DETAILED ACTION
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed June 12, 2026.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered and some are persuasive, while others are not. Accordingly, rejections have been removed where arguments were persuasive, but rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, a new rejection based on the newly added amendments have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected and this action has been made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to 35 USC 112(f) and 112(b) have been fully considered, such that “the claim limitation is not to be treated with 35 USC 112(f), not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)….the 35 USC 112(f) does not apply…does not admit such interpretation is proper…does not require specific or specialize hardware (e.g., pages 1-7). The arguments are not persuasive. The claim recited limitations are generic placeholder, and they invoke 112(f) (e.g., configuration manager, custom solver is the same as means or steps for). All the elements as disclosed in the specification (e.g. session manager server, proxy server) can be merely software (see specification [0029], [0039]). As such the 112(b) rejection is hereby sustained. In order to overcome each of the placeholder needs to be executed by the hardware processor. As disclosed in MPEP 2181, the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure, material or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259-60, 85 USPQ2d 1787, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure."); see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
4. Applicant's arguments directed to 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicants arguing that “Juravicius and Barel do not teach or suggest…Barel describes a cyber intelligence hub for gathering information…for the purpose of analyzing the information…does not teach providing web scrapping countermeasure solvers or…a session analysis server…para [0040] not all for the purpose of…..counter measure solutions..neither disclose not suggest, ‘solving a web scrapping countermeasure challenge…including the web scrapping countermeasure solution..a bespoke webpage solution for a….countermeasure solver’ as recited in claim 1…render obvious claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants arguments for several reasons. The claims have been rejected by Juravicius and Barel. The claim does not recite for the purpose of processing responses etc.. As such, the arguments are moot. Further, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (see [MPEP § 2144], In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972)). Further, Juravicius teaches the claimed invention including the limitations of solve a web scraping…challenge from the target website and provide a web scraping ….solution to the custom solver… wherein the system is configured to generate a configuration profile including the web scrapping….solution” ([0021], [0022], e.g., processing the web server’s responses all of the listed types of scrapping applications, the web target's response, execute and interpret JavaScript code. Enriching the browser profile, HTTP protocol, HTTP transactions, cookies etc., [0030], [0095], e.g., solution provided to ensure the scrapping requests obtain the desired data while avoiding mitigating the customized content presentation policies at the targeted web sites). Juravicius teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitations of “countermeasure rules”, a bespoke webpage; countermeasure solver or countermeasure challenge; countermeasure solution”. In the same field of endeavor, Barel teaches the limitations of “a bespoke webpage; countermeasure solver or countermeasure challenge; countermeasure solution” (see
a cyber intelligence channel communicating include web crawlers and scrapers ([0015],
users to evaluate the intention of its target and take the required measures for generating a the required outcome (e.g., evaluate the intention of its target and the required measures for generating a the required outcome read the limitations of countermeasure solver or countermeasure challenge; countermeasure solution) ([0025]), enable the users of the information to constantly update their evaluation of the threat map they are exposed to at any given moment and to initiate the necessary precautionary measures (e.g., constantly update their evaluation and to initiate the necessary precautionary measures teaches countermeasure), ([0027]), e.g., bespoke list is created for each consumer based on their essential elements of information (EEI's), and is updated constantly [0040], [0080]). Therefore, the combined references teach the claim recited limitations. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (see [MPEP § 2144]). Applicant’s fails to consider each of the paragraphs on Juravicius and Barel references. Any other arguments made by the Applicant’s are similar arguments and are moot for the reasons set forth above and in the detailed office action. The Applicant’s also fails to consider the references cited in the ‘prior art of record’ (e.g., non-final rejection mailed on 03/12/26, pages 19-20). The Examiner encourages the full consideration of the references cited in the “Prior Art” on record. Consideration of the references which were cited as the prior art of record is recommended to properly amend the claims of the instant application to be patentably distinguished beyond the prior art of record. Examiner examines the claims based on ‘broad and reasonable interpretation of claim’ as recommended by MPEP§ 2105. An applicant can always amend a claim during prosecution to better reflect the intended scope of the claim.
Remarks
5. Claims 1-12 are interpreted as including limitations which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-12 recited the limitations of “a configuration manager”, “a custom solver”, “an application programming interface (API) gateway server configured to obtain a session strategy”, “API gateway being configured to route the target webpage request”, “a session analysis server comprising a response analyzer”, “a browser stack configured as a web browser client”, “a browser farm comprising a plurality of proxy servers”, “a circuit breaker configured for webpage fetching rate limits”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Therefore, the claim limitations as indicated as above are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-12 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.
With respect to claims 1, 5, 6 and 11, recites the following function limitations: “a configuration manager”, “a custom solver”, “an application programming interface (API) gateway server configured to obtain a session strategy”, “API gateway being configured to route the target webpage request”, “a session analysis server comprising a response analyzer”, “a browser stack configured as a web browser client”, “a browser farm comprising a plurality of proxy servers”, “a circuit breaker configured for webpage fetching rate limits” etc. These limitations invoke 35 USC § 112, ¶ 6 because they meets the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181. However, the specification and drawings do not disclose sufficient corresponding structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function. None of the function as recited in claim has links to corresponding hardware structure. As such, Applicant's failed to adequately describe sufficient structure for performing the function claimed or the specification does not disclose sufficient corresponding links and structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function. As such, Applicant‘s failed to adequately describe sufficient structure for performing the function claimed.
Dependent claims are rejected for incorporating the same deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juravicius et al. (US 2022/0100808 A1), hereinafter Juravicius in view of Barel (US 2016/0119365 A1).
As for claim 1, Juravicius teaches a system for accessing and scraping web pages, the system comprising input and a memory including non-transitory program memory for storing at least instructions and a processor that is configured to execute instructions that enable actions, the system comprising: a configuration manager for identifying and managing a website configuration for a target webpage request based on one or more webpage configuration parameters, the configuration manager being configured to generate an enriched configuration profile of a target website (see [0022], e.g., processing the web server’s responses all of the listed types of scrapping applications, obtaining, interpreting, rendering or otherwise processing, and presenting the HTTP metadata and the main HTML document, processing the additional files obtained from the web target's response, also execute and interpret JavaScript code, [0030], e.g., enriching the browser profile, HTTP protocol, HTTP transactions, cookies etc.);
the configuration manager comprising a rules database including the one or more website configuration parameters and web scrapping….rules (see [0003], e.g., web scraping (also known as screen scraping, data mining, web harvesting) in its most general sense is the automated gathering of data from the internet, [0116], employ a particular scraping application for a request i.e., the hostname or the domain of the target contained therein, against a pre-defined ruleset of matching particular hosts or domains with a scraping software best aligned with the policies and capabilities of the target);
a custom solver configured to deploy a….webpage solution for a webpage requirement comprising a web scraping…solver; an application programming interface (API) gateway server configured to obtain a session strategy and web scrapping……rules from the configuration manager for the session manager (see [0005], e.g., website allows way to transfer its structured data via an API, make a request to an API via HTTP, return this data from the website in a structured form, [0021], e.g., transmission control protocol associated with initiating session underlying HTTP request, browsers and headless browsers process the JavaScript files obtained within the web server's response, [0024], HTTP session management and personalization of the web content presented by web servers);
the API gateway being configured to route the target webpage request for fetching a target webpage from the target website based on one or more website parameters from the configuration manager, determine if the target webpage has a known configuration, and if so, route the target webpage request to the web scraping….solver; and a session analysis server comprising a response analyzer configured to process a response from the target website to the target webpage request to solve a web scraping…challenge from the target website and provide a web scraping ….solution to the custom solver (see [0030]-[0032], factor of enriching the browsing profile and mitigating the stateless nature of HTTP protocol is the notion of an HTTP cookie. The browser sends the cookie back to the server with every request, retrieve of a webpage or component of a web page. Cookies perform functions in the modern web. Method used by web servers to know whether the user is logged in or not, and which account they are logged in with. Without such a mechanism, the site would not know whether to send a page containing sensitive information, or require the user to authenticate themselves by logging in. Tracking cookies include to track users web browsing habits by collecting individual cookies and compiling long-term records of individuals' browsing histories, [0095], e.g., solution provided to ensure the scrapping requests obtain the desired data while avoiding mitigating the customized content presentation policies at the targeted web sites),
wherein the system is configured to generate a configuration profile including the web scrapping….solution for the target website based on the response analyzer’s processing of the response and store the configuration profile in the rules database of the configuration manager (see [0021], e.g., transmission control protocol associated with initiating session underlying HTTP request, browsers and headless browsers process the JavaScript files obtained within the web server's response e.g. submit configuration settings through JavaScript when requested, [0030], e.g., enriching the browser profile, HTTP protocol, HTTP transactions, cookies etc, [0095], e.g., solution provided to ensure the scrapping requests obtain the desired data while avoiding mitigating the customized content presentation policies at the targeted web sites, [0116]).
Juravicius teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitations of “countermeasure rules”, a bespoke webpage; countermeasure solver or countermeasure challenge; countermeasure solution”. In the same field of endeavor, Barel teaches the limitations of “a bespoke webpage; countermeasure solver or countermeasure challenge; countermeasure solution” (see [0025], users to evaluate the intention of its target and take the required measures for generating a the required outcome, [0027] enable the users of the information to constantly update their evaluation of the threat map they are exposed to at any given moment and to initiate the necessary precautionary measures, [0040], [0080], e.g., bespoke list is created for each consumer based on their essential elements of information (EEI's), and is updated constantly; Also see response to arguments section above).
Juravicius and Barel both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as managing websites, accessing requests, retrieving the requested data and displaying to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Barel teaching to Juravicius’s system to provide pre-emptive information that will enable organizations to deal with future risks in a proactive manner, prior to their materialization. Hence, a solution integrated into a single comprehensive hub which is capable of providing end to end cyber intelligence services to multiple users simultaneously. A cyber intelligence service provide network security for business, organizations and also multiple system and technologies (see Barel, [0006], [0007]).
As for claim 13,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 1 and 2 because claim 13 is a method claim for implementing those steps of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Barel teaching to Juravicius’s system to provide pre-emptive information that will enable organizations to deal with future risks in a proactive manner, prior to their materialization. Hence, a solution integrated into a single comprehensive hub which is capable of providing end to end cyber intelligence services to multiple users simultaneously. A cyber intelligence service provide network security for business, organizations and also multiple system and technologies (see Barel, [0006], [0007]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: a session management server operatively connected to the API, the session management server comprising: a session database comprising session state data to persist a website session for the target website based on the configuration parameters for the enriched configuration profile of the target website from configuration manager; the session management server being configured to manage webpage sessions including website access patterns that simulate manual web browsing behavior and user requests (see Juravicius, [0009], [0021], [0030]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
wherein the configuration parameters comprise one or more of: a set of ban rules; a session strategy; a set of selectors, a Javascript manager; Proxy Type; Proxy Region; Website Specific Scripts; Retry Logic; Domain Structure; Page Structure; Page resources; Website Traffic Stats; or a combination thereof (see Juravicius, [0026], [0044]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
wherein the configuration parameters comprise one or more of: a regional split of traffic, a bounce rate, an average pages visited, a duration, a page Search Engine Optimization (SEO) visibility, or a combination thereof (see Juravicius, [0029], [0057]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: a browser stack configured as a web browser client, wherein the browser stack is configured to execute webpage session requests to the target website that simulate manual user requests (see Juravicius, [0006], [0009]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: a browser farm comprising a plurality of proxy servers configured as the browser stack and operatively connected to a session management server being operatively connected to the browser farm (see Juravicius, [0010], [0034]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: the browser farm comprising at least one of proxy server being configured with one or more of: a custom browser configured to prevent headless mode detection, a browser configured with patching functions, a headful browser configured for a web browser Operating System environment, a mobile device emulator, or a combination thereof (see Juravicius, [0010], [0026], [0040]).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: a router of the API gateway being configured to route the target webpage request to the browser farm for fetching the target webpage from the target website by one of proxy servers based on one or more website parameters from the configuration manager, determine if the target webpage has a known configuration, and if not, route the target webpage request to the browser farm, and if so, route the target webpage request to the web scraping countermeasure solver (see Juravicius, [0003], [0026]; Also see, Barel, [0027]).
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
the browser farm further comprising: the session database comprising a session cache comprising intelligent cookie and cache management to prevent poisoning and client detection, a policy database comprising a plurality of cache policies and request filters, and a custom script program comprising auto-executing scripts, including a script configured to mask a headless browser and a script to emulate real browser fingerprints (see Juravicius, [0078], [0081], [0173]).
As to claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: a circuit breaker configured for webpage fetching rate limits, the API being configured to determine, via a circuit breaker, whether the target website is blocked or rate limited, and the browser farm comprises a retry mechanism configured to execute an optimum number of retries to fetch a targeted content from the target webpage (see Juravicius, [0057], [0078], [0113]; Also see Barel, [0156]).
As to claim 11, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
further comprising: a logging server configured to log target webpage request responses; and the response analyzer further comprising a machine intelligence engine configured to train on web page response data in a training database of logged target webpage request responses to identify patterns and anomalies and generate one or more configuration profiles for the configuration manager based on the analysis (see Juravicius, [0057], [0078], [0113]; Also see Barel, [0156]).
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Juravicius and Barel teaches:
wherein the browser stack comprises a stateless browser stack, and the API Gateway is directly integrated with at least: a proxy scheduler; a policy database comprising a plurality of cache policies and request filters, and a custom script program comprising auto-executing scripts, including a script configured to mask a headless browser and a script to emulate real browser fingerprints (see Juravicius, [0081], [0082], [0173]).
Claims 14-20 correspond in scope to claims 2, 5, and 8-12 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
11. US 2009/0119172 A1 teaches a bespoke instrument, an over-the-counter instrument, an exchange-listed instrument, a liquid instrument, an illiquid instrument, a cash-settlement instrument, a physical-settlement instrument, a regulated instrument, a mark-to-market instrument, and a standardized contract. The instruments and standardized contracts include terms such as trading unit, settlement method, point sites, strike date, strike price, interval, limits, price banding, minimum fluctuation, trading hours, listed platforms, minimum block size, product calendar, issuance, market-to-market policies, convergence with physical underlying entity, exchange rules, distribution and leverage on money ([0195]).
US 2013/0136253 A1 teaches tracking web interactions, such as, the amount of time a webpage was viewed, a number of times or which different items are selected on a webpage, the webpage was viewed, the number of repeated viewings over a time span, the presence or frequency of certain key-words, etc. The predefined extracted features fixed or designed by a company support team or process optimization (PO) designer and adapted on a session-by-session basis ([0039]).
EP3997590 A1 teaches web scrapping, gathering data over the internet, a human using web browser or a program interacting with an application programming interface (API). Executing the program that queries a web server and requests data automatically, then parses the data to extract the requested information ([0003]).
Also see, US 2015/0149645, US 9736214, US 20170346851, US 20170346851, US 20220100808, US 20130136253, WO2014133362, US 8976955, EP3997590A1, US 202017037429, EP123455A2, US 2019/0066133, US 20110178906, US 20090119172, US 20110178906, US 20130041781, US 20160119365, US 20200412767, US 20210092161, US 20210287147, US 20230100529, these references also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
12. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(f)).
13. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96). Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
14. 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 extension fee 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner
should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The
examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
08/28/26
Prosecution Insights