside the predetermined threshold range (par. [0062] and [0138], the autonomous response module is configured to compare the threat risk parameter to a benchmark matrix having a set of benchmark scores to determine an autonomous response…reducing permissions of the network entity or disabling a user account of the network entity. A communication module can send an alert of the cyber threat with a suggested response to the cyber threat to an internal system administrator; par. [0143], If further investigation or cyber defense action requires the full identification of the person or device involved, then the system user can request de-anonymization from an authorized person who can grant or deny de-anonymization on a case by case basis).
Claim 2, Stockdale discloses receiving the user input comprises receiving an application programming interface (API) request at an endpoint to which the system resource is assigned (par. [0057], assign a permission level to the system user to determine whether the system user is permitted to view the input data subject to i) data values identifiable to any network entity will have a substituted alias when the system user is assigned a full anonymization permission level and ii) data values identifiable to merely any user of the network will have a substituted alias when the system user is assigned a reduced anonymization permission level; and par. [0045]-[0046], the clustering module can identify all data fields within input data, such as routine data fields of hostnames, email addresses, IP addresses, etc. as well as protocol-specific data fields), and wherein rejecting the candidate name comprises sending a return code to the endpoint, the return code indicating failure of the API request (par. [0062], a communication module can send an alert of the cyber threat with a suggested response to the cyber threat to an internal system administrator; par. [0143], If further investigation or cyber defense action requires the full identification of the person or device involved, then the system user can request de-anonymization from an authorized person who can grant or deny de-anonymization on a case by case basis).
Claim 3, Stockdale discloses executing, by the vector matching engine, a similarity check in response to the similarity check query, wherein executing the similarity check comprises: for each keyword included in the dataset of keywords (par. [0054]-[0055], [0062]), determining a degree of similarity between the keyword and the candidate name (par. [0067] and [0080]); determining a keyword for which the degree of similarity is highest (par. [0054]-[0055], [0062]); and determining the score based on the degree of similarity of the determined keyword (par. [0032], [0047], and [0047].
Claim 4, Stockdale discloses the user input is received from a client device, and wherein the method further comprises outputting an alert message to the client device, the alert message indicating that the candidate name is invalid (par. [0062], a communication module can send an alert of the cyber threat with a suggested response to the cyber threat to an internal system administrator; par. [0143], If further investigation or cyber defense action requires the full identification of the person or device involved, then the system user can request de-anonymization from an authorized person who can grant or deny de-anonymization on a case by case basis).
Claim 5, Stockdale discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the alert message further includes an alternative candidate name that, when provided to the vector matching engine, returns a score that is within the predetermined threshold range (par. [0051] , clustering module can cluster the data value of each data field with other data values based on the similarity of the data value string (e.g. may be textual, numerical, etc.). Whether the data value should be anonymized is based upon its string similarity to the data values of the data fields which are still on that predefined list; and par. [0067] and [0080], when the behavioral pattern analysis of any individual behavior or of the chain as a group is believed to be indicative of a malicious threat, then a score of how confident the defense system is in this assessment of identifying whether the unusual pattern was caused by a malicious actor is created. Next, also assigned is a threat level parameter (e.g. score or probability) indicative of what level of threat does this malicious actor pose to the system)).
Claim 6, Stockdale discloses receiving a second user input including a second candidate name for the system resource (par. [0029], one or more Artificial Intelligence models each trained on different users, devices, system activities and interactions between entities in the system, and other aspects of the system, as well as xiv) other similar components in the cyber threat defense system; and [0056], the permission module can adjust the permission threshold based on the geographic location. For example, the permission threshold for a first system user in Germany, which typically has stricter privacy laws, can have a lower threshold for causing a data value in a data field to be anonymized than the permission threshold for a second system user with the same permission level as the first system user, but the second system user is geographically located in the United States, which typically has laxer privacy laws than Germany; par. [0059] &[0166], system user the input data with the privacy alias from the aliasing module substituted for the data value in that data field, wherein a data field name input for a user to enter a data field name; and par. [0044], a data value (e.g. the time, the name of the device, the operating system, IP addresses, etc.);
- providing the second candidate name to the vector matching engine (par. [0029], one or more Artificial Intelligence models each trained on different users, devices, system activities and interactions between entities in the system, and other aspects of the system…other similar components in the cyber threat defense system; par. [0067] and [0080], a score of how confident the defense system is in this assessment of identifying whether the unusual pattern was caused by a malicious actor is created. Next, also assigned is a threat level parameter (e.g. score or probability) indicative of what level of threat does this malicious actor pose to the system));
- receiving a second score from the vector matching engine, the second score indicating the degree of similarity between the second candidate name and at least one keyword of the dataset contained in the vector matching engine (par. [0029], [0067] and [0080]);
- comparing the second score to the predetermined threshold range (par. [0054]-[0055] and [0062], comparing the threat risk parameter to a benchmark matrix having a set of benchmark scores to determine an autonomous response); and
- assigning the candidate name to the system resource in response to the score being within the predetermined threshold value (par. [0067] and [0080]).
Claim 7, Stockdale discloses receiving the user input comprises receiving an application programming interface (API) request at an endpoint to which the system resource is assigned, and wherein assigning the candidate name to the system resource comprises sending a return code to the endpoint indicating to continue the processing of the API request (par. [0059] &[0166], system user the input data with the privacy alias from the aliasing module substituted for the data value in that data field, wherein a data field name input for a user to enter a data field name; par. [0045]-[0046], the clustering module can identify all data fields within input data, such as routine data fields of hostnames, email addresses, IP addresses, etc. as well as protocol-specific data fields; par. [0143], If further investigation or cyber defense action requires the full identification of the person or device involved, then the system user can request de-anonymization from an authorized person who can grant or deny de-anonymization on a case by case basis)..
Claim 8, Stockdale discloses constructing the dataset of keywords derived from at least one of the system and one or more resources external to the system (par. [0051] and [0044]-[0047]).
Claim 9, Stockdale discloses the dataset of keywords are derived at least in part from the one or more services included in the system (par. [0051] and [0044]-[0047]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockdale, in view of Seed et al. (US 2016/0275190 A1), hereinafter “Seed”.
Claim 10, Stockdale discloses wherein constructing the dataset of keywords comprises: constructing the dataset of keywords from the extracted one or more keywords (par. [0057], assign a permission level to the system user to determine whether the system user is permitted to view the input data subject to i) data values identifiable to any network entity will have a substituted alias when the system user is assigned a full anonymization permission level and ii) data values identifiable to merely any user of the network will have a substituted alias when the system user is assigned a reduced anonymization permission level. The permission module can assign a permission threshold to the system user based on the organizational status of the system user).
However, Stockdale does not disclose “assigning a web crawler service to scan at least one of the system and one or more resources external to the system; receiving indexed content scanned by the web crawler service; and extracting one or more keywords from the indexed content”.
On the other hand, Seed discloses assigning a web crawler service to scan at least one of the system and one or more resources external to the system (par. [0050], the Web search engines may access cached/stored versions of the crawled resource representations stored by the Web crawler service on behalf of the sensors; and par. ]0096], select Web crawlers, services, and/or applications in the network);
receiving indexed content scanned by the web crawler service (par. [0033], a Web indexer indexes Web content discovered by a Web crawler, wherein indexing may include scanning a Web page/document to abstract key words and information that is added to a search engine's indexing database) ; and extracting one or more keywords from the indexed content (par. [0033], a Web indexer indexes Web content discovered by a Web crawler, wherein indexing may include scanning a Web page/document to abstract key words and information that is added to a search engine's indexing database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to modify the disclosures and features of Stockdale to include the features as disclosed by Seed for the purpose of support capabilities to enable devices to be efficiently and effectively crawled by Web crawlers.
Claim 11, Stockdale further discloses extracting one or more keywords from the indexed content comprises at least one of the following solutions: a rapid automatic keyword extraction (RAKE) algorithm; a machine learning algorithm trained on a prelabeled dataset manually annotated with relevant keywords; an unsupervised machine learning algorithm; or a natural language processing tool (par. [0006], machine-learning models trained).
Claim 12, Seed further discloses at a time after constructing the dataset of keywords, updating the dataset of keywords by repeating the assigning of the web crawler service, the receiving of the indexed content, and the extracting of one or more keywords from the indexed content (par. [0050], the crawler service detect changes to resources that it has crawled (e.g., new/updated resources).
Claims 13-18, are system claims, which are corresponding to the method of claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 above.
Claims 19-20, are cloud platform claims, which recite similar limitations as claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 3-5 and 10-11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)-270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
3/1/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165