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 .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 1/8/26. Claim(s) none has/have been amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments and/or new claims can be found in the instant specification as there are not any amendments and/or new claims. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101s as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Roberts et al. (US 2016/0162840 A1) in view of Kerr et al. (US 2011/0238591 A1), i-Recruiter published April 19, 2020 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited), Chuang (US 2013/0275322 A1), and Daniel published June 26, 2021 (reference V on the Notice of References Cited) for claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 1/8/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 5-7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Merely mentioning natural language analysis triggers an interpretation of apply it. While the NLP may reduce computational overhead this is not included in the claim language nor does the argument provide a citation to the specification for further clarification.
The reprioritization of data displayed may be an improvement however merely stating it is an “improvement to how a server manages and allocates its own resources (that job data it displays)” is a high level (that is not detailed enough) explanation and thus triggers an interpretation of apply it.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 8 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea directed to dynamically matching clients with suppliers.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-5 and 7 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 8-12 and 14 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: allowing a client or a plurality of clients to run as their own instance in a shared environment through an application;
providing, via the application, a first graphical user interface for the client to publish one or more open jobs to a network of suppliers through the application;
providing a second graphical user interface for a plurality of suppliers for entering and managing talent data within to add talent into the shared environment;
inviting a candidate to apply to a specified job, wherein the candidate is invited by or one more suppliers from the plurality of suppliers;
providing a prompt to the candidate to choose a specific supplier from the one or more suppliers if there are multiple suppliers;
generating, upon the candidate's selection of the supplier selection by the candidate, a digital representation authorization variable further comprising a time stamp and an IP address and the candidate's consent for the specific supplier to represent the candidate for the specified job, wherein only the specific supplier can is permitted to submit a submitted candidate application of the candidate the candidate's application, and wherein the candidate also is a provided an option to join a talent pool of the specific supplier that enables the candidate to receive updates about new jobs;
storing the digital representation authorization into the shared environment via the memory of the one or more computing devices;
receiving, in the shared environment, the submitted candidate application in the shared environment, wherein the candidate can only be submitted for the specified job once, and wherein the digital representation authorization variable is required of every submitted candidate for every open job, and wherein the shared environment only allows the specific supplier consented to in the digital representation authorization variable to submit the represented candidate's application for the specified job to prevent duplicate submissions;
automatically identifying and strictly suppressing, within the execution environment of the one or more computing devices, any attempted submission of the candidate application by other suppliers or clients not associated with the selected supplier as identified in the digital representation authorization variable in the shared environment;
filtering and displaying, via a real-time display interface, candidate resumes that meet predefined relevance criteria for each open job based on skill and experience matching, natural language analysis of resume content, and geographic proximity to the job location;
dynamically reprioritizing open job listings presented to each supplier based on submission-to-hire performance metrics specific to that supplier and relative activity levels across jobs to prevent recruiter overallocation or under allocation; and
dynamically matching a job of the client in real time to the plurality of suppliers and talent within the shared environment as each supplier adds talent into the system, wherein dynamic matching is based on performance metrics and the talent pool of the supplier.
Claim 8: the same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, and 14 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 8 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s).
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations, managing personal behavior and interactions between people) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with matching candidates to jobs.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements encompassed by the abstract idea include graphical user interfaces, application (claim(s) 1, 8), computer, cloud environment, on one or more computing devices comprising at least one processor, a memory, a non-volatile data store, and a network interface, real-time display interface (claim(s) 1), engine processor, processor, non-volatile data store, modules, communication interface (claim(s) 8), third interface (claim(s) 7, 14).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0036]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0036]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624