Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 5, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-52 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 17, 47, and 52 are amended.
Claims 1-52 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed September 5, 2025.
Response to Arguments
As an initial matter, it appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. Applicant essentially asserts the claims reflect an advanced artificial intelligence algorithm. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims, as written, are too broad to reflect such a concept. That is, the present claims’ use of atoms only requires the claims use a semantically “small” amount of data which does not necessarily require an advanced artificial intelligence algorithm, only using a semantically “small” amount.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-46 and 52 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 recites the broad recitation “a group of at least one atom, at least one reasoning substrate, at least one model, at least one reasoning procedure, at least one simulation, at least one knowledge base, at least one CogDataPool, and at least one task”, and the claim also recites “second item comprises at least one atom” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 17 and 52 recite similar concepts and are indefinite for similar reasons.
Accordingly claims 1, 17, and 52 are rejected under 112(b). Claims 2-16 and 18-46 do not clarify this issue and accordingly are rejected due to their dependencies.
To overcome these rejections, Examiner suggests amending the claims to simplify the claims (i.e., similar to claim 47). For example, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite (emphasized) “…wherein the at least one second item comprises at least one atom…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-51 are directed to a process; and claim 52 is directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims 1 and 17
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claims 1 and 17 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, claims 1 and 17 recite an abstract idea because the step of generating an atom encompasses generating “small” amounts of data1 and the step of the generating being in support of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, etc. encompasses the models being used for identifying qualified job applicants, etc. Breaking information down to “small amounts” for identifying qualified job applicants is an abstract idea because it is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is, breaking information down for identifying qualified job applicants is a part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., analyzing pieces of a resume for assessing applicants), which is within the scope of commercial or legal interactions. Claims that recite commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 17 do not recite any additional elements (e.g. do not recite any computer components). Accordingly the abstract idea in claims 1 and 17 is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
As discussed above independent claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements. Claims 1 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 47
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 47 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 47 recites an abstract idea because the step of providing in support hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, etc. comprising an atom2 encompasses identifying qualified job applicants, etc. Identifying qualified job applicants using semantically small amounts of data is an abstract idea because it is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is, identifying qualified job applicants is a part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., analyzing pieces of a resume for assessing applicants), which is within the scope of commercial or legal interactions. Claims that recite commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 47 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 47 does not recite any additional elements (e.g. does not recite any computer components). Accordingly the abstract idea in claim 47 is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 47 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
As discussed above independent claim 47 does not include additional elements. Claim 47 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 52
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 52 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 52 recites an abstract idea because the step of performing a first and second operation using an atom3 and the step of the item contains an element generated in support of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, etc. encompasses the models being used for identifying qualified job applicants, etc. Using semantically small amounts of data for identifying qualified job applicants is an abstract idea because it is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is, breaking information down for identifying qualified job applicants is a part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., analyzing pieces of a resume for assessing applicants), which is within the scope of commercial or legal interactions. Claims that recite commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 52 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 52 recite the additional elements of a tangible, non-transitory memory communicating with a processor, having instructions stored thereon. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic memory storing software) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 52 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 52 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 52 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the following reasons.
Claims 2-9 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the first item including information relevant to employees, entities, work, personnel, jobs, job deceptions, work that needs to be and should be done, and potential candidates, still encompasses an abstract idea of generating an model for assessing job applicants (i.e., using or involving the various data claimed in claims 2-9 and 14).
Claims 10-13 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the first item including information relevant to products, customers, sales, and processes still encompasses an abstract idea of generating an model for assessing job applicants (i.e., using data about the company’s products, customers, etc.).
Claims 15 and 16 recite the additional elements of sourcing data via email and third-party sources. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data (i.e. receiving user input from various sources), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 18 and 19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because performing a simulation and generating information relevant to an explanation is still within the scope of modeling (i.e. modeling preferences for job applicants).
Claims 20 recites the additional elements of collecting information. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data (i.e. receiving user input from various sources), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 21-25 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating information relevant to personnel, entities, content of work, work description, and a job still encompasses an abstract idea of generating an model for assessing job applicants because (i.e., using or involving the various data claimed in claims 21-25).
Claims 26-35 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating messages, questionnaire, interviews, and recommendations, as claimed, is still a part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., generating the claimed items during a hiring campaign).
Claims 36-46 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating the information claimed in claims 36-46 is a part of the recruiting or hiring process (e.g., performing background checks on job applicants and reviewing their qualifications).
Claims 48-50 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because providing the claimed information is a part of the recruiting or hiring process (e.g., providing information on relevant backgrounds).
Claim 51 recites the additional elements of a user interaction with a computer. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-27, 29-35, 39, 40, 42-44, and 46-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US Pub. No. 2014/0122152, herein referred to as “Lee” in view of Rajagopal, Dheeraj, et al. "Commonsense-based topic modeling." Proceedings of the second international workshop on issues of sentiment discovery and opinion mining. 2013, herein referred to as “Rajagopal”.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
at least one first item selected from the group of generating information with reference to at least one second item (generates notifications of matches, e.g., ¶[0044])
and generating at least one element of at least one second item, wherein the at least one second item is selected from the group of at least one atom, at least one reasoning substrate, at least one model, at least one reasoning procedure, at least one simulation, at least one knowledge base, and at least one CogDataPool, and at least one task (provides matching algorithms, e.g. ¶¶[0075]-[0076], [0097] and Fig. 4B),
and wherein at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item supports at least one operation supporting at least one third item selected from the group of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, predicting at least one element of information in support of hiring, and predicting at least one personnel maintenance-related metric (process is used for hiring and hiring job candidates, e.g. ¶[0086] and Abstract).
However Lee does not teach but Rajagopal does teach:
wherein at least one element of the at least one second item comprises at least one atom (uses atoms, e.g., Abstract, pgs. 1-2)
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee with the semantic parsing of Rajagopal because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches using concepts to match applicants and jobs. One of ordinary skill would have recognized this matching would be improved by using the semantic parsing of Rajagopal to identify the concepts that are being matched.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to employees or potential employees (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to entities (collects information including industry, specific area, position, experience, ¶¶[0055], [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to work (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to personnel (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to jobs (collected information includes information on jobs, ¶¶[0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to job descriptions (collects information on job summaries, ¶[0157] and Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to work that needs to be done (collects information on job summaries, ¶[0157] and Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to work that should be done (collects information on job summaries, ¶[0157] and Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to products (includes information on industry and specific area, ¶¶[0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to customers (includes information on industry and specific area, ¶¶[0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to sales (includes information on industry and specific area, ¶¶[0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to processes (captures industry and specific area as a two-step process, ¶[0063], and includes interview process, ¶[0088]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information relevant to potential candidates (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information sourced via electronic mail (organizes interviews via email, ¶¶[0081]-[0082] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one of the at least one first item or the at least one second item includes information sourced via third-party sources (crawls external websites, ¶[0048]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches:
performing, with reference to at least one first item selected from the group of at least one atom, at least one reasoning substrate, at least one model, at least one reasoning procedure, at least one CogDataPool. at least one knowledge base, at least one simulation, and at least one task, and at least one CogDataPool (provides matching algorithms, e.g. ¶¶[0075]-[0076], [0097] and Fig. 4B),
and wherein the performing at least one first item supports at least one operation supporting at least one second item selected from the group of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, predicting at least one element of information in support of hiring, and predicting at least one personnel maintenance-related metric. (process is used for hiring and hiring job candidates, e.g. ¶[0086] and Abstract).
However Lee does not teach but Rajagopal does teach:
wherein at least one element of the at least one first item comprises at least one atom (uses atoms, e.g., Abstract, pgs. 1-2)
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee with the semantic parsing of Rajagopal because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches using concepts to match applicants and jobs. One of ordinary skill would have recognized this matching would be improved by using the semantic parsing of Rajagopal to identify the concepts that are being matched.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
performing at least one simulation (provides matching algorithms, e.g. ¶¶[0075]-[0076], [0097] and Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information relevant to explanation (report matches, ¶[0127]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee teaches:
collecting information relevant to at least one element of at least one outcome of the at least one operation (collects information including industry, specific area, position, experience, ¶¶[0055], [0061]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information relevant to personnel or maintaining personnel (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information relevant to entities (collects information including industry, specific area, position, experience, ¶¶[0055], [0061]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating at least one element of the content of work that should be done (collected information includes information on jobs, ¶¶[0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating at least one element of at least one work description or job description (collected information includes information on jobs, ¶¶[0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating at least one element of the content of at least one job (collected information includes information on jobs, ¶¶[0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating at least one element of at least one persuasive message (sends email requesting interview, ¶[0082]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating at least one element of at least one general message (match results are presented to both parties, ¶[0077]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information relevant to at least one interview (determines whether a current date and a current time match the finalized set of scheduling information, ¶¶[0047], [0080]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
providing real-time support (provides login assistance, ¶[0118]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating at least one interview/no- interview recommendation (matches applicants for interviewing, ¶[0077]-[0080] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information relevant to at least one negotiation (collected information includes hourly pay, ¶¶[0068], [0128]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information relevant to rating or ranking at least one candidate (allows employers to rank candidates, ¶¶[0080], [0086]).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating negotiation-related recommendations (collected information includes hourly pay requested, ¶¶[0068], [0128]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating salary-related recommendations (collected information includes hourly pay requested, ¶¶[0068], [0128]).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information related to work or work contributions (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information related to work experience (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information related to personnel (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information directing at least one person towards specific work (matches employers and job seekers, ¶¶[0077]-[0078] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information related to at least one solution to at least one problem (system solves various problems, ¶[0014]).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Lee teaches:
generating information related to at least one item selected from the group of past state, present state, or future state of at least one item selected from the group of person, entity, outcome, customer, emotions, psychology, mind, action, job, work, interview, belief, behavior, and risk users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 47, Lee teaches:
providing real-time interactive capabilities in support of at least one item selected from the group of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, predicting at least one element of information in support of hiring, and predicting at least one personnel maintenance- related metric (provides matching algorithms, e.g. ¶¶[0075]-[0076], [0097] and Fig. 4B, and process is used for hiring and hiring job candidates, e.g. ¶[0086] and Abstract).
However Lee does not teach but Rajagopal does teach:
wherein at least one element of the providing of the capabilities comprises at least one atom (uses atoms, e.g., Abstract, pgs. 1-2).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee with the semantic parsing of Rajagopal because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches using concepts to match applicants and jobs. One of ordinary skill would have recognized this matching would be improved by using the semantic parsing of Rajagopal to identify the concepts that are being matched.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 47 and Lee teaches:
the provision of information related to at least one topic (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 47 and Lee teaches:
the provision of information related to at least one aspect of personal background (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 47 and Lee teaches:
the provision of information related to at least one aspect of entity background (users provide various information related to their experience, etc., ¶¶[0064]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 47 and Lee teaches:
two-way interactive interaction between a user and a computer (systems is computer based, e.g., ¶[0040] and Fig. 2; see also ).
Regarding claim 52, Lee teaches:
a tangible, non-transitory memory communicating with a processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (non-transitory computer readable storage medium and processor, ¶[0053])
at least one item selected from the group of: performing at least one first operation, wherein the at least one first operation retrieves, accesses, uses, references, or modifies with reference to at least one first item selected from the group of at least one atom, at least one reasoning substrate-at least one model, at least one reasoning procedure, at least one knowledge base, and at least one CogDataPool at least one simulation, and at least one task (provides matching algorithms, e.g. ¶¶[0075]-[0076], [0097] and Fig. 4B)
and wherein the at least one first item contains comprises at least one first element generated in support of at least one operation performed in support of at least one item selected from the group of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, predicting at least one element of information in support of hiring, and predicting at least one personnel maintenance-related metric (process is used for hiring and hiring job candidates, e.g. ¶[0086] and Abstract),
and performing, at least one second operation in support of at least one item selected from the group of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, predicting at least one element of information in support of hiring, and predicting at least one personnel maintenance-related metric wherein the at least one second operation retrieves, accesses, uses, references, or modifies at least one second item from the group of at least one atom, at least one reasoning substrate, at least one model, at least one reasoning procedure, at least one knowledge base, at least one CogDataPool, at least one simulation. and at least one task (uses matching algorithms, e.g. ¶¶[0075]-[0076], [0097] and Fig. 4B)
in support of at least one item selected from the group of hiring personnel, maintaining personnel, predicting at least one element of information in support of hiring, and predicting at least one personnel maintenance-related metric (process is used for hiring and hiring job candidates, e.g. ¶[0086] and Abstract).
However Lee does not teach but Rajagopal does teach:
and wherein at least one element of the at least one first item or the at least one first operation comprises at least one atom (uses atoms, e.g., Abstract, pgs. 1-2)
and wherein at least one element of the at least one second item or the at least one second operation comprises at least one atom (uses atoms, e.g., Abstract, pgs. 1-2).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee with the semantic parsing of Rajagopal because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches using concepts to match applicants and jobs. One of ordinary skill would have recognized this matching would be improved by using the semantic parsing of Rajagopal to identify the concepts that are being matched.
Claim(s) 28, 36-38, 41 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Rajagopal further in view of Clark et al US Pub. No. 2013/0332381, herein referred to as “Clark”.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and does not teach but Clark does teach:
generating at least one element of at least one questionnaire (employers add various tests to interviews, ¶[0033]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee and Rajagopal with the interview creation of Clark because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches scheduling interviews. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Lee would likely be interested in customizing their interviews, e.g. as taught by Clark, and accordingly would have modified Lee to include an interview customization functionality.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and does not teach but Clark does teach:
generating information related to state of mind (tests include personality tests, aptitude tests, ¶[0033]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee and Rajagopal with the interview creation of Clark because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches scheduling interviews. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Lee would likely be interested in customizing their interviews, e.g. as taught by Clark, and accordingly would have modified Lee to include an interview customization functionality.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and does not teach but Clark does teach:
generating information related to likelihood of creating security threats (interview elements include criminal records, ¶[0033]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee and Rajagopal with the interview creation of Clark because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches scheduling interviews. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Lee would likely be interested in customizing their interviews, e.g. as taught by Clark, and accordingly would have modified Lee to include an interview customization functionality.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and does not teach but Clark does teach:
generating information related to safety (interview elements include driving records, criminal records, background check information, government agency disclosures, ¶[0033]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee and Rajagopal with the interview creation of Clark because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches scheduling interviews. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Lee would likely be interested in customizing their interviews, e.g. as taught by Clark, and accordingly would have modified Lee to include an interview customization functionality.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and does not teach but Clark does teach:
generating information related to risk (interview elements driving records, criminal records, background check information, government agency disclosures, ¶[0033]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee and Rajagopal with the interview creation of Clark because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches scheduling interviews. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Lee would likely be interested in customizing their interviews, e.g. as taught by Clark, and accordingly would have modified Lee to include an interview customization functionality.
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Lee and Rajagopal teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and does not teach but Clark does teach:
generating information related to protecting against at least one risk (interview elements driving records, criminal records, background check information, government agency disclosures, ¶[0033]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the matching and scheduling of Lee and Rajagopal with the interview creation of Clark because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Lee teaches scheduling interviews. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Lee would likely be interested in customizing their interviews, e.g. as taught by Clark, and accordingly would have modified Lee to include an interview customization functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes the present application defines an atom as a semantically “small” amount of data in ¶[0043] of 15/573,308 which is incorporated by reference.
2 Examiner notes the present application defines an atom as a semantically “small” amount of data in ¶[0043] of 15/573,308 which is incorporated by reference.
3 Examiner notes the present application defines an atom as a semantically “small” amount of data in ¶[0043] of 15/573,308 which is incorporated by reference.