DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 20-22 and 26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 20-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 20, applicant recites “wherein the platform host, upon receiving the task data from the sourcing management platform via the secure API, processes the task data transiently within volatile memory, and, after generating and transmitting the ranking and task status updates, deletes or otherwise removes the task data from volatile memory, such that the task data is not written to or retained in any non- volatile storage of the platform host, thereby ensuring that the task data remains stored and maintained on the sourcing management platform and is not persisted on the platform host.”
Examiner has not been able to find the supporting disclosure in the specification. Applicant briefly describes “volatile” and “nonvolatile” storage systems in [0046] of the specification as filed; however, examiner has been unable to find any discussion of:
deleting or otherwise removing the task data from volatile memory;
the task data not being written to or retained in any non-volatile storage of the platform host;
the task data being stored and maintained on the sourcing management platform and not persisted on the platform host.
Accordingly, the claim is rejected for reciting new matter. Dependent claims 21-22 and 26 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 20-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 20 is to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 20 recites the following abstract idea:
receive at least one task request associated with task data corresponding to the predetermined task, the task data being stored and maintained;
send task status updates and assignment information;
match the task data received with account data associated with the plurality of provider user devices by comparing the task data with the account data;
display a ranking of compatibility of the plurality of provider user devices based on a percentage of matching task data and account data;
wherein, upon receiving the task data, [process] the task data transiently, and, after generating and transmitting the ranking and task status updates, [delete] or otherwise [remove] the task data, such that the task data is not written to or retained.
The limitations above, taken together, recite the specific rules and/or instructions pertaining to matching a client with a provider, based on compatibility. This is further supported by para. [0022] of applicant’s specification as filed . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, as described above, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The claim recites the following additional elements: a platform host; one or more user devices in communication with the platform host, the user devices comprising a client user device and a plurality of provider user devices; a sourcing management platform associated with the client user device, the sourcing management platform comprising at least one of an external or internal vendor management system (VMS) or an applicant tracking system (ATS), the sourcing management platform being in bi-directional communication with the platform host via a secure an application programming interface (API); [the task data being stored and maintained] on the sourcing management platform and not stored on the platform host; in real time; without the task data being stored on the platform host; wherein, for non-enterprise client user devices, the client user device interfaces directly with the platform host without the sourcing management platform; from the sourcing management platform via the secure API; [not written to or retained in] any non-volatile storage of the platform host volatile memory; thereby ensuring that the task data remains stored and maintained on the sourcing management platform and is not persisted on the platform host.
These additional elements are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea and/or described in a results-oriented manner. MPEP 2106.05(f) is explicit that this does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, applicant has only described generic computing elements, as seen in the specification:
[0042] Computing system 510 can include any smart phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, or other computing or mobile device capable of reading, and/or recording data about systems, devices, locations, and/or equipment, etc. Computing system 550 can include any server computer, desktop computer, laptop computer, or other device capable of storing and managing data communication by and between one or more computing systems 510 and other similar computing systems.
[0051] Storage system 554 can comprise any storage media readable by processing system 556, and capable of storing software 552 and data from computing system 510. Data from computing system 510 may be stored in a word, excel, or any other form of digital file. Storage system 554 can include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Storage system 554 can be implemented as a single storage device but may also be implemented across multiple storage devices or sub-systems. Storage system 554 can comprise additional elements, such as a controller, capable of communicating with processing system 556.
Lastly, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system that facilitates data transmission. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer and/or the internet, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer and/or the internet, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system that facilitates data transmission. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 21-22 and 26, in addition to narrowing the abstract idea, include further additional elements, beyond those highlighted above (claim 21: external sourcing platform in communication with the platform host via an application programming interface; claim 22: external sourcing platform comprising a clearinghouse in communication with the platform host via an application programming interface).
Similar to above, applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer and/or the internet, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These further additional elements, when viewed alone or in combination with those above, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 20-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 11/13/25 have been carefully considered. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant.
Applicant is thanked for their amendments overcoming the previous claim objections, which are withdrawn.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
After summarizing the present claim amendments and § 101 Analysis, applicant offers:
Here, the Office Action identifies "matching a client with a provider" as a method of organizing human activity and characterizes the additional elements as mere tools for implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Respectfully, this characterization disregards the claimed architecture and operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and which reflect a concrete improvement to computer functionality and the technical field of distributed enterprise integrations:
The claims require secure, bi-directional, real-time API communication between the platform host and external VMS/ATS systems. Establishing, maintaining, and using a secure, bi- directional API to push/pull task status updates and assignment information in real time is not a mental process and cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The claims require that task data be stored and maintained on the sourcing management platform and explicitly not stored on the platform host. The amended claim further recites that the platform host processes such task data within volatile memory and purges it upon transmission of the ranking and status updates, thereby avoiding persistence to non-volatile storage on the platform host. This is a particular solution to a computer-technology problem-eliminating host-side data duplication and local storage-to enhance privacy, reduce attack surface, and centralize authoritative data within enterprise systems of record.
The claims distinguish enterprise vs. non-enterprise workflows, with non-enterprise client devices interfacing directly with the platform host, and enterprise clients interfacing via the external sourcing management platform. This is a specific technical architecture and not simply a business practice; the platform host adapts its data handling and communications based on client type.
The dependent claims recite further technical integrations: API-based job-posting generation on external platforms (claim 21), identity confirmation via a clearinghouse over API (claim 22), and automatic assignment by the platform host (claim 26) based on computed ranking-each operating in real-time and within the constraints that task data is never persisted on the platform host.
Under the Memorandum, these limitations must be assessed in combination to determine whether they integrate any putative abstract idea into a practical application. They do.
While well taken, examiner’s position is that the additional elements referenced above, for both the independent and dependent claims, are merely being applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that simply reciting the idea of a solution or outcome, as opposed to the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, is equivalent to “apply it”:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
[…]
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
In this instance, applicant recited generic computing elements, as seen in the specification:
[0042] Computing system 510 can include any smart phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, or other computing or mobile device capable of reading, and/or recording data about systems, devices, locations, and/or equipment, etc. Computing system 550 can include any server computer, desktop computer, laptop computer, or other device capable of storing and managing data communication by and between one or more computing systems 510 and other similar computing systems.
[0051] Storage system 554 can comprise any storage media readable by processing system 556, and capable of storing software 552 and data from computing system 510. Data from computing system 510 may be stored in a word, excel, or any other form of digital file. Storage system 554 can include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Storage system 554 can be implemented as a single storage device but may also be implemented across multiple storage devices or sub-systems. Storage system 554 can comprise additional elements, such as a controller, capable of communicating with processing system 556.
Applicant continues, highlighting certain additional elements (i. real-time, bi-directional secure API communications with external VMS/ATS systems; ii. transient, volatile-memory-only processing of task data at the platform host with purging immediately upon transmission of ranking and status updates; and iii. system-driven automatic assignment and external clearinghouse identity confirmations via APIs), before offering.
These are not mental processes. The Memorandum cautions against expanding the mental- process grouping to limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, particularly in Al/software arts. The Examiner's analysis does exactly that by treating distributed API integrations and volatile-memory-only processing constraints as mere "apply it" on a computer rather than acknowledging their technical nature.
Here, applicant has conflated the abstract idea with the additional elements. Examiner further notes that the Mental Process grouping was not relied upon at Step 2A Prong One.
Applicant continues, regarding Step 2A Prong Two:
The claims improve computer functionality and the technical field of distributed enterprise integrations by eliminating host-side persistence of task data, thereby reducing duplication, ensuring data centrality within systems of record (VMS/ATS), and improving data privacy and breach-surface reduction.
The claims recite a particular way of achieving real-time synchronization and integration bi-directional, secure API communications with transient, volatile-memory-only processing at the host-rather than merely an idea of matching.
The claim architecture imposes meaningful limits that are not insignificant extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations; they are the core technical solution.
These features are analogous to the USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example analyses where claims are eligible because they reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, integrating any abstract idea into a practical application. In Example 47 (Anomaly Detection), claim 3 was eligible because the claimed steps improved network security by using the output of an ANN to automatically drop malicious packets and block future traffic in real time an improvement to a technical field. Here, the claims similarly improve the technical field of enterprise workflow integrations by requiring secure, bi-directional, real-time API communication and prohibiting host-side persistence, thereby improving data privacy and system security. As the Memorandum notes, examiners should consider whether the claim covers a particular solution to a technological problem. It does.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner first notes that applicant’s claim is not comparable to Claim 3 of Example 47. Applicant’s claim does not recite contain any features that relate to network management. Instead, the claim describes a system for matching tasks with users. Secondly, applicant’s specification contains no discussion regarding host-side persistence of task data. Examiner has been unable to find a single instance of the term “persistence” (or similar words) in the disclosure. Applicant’s suggestion appears tenuous at best. Therefore, examiner maintains that the abstract idea is not integrated into practical application and that the computers and/or machinery being recited are merely being used for the tasks of the abstract idea vs. improving a technical field.
Lastly, in response to applicant’s remarks regarding the additional elements being significantly more at Step 2B, examiner’s position is that, based on MPEP 2106.05(II), the claims are ineligible:
Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h);
Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). (Examiner’s highlight.)
In accordance with the second bullet point above, examiner “carried over” the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two that pertain to MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., the additional elements do no more than facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, and applicant has only described generic computing elements, as seen in para. [0042] and [0051] of the specification as filed.
Accordingly, examiner maintains that the claims not eligible.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant's amendments and clarifying remarks with respect to the previous rejections under 35 USC §103 are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. In an updated search, examiner identified the following references, which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor and/or newly added claim features, stop short of the specificity required by the claim:
Jogalekar (US 20150134386) teaches: [0058] Other embodiments use a removable storage device (such as a floppy disk or a flash drive) as the permanent storage device 525. Like the permanent storage device 525, the system memory 515 is a read-and-write memory device. However, unlike storage device 525, the system memory 515 is a volatile read-and-write memory, such as a random access memory. The system memory 515 stores some of the instructions and data that the processor needs at runtime. In some embodiments, the invention's processes are stored in the system memory 515, the permanent storage device 525, and/or the read-only 520. For example, the various memory units include instructions for processing appearance alterations of displayable characters in accordance with some embodiments. From these various memory units, the processing unit(s) 510 retrieves instructions to execute and data to process in order to execute the processes of some embodiments.
Wu (US 20150310392) teaches: [0012] While broad dissemination of a job posting may be desirable in certain circumstances, it may be inefficient for a job-posting entity to display jobs to users who have no interest in a particular job. This lack of interest could be because the posted job is not within the user's current area of expertise and experience, or because the job is not within the area that the user is hoping to move into. Consequently, a system has been developed that displays job postings to users and/or members of a social or business network based on a browsing history (of posted jobs) of the user, and in an embodiment, on jobs viewed by one or more other users who have also viewed a job that was viewed by the user. In this way, a user or member may receive additional pertinent job postings based on the user's job browsing history. Relatedly, job posting entities may sponsor job postings on a social or business network or on a platform with access to the user's browsing history with the increased expectation that the expense of sponsoring a job posting may be relatively more likely to result in the job posting being presented to a user who has an interest in the job posting.
Pattabiraman (US 20180322464) teaches: [0024] In example embodiments, the Top Jobs back-end system includes a path (e.g., an application program interface and associated database tables) for providing a baseline of results in various user contexts in which information about available job openings is surfaced to members. Such user contexts may include, for example, a specialized Top Jobs context, in which top jobs are surfaced to members of the social networking system via one or more of specialized user interfaces, as described herein. Such user contexts may also include a job search context, in which job relevancy data collected by the Top Jobs back-end system is used to enhance job posting search results presented via a job search system front-end for searches initiated (e.g., with or without query terms and/or location filters or facets). Such user contexts may also include a job recommendation context, in which job recommendations, or “jobs you may be interested in,” presented via a job recommendation system front-end, are enhanced or modified via based on relevancy data collected by the Top Jobs back-end system. Such user context may include a candidate recommendation context, in which “candidates you may be interested in” surfaced to job recruiters via a candidate recommendation front-end system, are enhanced or modified based on relevancy data collected by the Top Jobs back-end system. Such user contexts may include an alerts context, in which members of the social networking system are notified of breaking jobs—e.g., new jobs having particular relevance to the member—as described herein.
In summary, examiner has responded to all of applicant’s remarks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see citations above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights