DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 21, 30 and 38 have been amended. No new claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are pending in this office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-34 and 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/0174613 (hereinafter Chen) (Art of record) in view US 2015/0149425 (hereinafter Friedmann).
As for claim 21 Chen discloses: A computer implemented method comprising: (a) during a first time period, receiving, from a client computing device, a web scraping request specifying a target website to capture content from (See paragraphs 0014 and 0180-0185 note the client can initiate a web crawling request in which the first step is determining which URL’s are to be targeted); (b) sending a job description of the web scraping request to a job database at a database server for storage, wherein the job database stores the status of current web scraping jobs being executed (See paragraphs 0182-0184 and 0200 note the system receives the first request at a particular time period); (c) determining, based on the job description, a second time period to wait prior to executing the web scraping request, wherein the second time period is longer than the first time period (See paragraphs 0198-0200 note the crawling frequency determines the wait time prior to executing a subsequent request); (d) after the second time period has passed, generating a web request for the target website as specified in the job description (See paragraphs 0198-0200 note the frequency determines how often subsequent crawling occurs) the ; and (e) transmitting the web request such that the web request reaches the target website via a proxy selected from a group of proxies (See paragraphs 0081, 0198-0202 note the request frequency can be adjusted based on the available proxies which perform the crawling once the request is transmitted to them).
While Chen discloses: (b) sending a job description of the web scraping request to a job database at a database server for storage, wherein the job database stores the status of current web scraping jobs being executed (See paragraphs 0182-0184 and 0200 note the system receives the first request at a particular time period), Chen however does not explicitly disclose: (b) sending a job description of the web scraping request to a job database at a database server for storage, wherein the job database stores the status of current web scraping jobs being executed, wherein the job description is based on parameters from the web scraping request. Friedmann however renders obvious: wherein the job description is based on parameters from the web scraping request (See paragraphs 0024-0034 note the parameters are the job metadata that are used as the description to match the user with the job). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the pertinent at the time the instantly claimed invention was filed to have incorporated the teaching of Friedmann into the system of Chen. The modification would have been obvious because the two references are concerned with the solution to problem of data processing, therefore there is an implicit motivation to combine these references (i.e. motivation from the references themselves). In other words, the ordinary skilled artisan, during his/her quest for a solution to the cited problem, would look to the cited references at the time the invention was made. Consequently, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references since Friedmann’s teaching would enable users of the Chen system to have more efficient processing.
As for claim 22 the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: (f) receiving content from the target website according to the web scraping request; and
(g) transmitting the content to the client computing device (See paragraphs 0106 note the system transmits copies of the files that are scrapped to the client device).
As for claim 23 the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: wherein the job description is stored within a queue of a plurality of queues at the job database (See paragraph 0175 note the seed database stores task that selected to be executed i.e. a queue of task/jobs).
As for claim 24 the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: wherein each queue of the plurality of queues has a unique time period indicating how long to wait prior to generating the web request for the target website (See paragraphs 0127, 0137 and 0199 note the system allows for configuring the time period and delay in order to avoid detection and being blocked).
As for claim 25 the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: wherein the database server is selected by: repeatedly checking health of the database server; and
determining, based on a table, the database server is enabled (See paragraph 0197 note the system verifies the security and availability of each individual proxy).
As for claim 26 the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: wherein the database server is one of a plurality of database servers (See paragraph 0066 note there can be a server group).
As for claim 28 the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: wherein the second time period is based on at least one of a level of service of the client computing device, whether the job description specifies that the web scraping request be made from a headless browser, or an identifier of the target website (See paragraphs 0018, 0109 note the websites are identified by an identifier/label).
As for claim 29 the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: (f) determining the database server is disabled based on at least one of a nonresponsive connection, an error message, or a number of job descriptions in the job database; (g) indicating the database server is disabled in the table; and (h) sending, based on the table, a second job description of a second web scraping request to a second database server (See paragraph 0137 and 0197 note the system tracks the number of unique jobs within the system and verifies the availability of the proxies and if they are not available they will not be used).
Claims 30-33 are non-transitory computer readable medium claims substantially corresponding to method of claims 21-24 and are thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 21-24.
As for claim 34 the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated and further Chen discloses: wherein to perform the health check on the database server, the operations comprise: transmitting a first message to the database server; receiving a second message from the database server; and updating a table indicating the database server is enabled (See paragraph 0197 note the system verifies the security and availability of each individual proxy and if they are not verified they will not be used).
Claims 36 and 37 are non-transitory computer readable medium claims substantially corresponding to method of claims 28 and 29 are thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 28 and 29.
Claims 38-40 are system claims substantially corresponding to the method of claims 21, 22 and 28 and are thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Friedmann as applied to claims 26 or 30 above, and further in view of US 2020/0358858 (hereinafter Shribman).
As for claims 27 and 35 the rejection of claim 26 or 30 is incorporated respectively and further Shribman discloses: wherein each of the plurality of database servers is a shard managing storage in a horizontal partition of the job database (See paragraphs 0268-0271, 0321 and 0376 note the information that the web crawler retrieves is stored and managed via horizontal partitions). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the pertinent at the time the instantly claimed invention was filed to have incorporated the teaching of Shribman into the system of Chen and Friedmann. The modification would have been obvious because the three references are concerned with the solution to problem of retrieving information from web crawling efficiently (See Chen, Friedmann and Shribman abstracts), therefore there is an implicit motivation to combine these references (i.e. motivation from the references themselves). In other words, the ordinary skilled artisan, during his/her quest for a solution to the cited problem, would look to the cited references at the time the invention was made. Consequently, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references since Shribman’s teaching would enable users of the Chen and Friedmann system to have more efficient processing.
Related prior art
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. US 2018 0060337 Kim et al. discloses a web crawling system that will store the results in a plurality of databases for searching and analysis.
2. US 2006 0230039 Shull et al. discloses using hostname data to analyze and search for information via harvesting.
3. US 2018 0219919 Crabtree et al. discloses a web crawling system that produces time based data for searching and analysis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIYAH STONE HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-0759. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)270-375098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
/Eliyah S. Harper/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights