DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to Application filed June 02, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner has presented the rejections of all of the independent claims first (e.g. claims 1 and 13) followed subsequently by the rejections of the respective dependent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statements filed on 06/02/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The Specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any grammatical/spelling or any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Informalities
Claim 1, recited the limitations of “and, and if so, route the target webpage”. The term “and, and” should be only “and, if so…webpage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Remarks
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).
Claims 1 and 13 recited the limitations of “determine if the target webpage has a known configuration, and and if so, route the target webpage request to the web scrapping countermeasure solver”. The claims do not define what if not target webpage has a known configuration then what would happen. The limitations do not have patentable weight and does not distinguish from the prior art of record.
In claims 1, 2, 6, 13 and 14, recites the limitation of “operatively connected” and “operative to execute”. The claim language "operatively" or “operative” should be amended as “configured to” to show that a computer (or other hardware component) has actually be configured to perform the recited task. A computer/system that is operatively connected or operative to execute to perform a task does not necessarily perform the task.
Claims 1 and 13 recited the limitations of “enable action”, “enable method”; Claims 1 and 13 also recited the limitations of “solve” and “solution”. The terms “enable”, “solve” and “solution” does not have patentable weight. These limitations do not distinguish from the prior art of record.
Claim 4 recited the limitations of “SEO visibility”. The phrase “SEO” could be any letter/word. An abbreviation for the phrase “SEO” in a parenthesis required for the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. 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.
14. 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 § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
15. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The system of claims 1-11, and method of claims 13-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include system, memory, processor and non-transitory program memory.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1 and 13 are accessing and scraping web pages for a system comprising and input and a memory including non-transitory program memory for storing at least instructions and a processor that is operative to execute instructions that enable the method comprising: 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, the configuration manager comprising a rules database including the one or more webpage configuration parameters and web scraping countermeasure rules; executing a webpage session request to the target website that simulates a manual user request with a browser stack configured as a web browser client; deploying a bespoke webpage solution for a webpage requirement comprising a web scraping countermeasure solver from a custom solver; obtaining a session strategy from the configuration manager with an application programming interface (API) operatively connected with the configuration manager; routing, via the API, the target webpage request for fetching a target webpage from the target website based on one or more website parameters from the configuration manager; determining if the target webpage has a known configuration and if so, routing the target webpage request to the web scraping countermeasure solver; processing, by a session analysis server comprising a response analyzer, a response from the target website to the target webpage request to solve a web scraping countermeasure from the target website and provide an web scraping countermeasure solution to the custom solver; generating a configuration profile including the web scraping countermeasure solution for the target website based on the response analyzer's processing of the response; and storing the configuration profile in the rules database of the configuration manager etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting system, memory, processor and non-transitory program memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or can consider as a data gathering performance, comparing evaluation and making determination. Further, the claim recited limitations can interpret such as automate or manual gathering of data from the internet. The claim recited limitations of execute a webpage session request to the target website that simulates a manual user request with a browser stack configured as a web browser client are generating a user command, faking or copying browser visit experience, colleting webpage, finding website that user need follow through times. Furthermore, identifying and managing website configuration, obtain session strategy, session analysis server, process a response from the target website they all are merely user input. Website configuration could data or file. Session analysis server could be processing response which is mental process. Bespoke webpage solution, custom solver, API gateway server they all could be software. The limitations countermeasure solution is merely an evaluation or making decision, which are mental process. Thus the limitations are directed to abstract mental process and can be done human mind or they are merely routine and conventional. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or they are routine and conventional but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites system, memory, processor and non-transitory program memory in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element (system, memory, processor and non-transitory program memory) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1 and 13 recited additional limitations, such that generating a configuration profile including the web scraping countermeasure solution for the target website based on the response analyzer's processing of the response; and storing the configuration profile in the rules database of the configuration manager. The limitations profile is merely describing data, response analyzer processing of the response is mental process. Store the configuration profile in the rules database is routine and conventional. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to mental process or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data (e.g. Symantec...;TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...; Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g. system, memory, processor and non-transitory program memory) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recited the limitations of session management or database comprising session state data to persist a website session, access pattern that simulate manual web browsing behavior, which are describing software for storing and managing webpage. The limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claims 3 and 4 recited the limitations of configuration parameters comprising one or more of rules, strategy, javascript manager, split of traffic, a bounce rate, a page SEO visibility or a combination of thereof, which are just data and software. The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claim 5 recited the limitations of a browser stack configured as a web browser client, execute webpage session requests, simulate manual user request. The limitations are describing executing user request, grouping and copying webpage that the user need or just user experience. The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claims 6 and 7 are recited the limitations of a browser farm comprising a plurality of proxy servers, custom browser configured to prevent headless mode detection, patching function, mobile device emulator or a combination thereof. These limitations are describing plurality of computers and different types of software. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 8 recited the limitations of a router of the API gateway route and fetching the target webpage from the target website, determine if the target webpage request ha 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 scrapping countermeasure solver. These limitations are describing software, sending data corresponding to the network, evaluating, sending data over the network. The limitations are abstract mental process. Claim 9 recited the limitations of a session cache comprising intelligence cookie (software), prevent poisoning and client detection (intended use), policy database, request filters, auto executing scripts, mask a headless browser and a script to emulate real browser fingerprint. The limitations are describing software and storing data. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 10 recited the limitations of circuit breaker, determine via a circuit breaker, whether the target website is blocked or rate limited, a retry mechanism configured to optimum number of retries to fetch a targeted content from the target webpage. The limitations are describing software, intended use limitations and obtaining data. The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claim 11 recited the limitations of logging server, a machine intelligence engine, responses to identify patterns and anomalies, generate configuration profiles. The limitations are describing input to computing device and user experience. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 12 recited the limitations of proxy scheduler, a policy database comprising a plurality of cache polies, script configured to mask a headless browser, emulate real browser fingerprints. The limitations are describing software and storing data. The limitations are mental process. The claim recited limitations are do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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 operative 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 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).
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 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 the 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
19. 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
20. 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 because:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) requires antecedent basis in the Specification or original disclosure for any new language, including terms and phrases, added to the claims;
and because:
b. 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires the Drawings to illustrate or show all claimed features.
Applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty that they think the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made, and must also explain how the amendments avoid the references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c).
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety
as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
21. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96).
Contact Information
22. 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 Hosain Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3978. 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
03/06/26