Stoliartchouk, Alexei et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 28, 2020

2019003279 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/547,771 07/12/2012 Alexei Stoliartchouk 00273-0001-01000 7644 108449 7590 10/28/2020 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC 2020 K Street NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER LUDWIG, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): KRoss@bomcip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com usptomail@bomcip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEXEI STOLIARTCHOUK, FORREST JORDAN, and BAXTER BOX ___________ Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. An oral hearing was held on September 10, 2020. The record will include a written transcript of the oral hearing. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to facilitating affiliate link generation. (Abstract.) Claims 1, 12, and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for dynamically generating affiliate links over the Internet via a facilitator, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, from a user, a request to generate an affiliate link for an affiliate webpage; extracting webpage information of the affiliate webpage; assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage; dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage; compiling the record’s metadata from the information scraped and extracted; 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as REWARDSTYLE, INC. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 3 creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage, wherein the new affiliate link is associated with the user; and displaying the new affiliate link to the user. 12. A method for dynamically generating affiliate links over the Internet via a facilitator, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, from an affiliate, webpage content for a plurality of webpages and storing the webpage content in a database separate from uniform resource locator data; receiving, from a user, a request to generate an affiliate link for an affiliate webpage; assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database separate from the uniform resource locator data; displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database separate from the uniform resource locator data; displaying extracted queried webpage content separate from uniform resource locator data to the user and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database separate from the uniform resource locator data; facilitating the creation of an affiliate link, wherein the affiliate link is associated with the user; and displaying the affiliate link to the user. 14. The method of claim 12, further comprising the steps of: recording the affiliate link as unique to the user in the database; Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 4 dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage; and compiling the record’s metadata from the information scraped and extracted. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Katzin et al. US 2012/0303425 A1 Nov. 29, 2012 Ross, Jr. et al. US 8,515,825 B1 Aug. 20, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ross and Katzin. OPINION § 112, Second Paragraph Rejection Independent claim 1 We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8) that the limitations “dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage” and “creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage,” as recited in independent claim 1, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner concluded that the limitations “dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage” and “creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage” render independent claim 1 indefinite. (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4, 12.) In particular, the Examiner stated that “[t]he language does not correspond with [paragraphs 40–45 of] the specification and fails to Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 5 particularly point out and distinctly claim the relationship between the record and new affiliate link generated” because “[w]ithout any direct link between the record and the affiliate link generated the claim fails to clearly point out how the record relates to the generation of an affiliate link” (Ans. 4) and “there is a decision which is not found in the claim but leads to two distinct product and non-product type of records wherein an affiliate link is added to each distinct type of record” (id. at 12). We do not agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s Figure 2 illustrates a “flow diagram illustrating a method of generating an affiliate link.” (¶ 11.) Step 206 from Figure 2 discloses “analyze initial assessments of affiliate webpage to extract webpage information,” followed by Step 208, which makes the following determination: “does extracted webpage information match information stored for a record of a webpage in database?” From Figure 2, if the answer to Step 208 is “No,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 214, and then to Step 216, which makes the following determination: “does the scraped webpage contain product information?” From Figure 2, if the answer to Step 216 is “Yes,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 218, which discloses “create a new record of the webpage and scrape the affiliate webpage to compile the record’s metadata,” and Step 220, which discloses “dynamically generate an affiliate link for the webpage.” Thus, in view of Appellant’s flow diagram in Figure 2, in particular, Step 216, Step 218, and Step 220, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim limitations “dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage” and “creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage.” Moreover, in one unclaimed embodiment, the process flow in Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 6 Appellant’s Figure 2 includes Step 224, which makes the following determination: “did the user confirm creation of a non-product webpage affiliate link?” Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows: Figure 2 discloses at 208 that a determination is made whether extracted webpage information matches information stored for a record of a webpage in database, which correlates to the claim language “accessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the content extracted from the webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if determined the content extracted does not match.” Figure 2 further discloses at 218 “create a new record of the webpage,” which corresponds to the claim language “creating a new record of the affiliate webpage,” and also “and scrape the affiliate webpage to compile the record’s metadata,” which corresponds to the claim language “scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage.” Figure 2 further discloses at 220 “dynamically generate an affiliate link for the webpage,” which corresponds to the claim limitations “creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage.” (Appeal Br. 8.) Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations “dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage” and “creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage” would render independent claim 1 indefinite. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 2–11 depend from independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 7 Independent Claim 12 First, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9) that the limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database,” as recited in independent claim 12, complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner concluded that the limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database” renders independent claim 12 indefinite. (Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 4–5.) In particular, the Examiner found that following: It is unclear how the [claimed limitation] derives the ‘extracted queried content’. . . . More specifically, the specification recites specific steps as they relate to scraping a webpage to ascertain product information and generating a new record and metadata for the record when product information is found. The affiliate link is generated dynamically for the webpage based on product information. User is sent a prompt to confirm creation of non-product webpage affiliate link when the product information cannot be scraped from the webpage. Thus, the user is prompted to confirm creation of a non-product webpage affiliate link. The claims should be amended to clarify the language. (Ans. 4–5.) We do not agree. As discussed previously, Step 206 from Appellant’s Figure 2 discloses “analyze initial assessments of affiliate webpage to extract webpage information,” followed by Step 208, which makes the following determination: “does extracted webpage information match information Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 8 stored for a record of a webpage in database?” From Figure 2, if the answer to Step 208 is “No,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 214, and then Step 216, which makes the following determination: “does the scraped webpage contain product information?” From Figure 2, if the answer to Step 216 is “No,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 224, which makes the following determination: “did the user confirm creation of a non-product webpage affiliate link?” From Figure 2, of the answer to Step 224 is “Yes,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 226, which discloses “create a new record of the webpage and scrape the affiliate webpage to compile the record’s metadata.” Thus, in view of the flow diagram in Appellant’s Figure 2, in particular, Step 214, Step 216, Step 224, and Step 226, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claim limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database.” Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows: However, if it is determined at 208 that extracted webpage information does not match stored information, then 216 to 222 relate to the process whereby a new affiliate link is generated, which relates to “displaying extracted queried webpage content separate from uniform resource locator data to the user and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database separate from the uniform resource locator data.” (Appeal Br. 9.) Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 9 Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database,” renders independent claim 12 indefinite. Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 10) that the limitations “to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link,” as recited in independent claim 12, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner concluded that the limitations “to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” render independent claim 12 indefinite because of multiple recitations of “an affiliate link.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5.) In particular, the Examiner found the following: it is unclear whether the limitation which states ‘facilitating the creation of an affiliate, wherein the affiliate link is associated with the user’ refers to the original request to generate an affiliate link or to the limitation which discloses ‘confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database.[’] (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Independent claim 12 recites three separate instances of “an affiliate link,” as follows: (i) “receiving, from a user, a request to generate an affiliate link for an affiliate webpage”; (ii) “to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link”; and (iii) “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” (emphases added). Thus, claim 12 is indefinite because the claim Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 10 recites three separate recitations of “an affiliate link” and the interrelation between such three separate recitations is unknown. Appellant argues that “the issue identified by the Office can be corrected by the proper use of antecedent basis, which has been corrected in an accompanying amendment.” (Appeal Br. 10.) However, such amendment to independent claim 12, submitted with Appellant’s Appeal Brief, was not entered by the Examiner. (Advisory Act. 1, mailed Nov. 23, 2018.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations “to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” render independent claim 12 indefinite. Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9– 10) that the limitations “displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database,” “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database,” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link,” as recited in independent claim 12, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner concluded that the limitations “displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database,” “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 11 webpage content stored in the database,” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” render independent claim 12 indefinite. (Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 4.) In particular, the Examiner found the following: The ‘facilitating the creation of an affiliate link’ step should link within the context of the claim. The specification discloses the generation of an affiliate link corresponding to the match of content with content stored in the database and discloses a distinct way of generating an affiliate link which includes scraping an affiliate webpage if the match does not exist. The specification clearly distinguishes different affiliate links corresponding to different content stored, scraped from the webpage, or based on a non-product content. This is not clear within the context of the claim yet it seems to be what appellant is attempting to claim. (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Independent claim 12 recites “assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database separate from the uniform resource locator data,” which results in two conditional limitations: (i) “displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database”; or (ii) “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database” (emphases added). While the limitation “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” immediately follows the second conditional limitation (i.e., no match), the claim is ambiguous as to which condition must be satisfied before the step of “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” is performed. Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 12 Appellant argues the following: However, it is unclear why the Office contends that the claims should be amended, and it appears that conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the specification and drawings, because the Office does not mention Figure 2 and does not appear to have considered that figure and how it differs from the improper understanding that the Office has of the specification. (Appeal Br. 9–10.) However, other than a general allegation that the rejection is based upon “on a misunderstanding of the specification and drawings,” Appellant’s argument does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s conclusion that the claim limitations lack clarity. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations “displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database,” “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the database,” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link,” render independent claim 12 indefinite. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 13 and 15–20 depend from claim 12, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 12. Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 13 Dependent Claim 14 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 14) that the limitation “compiling the record’s metadata from the information scraped and extracted,” as recited in dependent claim 14, complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner concluded that the limitation “compiling the record’s metadata from the information scraped and extracted” renders dependent claim 14 indefinite. (Final Act. 4–5; see also Ans. 5.) In particular, the Examiner determined that “[t]he phrase ‘the information scraped and extracted’ lacks antecedent basis since there is no mention of ‘the information scraped’ in the claim or previous independent claim it depends on.” (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Claim 14 depends from independent claim 12 and recites “the information scraped and extracted” (emphasis added). While claim 12 recites the limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content” (emphases added), the claim is silent with respect to the terms “information” and “scraped.” Because dependent claim 14 recites “the information scraped and extracted,” and independent claim 12 recites different language, claim 12 provides no earlier recitation of “the information scraped and extracted” and accordingly, the claim is unclear as to what element “the information scraped and extracted” refers. Appellant argues that “the Office . . . addresses certain comments and suggested amendments to claim 14” and “are believed to be addressed by the accompanying amendment.” (Appeal Br. 14.) However, such amendments to dependent claim 14, submitted with Appellant’s Appeal Brief, were not entered by the Examiner. (Advisory Act. 1, mailed Nov. 23, 2018.) Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 14 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation “compiling the record’s metadata from the information scraped and extracted” renders dependent claim 14 indefinite. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. § 103 Rejection—Ross and Katzin We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 13–14) that the combination of Ross and Katzin would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage.” The Examiner found that the Merchant-Consumer Bridging Platform (MCB-Platform) of Katzin, which facilitates transactions between merchants and consumers, corresponds to the limitation “assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage.” (Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 6–7.) In particular, the Examiner found that “[t]he content of a URL does not include the entire URL and thus discloses webpage content other than a URL of the page.” (Ans. 14.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 15 Katzin relates to an MCB-Platform, which facilitate transactions between registered merchants and consumer electronic wallet accounts, such as “targeted offer distribution, redemption and payment during a purchasing transaction.” (¶ 73.) Figures 6C and 6D are “logic flow diagrams illustrating merchant site monitoring within implementations of the MCB- Platform.” (¶ 182.) In particular, Katzin explains the following: As shown in FIG. 6C, the MCB-Platform may obtain a new URL from merchant enrollment 6010 and add the merchant URL to a hash table. While . . . any URL exists in hash table 6012, the MCB-Platform may get a new URL from the hash table 6015, and scrape contents from the URL 6018 and extract linked URLs from contents 6020. In one implementation, the MCB-Platform may add the extracted URLs to the hash table 6025 if not in list 6023. The MCB-Platform may then pop the examined URL from the hash table and add it to a list of seen URLs 6030. (¶ 183.) Within implementations, the MCB-Platform [in FIG. 6D] may add a merchant URL from merchant enrollment to a hash table 6010, and then launch several threads 6040 which would get new URLs from hash table 6015, scrape content of the URL 6018, extract URLs from contents 6020, pop URLs from hash table 6030, add reviewed URL to a list of seen URLs 6025. The MCB-Platform may then sleep for random amount of time 6035, and pick one URL 6040 from extracted URLs to resume at 6015. If no URL exists 6040, the MCB-Platform may continue monitoring. (¶ 185.) Although the Examiner cited to the MCB-Platform of Katzin, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence that Katzin teaches the limitation “assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 16 stored in a database and if determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage” (emphases added). In particular, because Katzin explains that: (i) “the MCB-Platform may get a new URL from the hash table 6015, and scrape contents from the URL 6018 and extract linked URLs from contents 6020” (¶ 183); and (ii) “the MCB- Platform may . . . scrape content of the URL 6018, extract URLs from contents 6020, pop URLs from hash table 6030, add reviewed URL to a list of seen URLs 6025” (¶185), the Examiner has not demonstrated that that “[t]he content of a URL does not include the entire URL and thus discloses webpage content other than a URL of the page” (Ans. 14). On this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Katzin teaches the limitation “assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage.” Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “Katzin specifically states ‘scrape content of the URL 6018’ at [paragraphs 183 and 185], and does not scrape webpage content” (Appeal Br. 13) and “the URL information of Katzin . . . is not webpage information ‘other than the uniform resource locator of the webpage,’ as claimed” (id. at 14). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Appeal 2019-003279 Application 13/547,771 17 Independent claim 12 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, as well as dependent claims 13–20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed 1–20 112, second paragraph Indefiniteness 12–20 1–11 1–20 103 Ross, Katzin 1–20 Overall Outcome 12–20 1–11 AFFIRMED IN PART