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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-17 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 5 and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-17 are amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-17 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Sep. 2, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained because Applicant asserts the claimed processes do not involve an abstract idea because the processes collectively do not organize human activity. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claimed process organizes mentors and mentees, which is organizing human activity. Please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 102 and 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach all the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the new rejections of the claim as amended.
Please note, Applicant asserts Hatfield does not teach a location of a mentee. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Hatfield teaches matching based on location, ¶[0029].
Applicant also asserts the use of four references precludes an obviousness rejection. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
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 1-4, 6-9 and 11-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite because the preamble states the invention is a system but the body of the claim recites several processes. This is indefinite because a system is a different statutory category of invention than a process, see MPEP 2104. That is, it is not clear if claim 1 is intended to be interpreted as encompassing a machine capable of preforming the processes or if it is intended to be interpreted as encompassing the processes themselves.
Accordingly claim 1 is rejected under 112(b). Claims 2-4, 6-9 and 11-17 do not clarify this issue and accordingly are rejected due to their dependencies.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to clarify the system comprises a processor configured to perform the claimed processes or a memory storing instructions to perform the claimed processes, etc.
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 1-4, 6-9 and 11-17 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. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-17 are directed a machine if amended as suggested. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
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 that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…an identification process, a match process, a mentoring process, a relationship evaluation process, and an opportunity analysis process;
wherein the identification process incorporates each client selected from a plurality of clients into the mentorship integrated system;
wherein the mentorship integrated platform is a social media platform;
wherein the match process matches a mentee with a mentor based on locations of the mentee and/or the mentor;
wherein the mentoring process supports the development of a relationship between the mentor and the mentee;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the effectiveness of the relationship between the mentee and the mentor;
wherein the opportunity analysis process provides the mentee with the option to enhance their relationship network by adding to their mentor network.
wherein the plurality of clients are organized into a plurality of mentees and a plurality of mentors;
wherein the relationship evaluation process is a regularly scheduled process that reevaluates the mentee skills and suggests the mentee for acquiring new/relational skills and related mentors that are available;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the efficacy of the personal interactions between the mentee and the mentor;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the skills of the mentee to confirm that the mentee has made progress in acquiring the skills set forth between the mentee and mentor is intended to produce;
wherein the relationship evaluation process includes job search, retained job search, and verification checks;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the skills of the mentee to confirm that the mentee has made progress in improving the skills set forth between the mentee and mentor is intended to produce;
wherein the identification process comprises an account creation process, an account validation process, and a profile creation process;
wherein the account creation process has the ability to create a new profile login using a unique system id linked to a user's digital avatar;
wherein the account validation process is a security and fraud identification process;
wherein the account validation process is a verification process that validates the credentials presented by the client during the account creation process;
wherein the account validation process has the ability to integrate the user's unique digital avatar and run automated fraud authentication checks;
wherein the account validation process further has the ability to automatically validate fraud checks using the captcha process and other internal process validations including; login check, location check, concurrent login check, bot tracker, or shadow accounts;
wherein the account validation process has the ability to call out fraud alerts proactively and route them to the fraud team for further investigation and resolution.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations recite relationships or interactions between people (i.e., social activities or teaching). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., social activities or teaching) because these limitations encompass organizing mentors and mentees, and facilitating and supporting the relationships while preventing fraudulent access. That is, these limitations essentially encompass managing a mentorship program.
Claim 1 further recites a second abstract idea because claim 1 recites a job search, retained job search, and verification checks. These limitations recite commercial or legal interactions because these limitations are all a part of the job search process which is a commercial or legal activity. Claims that recite commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Further, Examiner does not find the presence of these two abstract ideas renders the claim non-abstract, see MPEP 2106.04.I discussing Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (stating combining “one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). Claims that encompass relationships or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 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 elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…an identification process, a match process, a mentoring process, a relationship evaluation process, and an opportunity analysis process;
wherein the identification process incorporates each client selected from a plurality of clients into the mentorship integrated system;
wherein the mentorship integrated platform is a social media platform;
wherein the match process matches a mentee with a mentor based on locations of the mentee and/or the mentor;
wherein the mentoring process supports the development of a relationship between the mentor and the mentee;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the effectiveness of the relationship between the mentee and the mentor;
wherein the opportunity analysis process provides the mentee with the option to enhance their relationship network by adding to their mentor network.
wherein the plurality of clients are organized into a plurality of mentees and a plurality of mentors;
wherein the relationship evaluation process is a regularly scheduled process that reevaluates the mentee skills and suggests the mentee for acquiring new/relational skills and related mentors that are available;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the efficacy of the personal interactions between the mentee and the mentor;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the skills of the mentee to confirm that the mentee has made progress in acquiring the skills set forth between the mentee and mentor is intended to produce;
wherein the relationship evaluation process includes job search, retained job search, and verification checks;
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the skills of the mentee to confirm that the mentee has made progress in improving the skills set forth between the mentee and mentor is intended to produce;
wherein the identification process comprises an account creation process, an account validation process, and a profile creation process;
wherein the account creation process has the ability to create a new profile login using a unique system id linked to a user's digital avatar;
wherein the account validation process is a security and fraud identification process;
wherein the account validation process is a verification process that validates the credentials presented by the client during the account creation process;
wherein the account validation process has the ability to integrate the user's unique digital avatar and run automated fraud authentication checks;
wherein the account validation process further has the ability to automatically validate fraud checks using the captcha process and other internal process validations including; login check, location check, concurrent login check, bot tracker, or shadow accounts;
wherein the account validation process has the ability to call out fraud alerts proactively and route them to the fraud team for further investigation and resolution.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the identification process incorporating each client, creating a profile with a login and a unique system id, and integrating the user’s unique digital avatar, 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 storing data (i.e. storing user data), 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).
Second, the additional elements of the additional elements of the integrated system being a social media system, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (social networking) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of account validation process validating credentials and automatically validating fraud checks, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer security techniques or online identity verification techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Accordingly, claim 1 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).
The independent claims do 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 and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link toa field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because: organizing clients into mentors and mentees; matching, introducing and supporting mentees and mentors; and evaluating the relationships, as claimed, are all a part of managing a mentorship program.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because: evaluating mentoring needs; selecting best matches; and enabling mentees and mentors to connect, as claimed, are all a part of managing a mentorship program.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because: searching for mentors; introducing and connecting mentors and mentees; and enabling the mentor to customize and set goal for the mentee, as claimed, are all a part of managing a mentorship program.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because: the mentee and mentor agreeing to continue mentoring or not is a part of the managing a mentoring process
Claim 6 also recites the second abstract idea because claim 6 recites searching and providing opportunities to a mentee. These limitations recite commercial or legal interactions because these limitations are all a part of the job search process which is a commercial or legal activity. Claims that recite commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Further, Examiner does not find the presence of these two abstract ideas renders the claim non-abstract, see MPEP 2106.04.I discussing Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (stating combining “one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of an account creation process, an account validation process, and a profile creation process. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing user input for the claimed accounts and profiles), 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).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because the claimed learning programs and mentoring session are a part of managing a mentorship program (i.e., providing mentoring sessions and learning programs are a part of managing a mentorship programs).
Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of the mentor endorsing the mentee’s skill and the endorsement being date-stamped viewed in the profiles. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing user input for the claimed profiles), 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).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because the claimed match review process, interpersonal evaluation process, and skills validation process are a part of managing a mentorship program (i.e., ensuring effective matches between mentees and mentors and validating the progress of a mentee are all a part of managing a mentorship program).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claim 11 and 12 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because the various claimed options for motivating and guiding mentor and mentee engagement and providing intercompany services is all a part of managing a mentoring programming (i.e., providing assistance and services to the mentors and mentees).
Regarding claims 13-15, claims 13-15 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claim because ranking mentors and mentees based on the various claimed options in claims 14 and 15 is a part of managing a mentorship program (i.e., assessing mentors and mentees).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because the claimed match review process, interpersonal evaluation process, and skills validation process are a part of managing a mentorship program (i.e., ensuring effective matches between mentees and mentors and validating the progress of a mentee are all a part of managing a mentorship program).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because claim 17 recites various steps for assessing the mentorship relationship. These steps are all a part of the part of managing a mentorship program (i.e., assessing the effectiveness of the mentoring).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield et al, US Pub. No. 2023/0145363, herein referred to as “Hatfield”, in view of Terhark et al, US Pub. No. 2018/0232751, herein referred to as “Terhark”, further in view of Elman et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0046353, herein referred to as “Elman”, further in view of Ha et al, US Pub. No. 20120226579, herein referred to as “Ha”.
Regarding claim 1, Hatfield teaches:
an identification process (mentor database stores mentor profiles, e.g., ¶[0041], and mentee profiles, e.g., ¶¶[0053]-[0055]),
a match process (matches mentors and users, ¶[0086] and Fig. 4; see also ¶[0085] noting a “user” is a mentee),
a mentoring process (connects mentors and mentees, ¶[0059]),
a relationship evaluation process (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0087]-[0088]);
and an opportunity analysis process (mentees inputs various information like information to be included the mentee profile for the mentee, provide feedback while being mentored or after being mentored, ¶¶[0046], [0076]);
wherein the identification process incorporates each client selected from a plurality of clients into the mentorship integrated system (mentor database stores mentor profiles, e.g., ¶[0041], and mentee profiles, e.g., ¶¶[0053]-[0055]; see also, e.g., ¶[0085] and Fig. 4 discussing mentees registering with the system; and ¶[0091] discussing creating mentor profiles);
wherein the mentorship integrated system is a social media system (system connects mentors and mentees, e.g., ¶[0048] and Fig. 1, and thus is a social media platform; see also ¶[0073] discussing using social media information);
wherein the match process matches a mentee with a mentor based on locations of the mentee and/or the mentor (matches mentors and users, ¶[0086] and Fig. 4; see also ¶[0085] noting a “user” is a mentee; and ¶[0029] discussing using location to match);
wherein the mentoring process supports the development of a relationship between the mentor and the mentee (connects mentors and mentees, ¶[0059]);
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the effectiveness of the relationship between the mentee and the mentor (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0070], [0087]-[0088]);
wherein the opportunity analysis process provides the mentee with the option to enhance their relationship network by adding to their mentor network mentees inputs various information like information to be included the mentee profile for the mentee, provide feedback while being mentored or after being mentored, ¶¶[0046], [0076]).
wherein the plurality of clients are organized into a plurality of mentees and a plurality of mentors (mentor database stores mentor profiles, e.g., ¶[0041], and mentee profiles, e.g., ¶¶[0053]-[0055]; see also, e.g., ¶[0085] and Fig. 4 discussing mentees registering with the system; and ¶[0091] discussing creating mentor profiles);
wherein the identification process comprises an account creation process (user registers with the system, e.g., ¶¶[0053], [0089]),
and a profile creation process (creates mentee and mentor profiles, e.g., ¶¶[0053], [0091]);
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the efficacy of the personal interactions between the mentee and the mentor (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0070], [0087]-[0088]);
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the skills of the mentee to confirm that the mentee has made progress in improving the skills set forth between the mentee and mentor is intended to produce (documents progress of mentee towards goal, ¶[0065]; see also ¶[0065] discussing goals being desired skill levels);
wherein the relationship evaluation process evaluates the skills of the mentee to confirm that the mentee has made progress in acquiring the skills set forth between the mentee and mentor is intended to produce (documents progress of mentee towards goal, ¶[0065]; see also ¶[0065] discussing goals being desired skill levels);
wherein the account creation process has the ability to create a new profile login (creates profiles, ¶[0030])
However Hatfield does not teach but Terhark does teach:
wherein the relationship evaluation process is a regularly scheduled process (sends mentor survey to mentee at various times, ¶[0040])
that reevaluates the mentee skills and suggests the mentee for acquiring new/relational skills (tracks users skills over time, e.g. ¶¶[0127], [0231], and recommends new skills, ¶[0230]);
and related mentors that are available (learns user’s current preferences and selected areas of interest and compares those against the mentors’ profiles when matching mentor and mentee, ¶¶[0086], [0089] and Fig. 6);
wherein the relationship evaluation process includes job search (job search, e.g., ¶¶[0096], [0101]),
retained job search (saves jobs that interest them, ¶[0122]; see also ¶[0123] discussing saving job preferences),
and verification checks (uses various authentication processes, ¶¶[0131-[0132]);
an account validation process (uses various authentication processes, ¶¶[0131-[0132]);
wherein the account validation process is a security and fraud identification process (uses various authentication processes, ¶¶[0131-[0132]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring of Hatfield with the career path recommendations of Terhark 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, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in mentoring and advice over the course of their careers and accordingly would have modified Hatfield to track users skills over the course of their career and provide new recommendations as their careers progressed.
However the combination of Hatfield and Terhark does not teach but Elman does teach:
wherein the account validation process is a verification process that validates the credentials presented by the client during the account creation process (users verify parts of their profiles, ¶¶[0074]-[0076]);
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring with the career path recommendations of Hatfield and Terhark with the endorsements of Elman 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, one of ordain skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in demonstrating the effects of the mentoring and accordingly would have modified the combination of Hatfield and Terhark to include an endorsement functionality, e.g., as taught by Elman.
However the combination of Hatfield, Terhark and Elman does not teach but Ha does teach:
using a unique system id linked to a user's digital avatar (unique identifier, ¶¶[0045]-[0046]);
wherein the account validation process has the ability to integrate the user's unique digital avatar and run automated fraud authentication checks (detects fraud, e.g. ¶¶[0012]-[0013], [0050]);
wherein the account validation process further has the ability to automatically validate fraud checks using the captcha process (captcha, ¶[0064]).
and other internal process validations including; login check, location check, concurrent login check, bot tracker, or shadow accounts (assesses location, ¶¶[0067]-[0068]);
wherein the account validation process has the ability to call out fraud alerts proactively and route them to the fraud team for further investigation and resolution (sends notifications and instructions to call ¶¶[0035], [0079]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring with the career path recommendations and endorsements of Hatfield, Terhark and Elman with the fraud detection of Ha 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, one of ordinary skill would have recognized user of the social network in, e.g., Hatfield would want to protect the information they are sharing and accordingly would have modified Hatfield, Terhark and Elman to detect fraud, e.g., as taught by Ha.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein the mentorship integrated system matches a mentee selected from the plurality of mentees with a mentor selected from the plurality of mentors, and has a capability to make a match based on a mentor location and/or a mentee location (matches mentors and users, ¶[0086] and Fig. 4; see also ¶[0085] noting a “user” is a mentee; and ¶[0029] discussing using location to match);
wherein the mentorship integrated system introduces the mentee to the mentor (present potentials mentors to mentee, ¶¶[0087], [0094]);
wherein the mentorship integrated system creates and supports a relationship between the mentee and the mentor (connects mentors and mentees, ¶[0059]; see also ¶¶[0061]-[0062] discussing tracking interactions between mentor and mentee);
wherein the mentorship integrated system evaluates the relationship between the mentee and the mentor (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0070], [0087]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein the match process evaluates the mentoring needs of each mentee against the abilities of each mentor (learns user’s current preferences and selected areas of interest and compares those against the mentors’ profiles when matching mentor and mentee, ¶¶[0086], [0089] and Fig. 6);
wherein the match process selects a best match between the needs of the mentee and the abilities of the mentor (scores mentor profiles against mentee profiles when matching, ¶¶[0055]-[0056], and presents the higher scoring mentors, ¶[0058]);
wherein once the best available match is identified between the mentee and the mentor via the match process the mentee will have the ability to connect with the mentor via a mentorship request (user selects a mentor from list of mentors provided, ¶[0087]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0079], [0092] discussing sending mentorship requests from mentees).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha teaches the limitations of claim 3 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein the match process comprises a match search process (compares each mentor with a plurality of mentor profiles from a mentor database to determine, using a mentor scoring algorithm to find the best mentors, ¶[0089] and Fig. 5)
and a match introduction process (presents potentials mentors to mentee, ¶¶[0087], [0094]);
wherein the match search process is the process that formally evaluates an individualized profile of a both a mentor and a mentee to determine the best mentoring match for the mentee (scores mentor profiles against mentee profiles when matching, ¶¶[0055]-[0056], and presents the higher scoring mentors, ¶[0058]);
wherein the mentee will have the ability to connect with the mentor via a mentorship request (user selects a mentor from list of mentors provided, ¶[0087]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0079], [0092] discussing sending mentorship requests from mentees);
wherein the mentoring process is customizable to the needs of the mentor and helps to create/build new skills based on the goals set by the mentor for the mentee (selected mentor defines certain goals or achievements using tracking module, ¶[0066]; see also ¶[0065] discussing goals being desired skill levels).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha further in view of Bhattacharya et al, US Pub. No. 2018/0060409, herein referred to as “Bhattacharya”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein if the mentee and the mentor agree to continue the mentoring process, the mentee and the mentor reenter the mentoring process (mentors and mentees have multiple interactions and meetings, ¶[0039]. Further, Examiner finds that the limitations specifying the actions of the mentors and mentees does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the scope of the claimed invention is the platform and not the people and the actions of the people do not functionally alter or relate to the system, see MPEP 2111.05. That is, the users’ interactions with the system (e.g., providing or receiving information) is within the scope of the claims but users’ interactions outside of the claimed system (i.e., agreeing to continue mentoring) is outside the scope of the claimed invention because it does not functionally alter or relate to the system)
However Hatfield does not teach but Terhark does teach
wherein the opportunity analysis process is a process that searches for better opportunities for the mentee (job search, e.g., ¶¶[0096], [0101]);
wherein the opportunity analysis process provides the opportunity to the mentee to expand their relationship network in a targeted manner (presents job recommendations to users, ¶¶[0203]-[0204]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring of Hatfield with the career path recommendations of Terhark 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, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in mentoring and advice over the course of their careers and accordingly would have modified Hatfield to track users skills over the course of their career and provide new recommendations as their careers progressed.
However the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha does not teach but Bhattacharya does teach:
wherein if the mentee and the mentor do not agree to continue the mentoring process (mentor and mentee can terminate process, ¶[0052]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring with the career path recommendations of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman and Ha with the termination functionality of Bhattacharya because Hatfield suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Hatfield teaches confirming negative experiences of mentees, ¶[0088]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized mentees having negative experiences would likely want to end the mentoring process and would have included a termination functionality, e.g., as taught by Bhattacharya.
However the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman, Ha and Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
the mentee returns to the match process.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the mentee to return to the match process because duplication of parts is obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. That is, a mentee who terminates the mentorship is essentially in the same position they were at the beginning of the process (i.e., when they did not have a mentor) and as such, returning to the match process is a duplication of the process (i.e., finding a mentor for a mentee that does not have one). Examiner finds no evidence duplicating the process would produce new or unexpected results. As such, the mentee returning to the match process is obvious in light of the combination of Hatfield, Terhark and Bhattacharya.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman, Ha and Bhattacharya teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein the account creation process collects the identification information necessary to allow the processes of the mentorship integrated system to communicate with the client (populates mentee profiles, ¶[0053], and mentor profiles, ¶[0091]);
wherein the profile creation process collects personal information about the mentee and the mentor (mentee profiles include skill information and contact information, ¶[0054], and mentor profiles include provided and scraped information, ¶¶[0091]-[0092] and updates mentor profile based on interactions, ¶¶[0040], [0094]);
wherein the personal information collected by the profile creation process creates an individualized profile of the mentee (mentee profiles include skill information and contact information, ¶[0054], and mentor profiles include provided and scraped information, ¶¶[0091]-[0092]);
wherein the individualized profile of the mentee forms the baseline that is used to measure the progress of the mentee towards their goal (analyzes mentee profile to identify skill to be improved, ¶[0028]).
However Hatfield does not teach but Terhark does teach:
an account validation process (uses various authentication processes, ¶¶[0131-[0132]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring of Hatfield with the career path recommendations of Terhark 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, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in mentoring and advice over the course of their careers and accordingly would have modified Hatfield to track users skills over the course of their career and provide new recommendations as their careers progressed.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman, Ha and Bhattacharya teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein the mentoring process further comprises a learning programs and one or more mentoring sessions (interactions include meetings between the mentee and mentor and instructional materials, ¶[0039]);
wherein each of the one or more mentoring sessions is a structured relationship building process that allows the mentee and the mentor to form a relationship based on trust (interactions include meetings between the mentee and mentor, ¶[0039]. Please note, the limitation “that allows the mentee and the mentor to form a relationship based on trust” does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the mentoring sessions, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the scope of the claim only includes mentoring sessions and the intention of the mentoring systems is building trust);
wherein the structured relationship building process allows the mentee and the mentor to form a working relationship based on trust (Please note, this limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the mentoring sessions, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the scope of the claim only includes mentoring sessions and the intention of the mentoring systems is building trust);
wherein the intention of each of the one or more mentoring sessions is to allow the mentor to share both advice and experience that helps guide the mentee towards their goal (Please note, this limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the mentoring sessions, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the scope of the claim only includes mentoring sessions and the intention of the mentoring systems is sharing both advice and experience);
wherein the learning programs is a structured bespoke educational and/or practical environment that is available to the mentee (interactions include instructional materials provided by mentor to mentee, ¶[0039]);
wherein the learning programs are intended to allow a mentee to develop new skill and/or to strengthen the weak skill identify during the mentorship program (interactions include instructional materials provided by mentor to mentee, ¶[0039]. Please note, the limitation “intended to allow a mentee to develop new skill and/or to strengthen the weak skill identify during the mentorship program” does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the learning programs, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the scope of the claim only includes providing learning programs and the intention of the learning programs is to develop new skill and/or to strengthen the weak skill);
wherein once the mentee completes the required certification and/or practical training (mentee completes courses, certifications, tests, etc. ¶[0075])
However the combination of Hatfield and Terhark does not teach but Elman does teach:
the mentor will have the ability to endorse/rate the mentee's acquired skills (provides endorsement for skills, expertise, etc. ¶[0072]);
wherein this rating/endorsement can be viewed in the mentee's and mentor's profile and the system will have the ability to date stamp the acquired skill automatically and will be available for reporting for the system users (user’s profile indicates endorsements with time and date stamps, ¶¶[0074]-[0075]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring with the career path recommendations of Hatfield, Terhark and Bhattacharya with the endorsements of Elman 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, one of ordain skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in demonstrating the effects of the mentoring and accordingly would have modified the combination of Hatfield, Terhark and Bhattacharya to include an endorsement functionality, e.g., as taught by Elman.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hatfield, Terhark, Elman, Ha and Bhattacharya teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Hatfield further teaches:
wherein the relationship evaluation process comprises a match review process (sends mentor survey to mentee at various times, ¶[0040]),
an interpersonal evaluation process (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0070], [0087]-[0088]),
wherein the match review process ensures that the match between the mentee and the mentor remains the best match available to the mentee (sends mentor survey to mentee at various times, ¶[0040]);
wherein the interpersonal evaluation process is an evaluation of the efficacy of the relationship between the mentee and the mentor (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0070], [0087]-[0088]);
wherein the interpersonal evaluation process ensures that the match between the mentee and the mentor will be able to move the mentee towards their goals (reviews interactions between mentor and mentee and determines whether the outcome was positive for the mentee, ¶¶[0070], [0087]-[0088]).
However Hatfield does not each but Terhark does teach:
wherein the relationship evaluation process comprises a match review process (tracks users skills over time, e.g. ¶¶[0127], [0231]; see also e.g., ¶[0143] discussing updating the user profile);
wherein the match review process is a scheduled process that reevaluates and refreshes the individualized profile of the mentee (tracks users skills over time, e.g. ¶¶[0127], [0231]; see also e.g., ¶[0143] discussing updating the user profile);
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring of Hatfield with the career path recommendations of Terhark 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, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in mentoring and advice over the course of their careers and accordingly would have modified Hatfield to track users skills over the course of their career and provide new recommendations as their careers progressed.
However the combination of Hatfield and Terhark does not teach but Elman does teach:
and a skills validation process, wherein the skills validation process is an evaluation that determines the progress of the mentee is making towards the skills being taught through the learning programs (provides endorsement for skills, expertise, etc. ¶[0072]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the mentoring with the career path recommendations of Hatfield and Terhark with the endorsements of Elman 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, one of ordain skill would have recognized users of Hatfield would likely be interested in demonstrating the effects of the mentoring and accordingly would have modified the combination of Hatfield and Terhark to include an endorsement functionality, e.g., as taught by Elman.
Conclusion
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 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