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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on July 27, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Status of Claims
Claims 23 and 43 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 22, 24 - 26, 28 - 30, 35 – 37, 41 and 45 were cancelled.
Claims 23, 27, 31 - 34, 38 - 40, 42 - 44 and 46 - 53 are pending and have been examined.
In light of the Appeal Conference decision for Appeal Brief filed on July 27, 2026, this case has been re-opened.
This action is made a NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments from the Appeal brief filed on July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon re-evaluation of the pending claims, a 101 rejection has been issued, and new grounds of rejection have been made under the 103 rejection maintained herein.
Regarding the applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 9 – 12: Appellant’s arguments against the previous prior art reference of Muhammedali not teaching the limitations directed in part to a “resume” section as claimed in claims 23 and 43, from pp. 14 – 16 of the Appeal brief filed, are unpersuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because Muhammedali still teaches the resume document section (i.e. “a first section with the resume” claimed) as elements 1538 and 1540 in Figs. 15F – 15H (see ¶0117 for further details wherein “candidate profile window may list candidate profile and/ or résumé information”; Muhammedali). Muhammedali further teaches the second job posting document section from a job postings list (i.e. “a second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries” claimed) as element 1534 in Figs. 15F – 15H and ¶0023 for the system to be used by recruiters. Muhammedali discloses in ¶0085 that the system can be used by candidates. As for the step directed in part to “typographically emphasizing” resume keywords in the first section, is taught as element 1540 from Fig. 15H (i.e. inside the “candidate profile window 1540” for the resume section) wherein the “Skills/Keywords” of “photoshop” are highlighted in bold (i.e. typographically emphasized) in the respective sections of 1540 and 1536 for the candidate “Katy J” (see ¶0116 – 117 for more details; Muhammedali). Even if Appellant does not concede with this particular Muhammedali teaching, it is also clearly shown in Figs. 5 and 7 – 9 from the new prior art of Shibata incorporated herein.
With regards to Appellant’s arguments in p.25 from Appeal brief filed, that were directed to relying on impermissible hindsight are unpersuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because Examiner asserts that the consideration of obviousness is based only on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. based on the facts gleaned from the prior art) and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s application. In other words, Muhammedali provides a “Social Relation Management Apparatus” (SRM) as an “online computing system” with methods to facilitate “interactions between employment candidates search for employment opportunities and employment recruiters looking for individuals to fill one or more available job positions” (see ¶0005 and ¶0022; Muhammedali) while Shibata provides a “document retrieval apparatus” (i.e. computer; see ¶0017; Shibata) with the feature “technique which visually clarifies the degree of relevance between a document and a retrieval keyword” and “retrieve desired documents on the basis of a retrieval keyword designated by a user, from a database in which a large number of documents are accumulated, Web sites which lie on a network, or the like.” (see ¶0002 and ¶0004, respectively; Shibata). The Examiner notes that there is no requirement that an express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness (see MPEP 2145(X)(A)).
As for the remaining Appellant’s arguments against the prior art references directed to Ching and Das are considered moot. Because upon revision of this case and in light of the Appeal Conference decision for the Appeal Brief filed, this case is re-opened and new prior art have been found. The new combination of Muhammedali and Shibata references have been incorporated to provide clarity over the 35 USC § 103 rejection for obviousness and to provide sufficient reasoning for the cited art combination, as alleged by the Appellant. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
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 23, 27, 31 - 34, 38 - 40, 42 - 44 and 46 - 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claims 23 and 43 addressed separately, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 23, 27, 32 - 34, 38 - 40, 42 – 44, 46 – 47 and 49 - 53 falls under statutory category of a machine.
At Step 2A Prong 1: The following claims recite an abstract idea in the following limitations:
From Claim 23:
…
identify one or more of the resume keywords in a resume;
retrieve one or more of the search-terms…based on the one or more of the resume keywords identified in the resume;
retrieve a plurality of the job postings…based on the one or more of the search-terms retrieved…;
generate a list of job posting summaries, each job posting summary of the list of job posting summaries comprising a summary of a job posting retrieved…
populate a first section with the resume and a second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries; and
simultaneously present the first section next to the second section while:
typographically emphasizing, in real-time, the one or more of the resume keywords of the resume in the first section;
receiving…a user selection of a selected keyword from the resume keywords displayed in the first section; and
in response to receiving the user selection of the selected keyword, modifying the list of job posting summaries displayed in the second section to visually emphasize, while still presenting the first section next to the second section, at least one of the job posting summaries of a job posting that includes the selected keyword.
From Claim 43:
… identify one or more of the resume keywords in a resume;
retrieve one or more of the search-terms…based on the one or more of the resume keywords identified in the resume;
retrieve a plurality of the job postings…based on the one or more of the search-terms retrieved…;
generate a list of job posting summaries, each job posting summary in the list of job posting summaries comprising a summary of a job posting retrieved…
populate a first section with the resume and a second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries; and
simultaneously present the first section next to the second section while:
typographically emphasizing, in real-time, the one or more of the resume keywords of the resume in the first section;
receiving…a user selection of a selected job posting summary from the list of job posting summaries displayed in the second section of the display screen; and
in response to receiving the user selection of the job posting summary, modifying the resume populated in the first section of the display screen to visually emphasize, while presenting the second section next to the first section, any resume keywords within the resume that are among the posting keywords of the job posting of the selected job posting summary.
Generally, and as disclosed in the specification in ¶0002 – 5, this claimed invention provides an “automated interface with interactive keywords between employment posting and candidate profiles” to “facilitate employers in hiring job seekers for open positions”, “identify job seekers qualified for their posted position” and “understand why one or more of candidates are included in the list of job seekers generated by the employment website.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) are/is recited in claims 23 and 43 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the step(s) of “identifying resume keywords”, “retrieve” search-terms based on resume keywords, “retrieve a plurality of the job postings…based on the one or more of the search-terms retrieved…”, “generate a list of job posting summaries”, “populate” a resume section and a portion of the list of job posting summaries section to “simultaneously present” while “typographically emphasizing” resume keywords that upon “receiving” the user selection of either, the resume keywords in the resume section (i.e. first section; see claim 23) OR a job posting summary from the other section of the portion of the list of job posting summaries (i.e. second section; see claim 43), either the “list of job posting summaries displayed” in the second section (see claim 23) OR the populated resume in the first section is being “modified” (see claim 43) to “visually emphasize” the common job posting summaries of a job posting (see claim 23) OR the common resume keywords (see claim 43) while presenting the other section, respectively. Because identifying and retrieving such employment related keywords to generate summaries of job postings in a list to further present and emphasize (i.e. highlight) resume keywords upon user selection of a keyword or a job posting summary for a respective section to be modified to visually emphasize similar or common job posting summaries or resume keywords while presenting the opposite section, respectively, at least encompasses “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. In other words, the user interacts with the computer when searching for a job or an ideal candidate based on keywords to obtain such display outputs that are directed to a hiring practice based on employment-related content that is based on users’ social activities and involve following rules or instructions to make a hiring decision. Similarly, these steps also falls under the abstract idea sub-group of “commercial or legal interactions” since such generation of lists with matching content related to employment keywords for a user further facilitate making hiring decisions which is encompassing to business relations and advertisement (i.e. providing emphasized candidates for recruitment decisions/recommendations based on keyword display/visualization of candidate/job post content).
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 23 and 43, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a user interface system; a first database, a second database, one or more processors used, a display screen and an input device. These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, steps are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for populating the display screen with two sections with portions of the list of job posting summaries to present, at the same time, the sections while highlighting or “typographically emphasizing” resume keywords in the first section and receive user selections of a keyword/job posting summary to “modify” the second or first section content displayed to “visually emphasize” job posting summaries or any resume keywords within the resume. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological component(s) (i.e. the computer) is/are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can still perform.
Step 2B: For independent claims 23 and 43, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a user interface system; a first database, a second database, one or more processors used, a display screen and an input device. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 27, 32 – 34, 38 – 40, 42, 44, 46 - 47 and 49 - 53, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 27, 32 – 34, 38 – 40, 42, 44, 46 - 47 and 49 - 53: further describes the abstract idea of the functions of interactive computer-based searching and merely recites further details for expanding content data upon user selection of job posting summaries within the display screen, further describes maintaining visual emphasis of the content after user removing inputs from the selected keyword, removing job posting summaries that don’t have selected keywords and replace them with job posting summaries not previously displayed with the new selected keyword, dynamically adjusting the list of job posting summaries to remove job posting summaries not relevant to the additional keyword. Also, the limitations further identify user freeform selections of text to automatically convert them on additional resume keywords for the dynamic adjustment of the list of job posting summaries, the storage of content in the databases that are part of a larger database structure, the generation of the list of job posting summaries based on close search-terms corresponding to the job postings and further describes the resume keywords categorizations. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as well as commercial interactions directed to using the claimed invention for searching for a job or an ideal candidate based on keywords to obtain such display outputs that are directed to a hiring practice based on employment-related content that is based on users’ social activities and involve following rules or instructions to facilitate these making hiring decisions which is also encompassing business relations and advertisement (i.e. providing emphasized candidates for recruitment decisions/recommendations based on keyword display/visualization of candidate/job post content).
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 27, 32 – 34, 38 – 40, 42, 44, 46 - 47 and 49 - 53, these claims recite the additional elements of: automatically convert the selected portion into an additional resume keyword; dynamically adjust the list of job posting summaries presented in the second section of the display screen based on the one or more additional search-terms (from claim 42); and … maintain visual emphasis of the one or more resume keywords in the resume after the user removes the input device from the selected job posting summary (from claim 49). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of visually emphasize and highlighting employment content. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Finally, Examiner notes that claims 31 and 48 which details the “visual emphasis” or “highlight” of the employment content when “a cursor is hovered” recites additional elements that deem the limitations as being “significantly more” (e.g. renders such steps as meaningful limitations) that were therefore, not included in this 101 analysis and rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23, 27, 32 – 34, 40, 43 - 44 and 49 - 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammedali (WO Pub. No. 2015175652 A1) in view of Shibata (U.S. Pub. No. 20060282415 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Muhammedali discloses a “Social Relation Management Apparatus” (SRM) as an “online computing system” with methods to facilitate “interactions between employment candidates search for employment opportunities and employment recruiters looking for individuals to fill one or more available job positions” (see ¶0005 and ¶0022; Muhammedali), thus teaches:
a first database configured to store job postings, each job posting including posting keywords; a second database configured to store search-terms and resume keywords associated with the search-terms; and (In ¶0023 – 24; Figs.1 and 6 (3319); Fig. 32 (3319; 3319a): teaches that a “Social Relation Management Apparatuses, Methods and Systems” or SRM system (see ¶0022) that can “create, update, monitor and store employment candidate profiles employment candidates” and can store “standardized descriptors to each job and its constituent job functions” and these “descriptors” are “imported into pre-determined sections of the résumé, and stored on behalf of the candidate with the candidate's SRM profile”. Also, refer to ¶0044 for more storing data regarding to any job-related information from social media information)
one or more processors used to populate a display screen, wherein, in real-time while presenting the display screen to a user, the one or more processors are configured to: identify one or more of the resume keywords in a resume; (In ¶0024; Fig 8 (804a); Fig 15: teaches that the SRM system can parse text from a “pre-formatted resume” that was generated based on candidate inputted information that can also compare the parsed text and store it as “standardized descriptors” for searching candidate profile matches by a recruiter which is directed to identifying resume keywords.)
retrieve one or more of the search-terms from the second database based on the one or more of the resume keywords identified in the resume; retrieve a plurality of the job postings from the first database based on the one or more of the search-terms retrieved from the second database; (In ¶0075 – 76; Fig 7 (3319, 716, 718, and 726); Fig 8 (810); Fig 9 (910): teaches that the system “receives and stores the campaign options” such as keywords (i.e. resume keywords) for “a job title or a skill (step 804 a)” (see ¶0080), for example in the “Campaign Database 3319 f (step 716)” directed to job postings and then the system “identifies any employment candidate profiles (as may be stored in Active Accounts database 3319 a or Actionable Accounts database 3319 b) directed to profiles or resumes, that “match the campaign options selected by the recruiter above”.)
generate a list of job posting summaries, each job posting summary of the list of job posting summaries comprising a summary of a job posting retrieved from the first database; (In ¶0025; Fig. 7 (704); Fig. 9 (904); Fig. 15, Fig. 15B and Figs. 15E and 15F (1534): teaches that in order to “automate an employment recruiting campaign on behalf of recruiters or employers”, the “system may allow the recruiter to generate a job listing for an open employment position and provide a standardized selection of requisite job skills, job requirements, as well as a geographic location or region of the position” which is directed to generating a list of job posting summaries, in accordance to the example given in ¶0076 from Applicant’s disclosure. Also, refer to ¶0072, wherein due to fact that “there are many job skills and requirements that are desirable for various types and kinds of employment positions to varying degrees, the knowledgebase data structure includes a prioritized ranking of various job skills and requirements against each stored job position or type”. See ¶0074 – 75 wherein the recruiter may input data to generate a “new campaign (Step 704)” that includes a “template for completion” option which is retrieved from “campaign database 3319f of the SRM database 3319” and further includes “web form” that the recruiter can manually enter to edit the campaign which further includes “one or more job postings from an ATS, VMS or other job posting site (step 904)” retrieved (see ¶0083) and/or includes “job data supplied by the recruiter” (see ¶0094) which is directed to the job posting summary retrieved from the first database.)
populate a first section with the resume and a second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries; and (In Fig. 15F – 15H (1534, 1538 and 1540): teaches the simultaneous population of a second section for the portion of the list of job postings for “Watson User Experience (UX) designer” as the job title selected in Fig. 15F (1534) and then in Figs. 15G - 15H (see ¶00116 for more details) shows a first section corresponding to a resume section with a candidate’s resume in “1538 and 1540” (i.e. directed to the resume’s depiction since the user can click in “show more” to see further details of “Katy J” resume specifically in Fig. 15H (1540); see ¶00117 for more details). See ¶00114 for further details.)
simultaneously present the first section next to the second section while: typographically emphasizing, in real-time, the one or more of the resume keywords of the resume in the first section; (In Fig. 15H (1536 and 1540): teaches resume keywords as “resume information” (see ¶00117), and in a first section, displays a candidate profile wherein the “candidate profile window may list candidate profile and/ or résumé information (as described herein) for a candidate that is selected by the recruiter from the window 1538” (see ¶00117). Further, the “Skills/Keywords” are highlighted in bold (i.e. typographically emphasized) in the respective section or “candidate profile window” in Fig. 15H, element 1540. For example, the skill or keyword of “photoshop” which appears in both the1536 and 1540 sections for the candidate “Katy J” (see ¶0116 – 117 for more details), in accordance to the example given in ¶0044 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
Muhammedali teaches the identification and visual identification of multiple keywords (see ¶0115 – 117 and Fig. 15F; Muhammedali) and the selection of a keyword related to the resume (see ¶0117 and Fig. 15F; Muhammedali) in a resume section or first section (see ¶0117 and Fig. 15H (1540); Muhammedali) as well as the selected keyword (i.e. “Photoshop”) that can be in a different section from a posting section that contains a list of job posting summaries (see ¶0108, ¶0116 – 117 and Fig. 15H (1538); Muhammedali). But, Muhammedali does not explicitly teach the abilities of receiving input of a user selecting a keyword from a first section with a first displayed document, that in response to the user selection, a distinguishable display of the corresponding common word(s) in the second document section next to the first section is presented and visually emphasized. Of note, Shibata does not teach the specific resume, job posting summaries or the claimed resume/job posting sections as shown in brackets “[]” below but previously taught by Muhammedali as discussed above. However, Shibata discloses a “document retrieval apparatus” (i.e. computer; see ¶0017; Shibata) with the feature “technique which visually clarifies the degree of relevance between a document and a retrieval keyword” and “retrieve desired documents on the basis of a retrieval keyword designated by a user, from a database in which a large number of documents are accumulated, Web sites which lie on a network, or the like.” (see ¶0002 and ¶0004, respectively; Shibata), thus teaches:
receiving, via an input device, a user selection of a selected keyword from the [resume] keywords displayed in the first section; and in response to receiving the user selection of the selected keyword, modifying the [list of job posting summaries displayed] in the second section to visually emphasize, while still presenting the first section next to the second section, [at least one of the posting summaries of a list of job posting summaries of a job posting] that includes the selected keyword. (In ¶0090; Figs. 5 and 7 - 9: teaches an example “when the user selects a retrieval keyword from either of an input document and a retrieved document displayed on the screen 9, through a keyword selection input unit 10 included in the document retrieval apparatus, the document display process unit 7 functions to display a word corresponding to the selected retrieval keyword in the other document, in a distinguishable display aspect”, as shown in Fig. 8, which is directed to the user selection of a keyword in the first document section, that in response, modifies the second document section and visually emphasizes the corresponding selected keyword in the second section. Also, in ¶0092, “when the user selects the word in either of the input document and the retrieved document which are displayed on the screen, the corresponding words in the other document are distinguishably displayed in the case where the selected word is the retrieval keyword or the feature word. Thus, those words stated in the document on the basis of which the retrieval process has been executed can be grasped at a look.” See ¶0094 – 95 wherein in Fig. 9 shows another “retrieval output” that when “upon accepting the selection of any retrieved document in the list, from the user through a candidate document selection input unit 11, the document display process unit 7 functions to display words corresponding to keywords on the basis of which the selected retrieved document has been acquired” and these “candidates of the plurality of retrieved documents are displayed in terms of the document titles, but other identification information items capable of specifying the documents, such as the creation dates and hours of the documents or the summaries of the documents, may well be displayed”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and its sections corresponding to a resume (i.e. first section) and portion(s) of the list of job posting summaries or job posting summaries of a job posting (i.e. second section) sections taught, to further provide the abilities of receiving input of a user selecting a keyword from a first section, that in response, modifies the depiction of the second section displayed to visually emphasize the common keyword selected in the second section next to the first section, as taught by Shibata in order to “know those words in the input document which are the retrieval keywords used for the retrieval of the designated retrieved document”, to “further grasp the weights of the words in the retrieved document” and/or “easily find out the desired document from within the group of retrieved documents by performing the job of finding the document in which the more important keyword is more emphasized.” (¶0035 and ¶0073; Shibata). Further such ability provided by Shibata into Muhammedali system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of simultaneously and visually emphasizing common keywords selected by a user, between two distinct document sections using a computer to the known method and computer system for searching/filtering similar keywords between candidate profiles/resumes and the employer’s job postings and corresponding job posting summaries sections, as provided by Muhammedali. Thus, applying the side-by-side comparison and keyword highlight functions provided by Shibata for such sections in a computer enables the user to quickly analyze, compare and filter potential candidate profiles to be hired for a job posting, by finding similarities or differentiations between these document sections). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 43:
Muhammedali further teaches:
a first database configured to store job postings, each job posting including posting keywords; (In ¶0045; Fig. 33 (3319): teaches that the SRM system can parses “social media information for any job-related information (see, e.g., FIG. 6) and stores any determined job-related information in the SRM's account profile of the employment candidate (step 318). Such data may be stored in, for example, the active accounts database 3319 a.”)
a second database configured to store search-terms and resume keywords associated with the search-terms; and one or more processors used to populate a display screen, wherein, in real-time while presenting the display screen to a user, the one or more processors are configured to: identify one or more of the resume keywords in a resume; (In ¶0024; Fig 8 (804a); Fig 15; Fig. 33: teaches that the SRM system can parse text from a “pre-formatted resume” that was generated based on candidate inputted information that can also compare the parsed text and store it as “standardized descriptors” for searching candidate profile matches by a recruiter which is directed to identify resume keywords.)
retrieve one or more of the search-terms from the second database based on the one or more of the resume keywords identified in the resume; retrieve a plurality of the profiles from the first database based on the one or more of the search-terms retrieved from the second database; (In ¶0075 – 76; Fig 7 (3319, 716, 718, and 726); Fig 8 (810); Fig 9 (910): teaches that the system “receives and stores the campaign options” such as keywords (i.e. resume keywords) for “a job title or a skill (step 804 a)” (see ¶0080), for example in the “Campaign Database 3319 f (step 716)” directed to job postings and then the system “identifies any employment candidate profiles (as may be stored in Active Accounts database 3319 a or Actionable Accounts database 3319 b) directed to profiles or resumes, that “match the campaign options selected by the recruiter above”.)
generate a list of job posting summaries, each job posting summary in the list of job posting summaries comprising a summary of a job posting retrieved from the first database; (In ¶0116; Fig. 15F – 15G: teaches that “the SRM system displays individual candidate profile listings corresponding to employment candidates having profiles with standardized job titles and skills that match those selected by the recruiter in window 1536”.)
populate a first section with the resume and a second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries; and (In Fig. 15F – 15H (1534, 1538 and 1540): teaches the simultaneous population of a second section for the portion of the list of job postings for “Watson User Experience (UX) designer” as the job title selected in Fig. 15F (1534) and then in Figs. 15G - 15H (see ¶00116 for more details) shows a first section corresponding to a resume section with a candidate’s resume in “1538 and 1540” (i.e. directed to the resume’s depiction since the user can click in “show more” to see further details of “Katy J” resume specifically in Fig. 15H (1540); see ¶00117 for more details). See ¶00114 for further details.)
simultaneously present the first section next to the second section while: typographically emphasizing, in real-time, the one or more of the resume keywords of the resume in the first section; (In Fig. 15H (1536 and 1540): teaches resume keywords as “resume information” (see ¶00117), and in a first section, displays a candidate profile wherein the “candidate profile window may list candidate profile and/ or résumé information (as described herein) for a candidate that is selected by the recruiter from the window 1538” (see ¶00117). Further, the “Skills/Keywords” are highlighted in bold (i.e. typographically emphasized) in the respective section or “candidate profile window” in Fig. 15H, element 1540. For example, the skill or keyword of “photoshop” which appears in both the1536 and 1540 sections for the candidate “Katy J” (see ¶0116 – 117 for more details), in accordance to the example given in ¶0044 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
Muhammedali teaches the identification and visual identification of multiple keywords (see ¶0115 – 117 and Fig. 15F (1536); Muhammedali) and the selection of job posting summary from the list of job posting summaries section or a second section (see ¶0116 and Fig. 15F (1534) and Fig. 15G; Muhammedali) as well as the selected keyword (i.e. “Photoshop”) can simultaneously appear in different sections (i.e. a resume section or first section as shown in Fig. 15H (1540) and a job posting section containing a list of job posting summaries or a second section as shown in Fig. 15F (1534); see ¶0116 – 117 also; Muhammedali). But, Muhammedali does not explicitly teach the abilities of receiving input of a user selecting a summary document from a list of summary documents in a second section, that in response to the user selection, a distinguishable display of the corresponding common word(s) in the first document section next to the second section is presented and visually emphasized. Of note, Shibata does not teach the specific resume, job posting summaries or the claimed resume/job posting sections as shown in brackets“[]” below but previously taught by Muhammedali as discussed above. However, Shibata further teaches:
receiving, via an input device, a user selection of a selected [job posting summary from the list of job posting summaries] displayed in the second section of the display screen; and in response to receiving the user selection [of the job posting summary], modifying the [resume populated] in the first section of the display screen to visually emphasize, while presenting the second section next to the first section, any [resume] keywords within [the resume] that are among the [posting] keywords of [the job posting of the selected job posting summary]. (In ¶0094 – 95; Figs. 5 and 7 - 9: teaches an example in Fig. 9, that shows another “retrieval output” that when “upon accepting the selection of any retrieved document in the list, from the user through a candidate document selection input unit 11, the document display process unit 7 functions to display words corresponding to keywords on the basis of which the selected retrieved document has been acquired” which is directed to the user selection of a keyword in the second document section, that in response, modifies the first document section and visually emphasizes the corresponding selected keyword in the first section. Further in ¶0095, these “candidates of the plurality of retrieved documents are displayed in terms of the document titles, but other identification information items capable of specifying the documents, such as the creation dates and hours of the documents or the summaries of the documents, may well be displayed” Also, in ¶0092, “when the user selects the word in either of the input document and the retrieved document which are displayed on the screen, the corresponding words in the other document are distinguishably displayed in the case where the selected word is the retrieval keyword or the feature word. Thus, those words stated in the document on the basis of which the retrieval process has been executed can be grasped at a look.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and its sections corresponding to a resume (i.e. first section) and portion(s) of the list of job posting summaries or job posting summaries of a job posting (i.e. second section) sections taught to provide the abilities of receiving input of a user selecting a summary document from a list of summary documents section or second section, that in response, modifies the depiction of the first document section to visually emphasize the common keyword selected in the first section next to the second section, as taught by Shibata in order to “know those words in the input document which are the retrieval keywords used for the retrieval of the designated retrieved document”, to “further grasp the weights of the words in the retrieved document” and/or “easily find out the desired document from within the group of retrieved documents by performing the job of finding the document in which the more important keyword is more emphasized.” (¶0035 and ¶0073; Shibata). Further such ability provided by Shibata into Muhammedali system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of simultaneously and visually emphasizing common keywords selected by a user, between two distinct document sections using a computer to the known method and computer system for searching/filtering similar keywords between candidate profiles/resumes and the employer’s job postings and corresponding job posting summaries sections, as provided by Muhammedali. Thus, applying the side-by-side comparison and keyword highlight functions provided by Shibata for such sections in a computer enables the user to quickly analyze, compare and filter potential candidate profiles to be hired for a job posting, by finding similarities or differentiations between these document sections). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein, when the user selects one of the profiles from the list of profiles, the one or more processors are further configured to expand the selected profile so as to display additional summary information. (In Fig. 15H (1540): teaches that the user can further expand the candidate profile/resume summary by clicking “Show 2 More” which is directed to the non-functional descriptive matter of additional information.)
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain the visual indication of the at least one of the profiles after the user removes the input device from the selected keyword. (In ¶0115; Fig. 15F and 15G: teaches the maintaining visual indication of the profiles after user removes the input device (e.g. deselect or uncheck) from the selected keyword as shown in Fig. 15F and 15G. Specifically, in ¶0115 - 116 the “first set of titles and skills may be highlighted in the window 1536 when a recruiter selects a first job search result in window 1534” as well as a “second set of titles and skills may be highlighted” when “a recruiter selects a different job search result in window 1534” which ultimately triggers refining such “candidate search results” while maintaining visual indication of the profiles as shown in Fig. 15G, and in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0097.)
Regarding claim 33:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to remove from the display screen, in real-time, any of the profiles that does not include the selected keyword from the list of profiles in the second section. (In ¶0116; Fig. 15G: teaches that when a recruiter “alternately select the related job skills and titles from window 1536 that are being sought in relation to an open employment position that is the subject of the recruiting campaign”, then “a further results window 1538 may be presented to the recruiter” displaying “individual candidate profile listings corresponding to employment candidates having profiles with standardized job titles and skills that match those selected by the recruiter in window 1536” which is directed to the purpose of refining “candidate search results”. Therefore, profiles that do not meet the selected keyword match, are naturally not shown (e.g. removed and replaced to show dynamic updates), in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0097).)
Regarding claim 34:
Muhammedali, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to replace, in real time, any of the job posting summaries that are removed with one or more replacement job posting summaries not previously displayed, wherein each replacement job posting summary comprises a summary of a job posting that does include the selected keyword (In ¶00137; Fig. 10 (1006 – 1008); Fig. 31: teaches the replacement of job posting summaries that are removed, with other (e.g. new set of) job posting summaries that meet the selected keyword with the purpose of refining job posting results. Thus, the system allows the user (e.g. candidate) in Fig. 31 to generate “a search of job listings” by selecting and entering “fields” that include “a Job Title field, a Skills field and a geographic location field” which based on the filters entered/added in different instances will replace the existing job posting summaries with one that were not previously displayed, in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0076. Also, refer to ¶0043 and Fig. 2 (220) wherein the system’s “SRM component compares the employment candidate’s 35 updated job history information to any matching available job listings stored in the SRM 1 system (see, e.g., FI G. 10)” (see ¶0085 for more details) that when “any matching job listings are found, the SRM component sends those job listings to the employment candidate via Network Interface Servers 102 (step 222)” and “the updated job listings are received by the client terminal 106 (step 224) and displayed to the employment candidate on the display device of the client terminal 106 (step 5226)” which is another example of replacing job posting summaries with new job posting summaries that were not previously displayed.)
Regarding claims 40 and 44:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 23 and 43, respectively.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein the first database and the second database are components of a single, larger database. (In ¶0186; Figs.1 and 6 (3319); Fig. 32 (3319; 3319a): teaches “employing a distributed database system, queries and data access by search SRM component may treat the combination of the SRM database, an integrated data security layer database as a single database entity” in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0078.)
Regarding claim 49:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 43.
Muhammedali teaches the selection of a keyword related to the resume in a resume section or first section (see ¶0115 – 117 and Fig. 15H (1540)). Further, Muhammedali teaches that the user can deselect/uncheck or click another job posting summary; see “search result in window 1534”) while showing the relevant keywords (see “related job titles and skills listed in window 1536”) visually emphasized in the screen sections from Figs. 15F and 15G (see ¶0115 – 117; Muhammedali). Further, the Examiner notes that the user can deselect or uncheck each box and their highlighted keywords corresponding to the job-related skills from the screen section 1536 to obtain and see the candidate profiles 1538 related to the other keywords maintained, as shown in Fig. 15F and 15G from Muhammedali. However, neither Muhammedali or Shibata explicitly teach the ability of maintaining visual emphasis, specifically, of keywords inside the first document displayed in the first section, after user selects another summary document from the second section (i.e. directed to removing the input device from a selected job posting summary). Of note, Shibata does not teach the specific resume, job posting summaries or the claimed resume/job posting sections as shown in brackets “[]” below but previously taught by Muhammedali as discussed above. However, Shibata further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain visual emphasis of the one or more [resume] keywords in the [resume] after the user removes the input device from the selected [job posting summary]. (In ¶0096; Fig. 9: teaches the feature of maintaining visual emphasis of the keywords in the resume document in one section, after the user selects another document, as shown in Fig. 9, wherein “the five retrieved documents of "Commodity Information", "Commodity Development Plan", "Presentation Materials (F Company)", "Presentation Materials (X Company)" and "Conference Minutes" are displayed as the retrieval candidates in the retrieved document list 106”. Thus, “when the user moves a mouse cursor to, for example, the retrieved document "Commodity Development Plan" 107 in the candidate list 106, corresponding words in the input document are displayed in display aspects which conform to the keyword weights of the retrieval keywords in the retrieved document 107. More specifically, the retrieved document 107 has been acquired with the keywords being words "color", "copy", "can be bought" and "shop" in the input document, and the weights of these words in the retrieved document 107 are expressed by the degrees of emphasis of the display aspects of the respective words” which is directed to maintaining visual emphasis to the same keywords of the first/resume section, even after the user choosing another relevant document in the other section.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and its sections corresponding to a resume (i.e. first section) and portion(s) of the list of job posting summaries or job posting summaries of a job posting (i.e. second section) sections taught, to further provide the ability of maintaining visual emphasis, specifically, of keywords inside the first document displayed in the first/resume section, after user selects another summary document (i.e. another job posting summary document) from the second section (i.e. directed to removing the input device from a selected job posting summary), as taught by Shibata in order to “know those words in the input document which are the retrieval keywords used for the retrieval of the designated retrieved document”, to “further grasp the weights of the words in the retrieved document” and/or “easily find out the desired document from within the group of retrieved documents by performing the job of finding the document in which the more important keyword is more emphasized.” (¶0035 and ¶0073; Shibata). Further such ability provided by Shibata into Muhammedali system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of simultaneously and visually maintaining the emphasis of common keywords selected when user removes the input device from the selected summary document in the second section, between two distinct document sections using a computer to the known method and computer system for searching/filtering similar keywords between candidate profiles/resumes and the employer’s job postings and corresponding job posting summaries sections, as provided by Muhammedali. Thus, applying the side-by-side comparison and keyword highlight functions provided by Shibata for such sections in a computer enables the user to quickly analyze, compare and filter potential candidate profiles to be hired for a job posting, by finding similarities or differentiations between these document sections). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 50 and 52:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 43 and 23, respectively.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein, to generate the list of job posting summaries, the one or more processors are configured to present the plurality of the job postings based on how closely they correspond with the search-terms. (In ¶0113 – 114; Figs. 15E – 15H (1534); Fig. 8 (804a and 806b); Fig. 9 (906): teaches that “FIGURE 15E shows the screen 1530 with job search results window 1534 that is presented to a recruiter in response to the entry of the job search in the search bar 1532. The window 1534 may present a list of job titles in the SRM system that correspond to employment candidates having the associated job title” wherein “results may be presented in relevance order, alphabetical order or some other manner that at may be selectable by the recruiter” which is directed to presenting the job postings based on the close proximity (i.e. strong/best match) of their corresponding search-terms selected by the user. Refer to ¶0086 wherein “after which a recruiter may enter, as an example of recruiting campaign options described previously above, a job title or a skill (step 804a)”, the “SRM system” shows a list of matched existing job postings (step 806b)” which is another example directed to presenting the job postings based on the close proximity (i.e. strong/best match) of their corresponding search-terms selected by the user. Further in ¶0084, “The SRM system 36 then determines the best matched job titles and skills for a recruiter’s desired campaign (step 1 906)” that in “addition, the job skills and requirements may be ranked according to each job type within the knowledgebase”, “the skills for each job title may be assigned a ranking by a recruiter providing the job listing, rather than using the default rankings established by the SRM” and “Functionalities are provided to allow the recruiter to change job skill rankings by job type as desired”.)
Regarding claims 51 and 53:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 43 and 23, respectively.
Muhammedali teaches the identification and visual identification of multiple keywords (see ¶0115 – 117 and Fig. 15F; Muhammedali) the selection of a keyword related to the resume in a resume section or first section (see ¶0115 – 117 and Fig. 15F and Fig. 15H (1540); Muhammedali). However, Muhammedali does not explicitly teach the abilities of specifically categorize keywords by type/color code and typographically/visually emphasizing the keywords with colors and their types. Of note, Shibata does not teach the specific resume, job posting summaries or the claimed resume/job posting sections as shown in brackets “[]” below but previously taught by Muhammedali as discussed above. However, Shibata further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to categorize the [resume] keywords by type, color code different types of [resume] keywords, and typographically emphasize the [resume] keywords by visually emphasizing them in colors associated with their type. (In ¶0090; Figs. 5 and 7 - 9: teaches that the “display aspects may be displays which permit the user to identify the keyword weights, and the keywords may well be displayed by employing any of, for example, changing the density of highlighting, changing the sort of meshing, changing the gradation of the background, changing the sort of shading, changing a font size, changing the sort of a font, and changing the sort of an underline. It is also allowed to change the display color of the background of the keyword” which is directed to categorizing and typographically emphasize the resume keywords based on user preferences. Refer to ¶0090 – 92 for examples wherein feature words are distinguishable from each other so they “can be grasped at a look”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and its sections corresponding to a resume (i.e. first section) and portion(s) of the list of job posting summaries or job posting summaries of a job posting (i.e. second section) sections taught, to further to provide the abilities of specifically categorize keywords by type/color code and typographically/visually emphasizing the keywords with colors and their types, as taught by Shibata in order to “know those words in the input document which are the retrieval keywords used for the retrieval of the designated retrieved document”, to “further grasp the weights of the words in the retrieved document” and/or “easily find out the desired document from within the group of retrieved documents by performing the job of finding the document in which the more important keyword is more emphasized.” (¶0035 and ¶0073; Shibata). Further such ability provided by Shibata into Muhammedali system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of simultaneously and visually emphasizing by colors and category type, common keywords selected by a user, between two distinct document sections using a computer to the known method and computer system for searching/filtering similar keywords between candidate profiles/resumes and the employer’s job postings and corresponding job posting summaries sections, as provided by Muhammedali. Thus, applying the side-by-side comparison and keyword highlight functions provided by Shibata for such sections in a computer enables the user to quickly analyze, compare and filter potential candidate profiles to be hired for a job posting, by finding similarities or differentiations between these document sections). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 38, 42 and 46 – 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammedali (WO Pub. No. 2015175652 A1) in view of Shibata (U.S. Pub. No. 20060282415 A1) in further view of Zavrel (U.S. Pub. No. 20190042652 A1).
Regarding claim 38:
The combination of Muhammedali, Shibata and Zavrel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 42.
Muhammedali further teaches:
wherein, to dynamically adjust the list of job posting summaries, the one or more processors are further configured to remove any of the job posting summaries that comprise a summary of a job posting that does not include the additional resume keyword. (In ¶00137; Fig. 10 (1006 – 1008); Fig. 31: teaches the dynamic adjustment of the list of job posting summaries that are removed, with other list of (e.g. new set of) job posting summaries that meet the selected keyword with the purpose of refining job posting results. Thus, the system allows the user (e.g. candidate) in Fig. 31 to generate “a search of job listings” by selecting and entering “fields” that include “a Job Title field, a Skills field and a geographic location field” which based on the filters entered/added in different instances will replace the existing job posting summaries by removing them with ones that were not previously displayed and does not include the additional resume keyword, in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0076. Therefore, job posting summaries that do not meet the additional selected keyword match are naturally not shown (e.g. job postings are removed). Also, refer to ¶0043 and Fig. 2 (220) wherein the system’s “SRM component compares the employment candidate’s 35 updated job history information to any matching available job listings stored in the SRM 1 system (see, e.g., FI G. 10)” (see ¶0085 for more details) that when “any matching job listings are found, the SRM component sends those job listings to the employment candidate via Network Interface Servers 102 (step 222)” and “the updated job listings are received by the client terminal 106 (step 224) and displayed to the employment candidate on the display device of the client terminal 106 (step 5226)” which is another example of dynamically adjust lists of job posting summaries by removing existing job posting summaries that do not include the additional selected keyword.)
Regarding claim 42:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Muhammedali teaches a second section with a list of postings that can be searchable (see Figs. 15B and 15E – 15F and ¶0110 and ¶0113 – 115; Muhammedali). However, neither Muhammedali or Shibata teaches the abilities of specifically identifying freeform selection of a portion of a first section to convert it as an additional resume keyword, retrieve additional search-terms and dynamically adjust the related list of job postings summaries on a second section. Thus, Zavrel discloses “systems and methods for improving search results through partial selection of an initial result”, specifically for “adjusting search queries for candidates on employment websites” (see ¶0005; Zavrel), thus teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify when the user has performed a freeform selection of a portion of text displayed in the first section; (In ¶0054; Fig. 5: teaches that the system allows “the recruiter 104” to select the “Additional search term” “button to create an additional search term based upon the portion 502 of the candidate information 404 that is highlighted” which is directed to automatically converting the selected portion in Fig. 5 into an additional posting keyword.)
automatically convert the selected portion into an additional resume keyword; (In ¶0060; Fig. 9: teaches that the system allows “the recruiter 104” to select the “indicate the search term (“Mini-Tab”) and the corresponding category (“Skills”) that is to be generated based upon the portion 902 of the candidate information 804 that has been highlighted” which is directed to automatically converting the selected portion in Fig. 9 into an additional resume keyword.)
retrieve one or more additional search-terms from the second database based on the additional resume keyword; and (In ¶0060; Fig. 9: teaches that the “search term generator 134 automatically generates the new search term based upon the portion 902 of the candidate information 484 that has been highlighted on the employment website 106 by the recruiter 104 to enable the recruiter 104 to quickly and intuitively revise the search term list 302 that is utilized in searching for candidates of interest” which is directed to retrieving the additional search-terms from the second database.)
dynamically adjust the list of job posting summaries presented in the second section of the display screen based on the one or more additional search-terms.(In ¶0042; Fig. 5 (510) and Fig. 9 (910): teaches that “the query manager 132 presents a revised set of employer information upon the candidate 102 submitting other search term(s) via the employment website 106” wherein “upon identifying the highlighted portion of the employer information, the search term generator 134 automatically converts the highlighted portion into another search term” and “the query manager 132 modifies a search term list of the candidate 102 to include the new search term, retrieves a revised set of employer information from the employer database based on the updated search term list, and presents that employer information to the candidate 102 in the form of a revised list of employers” which is directed to dynamically adjust the list of job posting summaries since the “employer information” includes “employment opportunity information” that further includes “an employment title, a location or region of employment, an industry, an employment type, expected tasks, preferred or required years of experience, education level(s), certificate(s), license(s), etc.” (see ¶0039) Also, refer to ¶0061 – 62 for running this function based on candidate information and its corresponding lists and ¶0074 for more details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and Shibata to provide the abilities of specifically identifying freeform selection of a portion of a first section to convert it as an additional resume keyword, retrieve additional search-terms and dynamically adjust the related list of job postings summaries on a second section, as taught by Zavrel in order to improve “search results through partial selection of an initial result.” (¶0001; Zavrel).
Regarding claim 46:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 43.
Muhammedali teaches the functionality of expanding search results such as candidate profile/resume summary by clicking “Show More” (see Fig. 15H (1540); Muhammedali), as well as the system lets candidates search for job postings in Fig. 31 – 32 (see ¶00137 -138; Muhammedali). However, neither Muhammedali, or Shibata explicitly teaches the ability of specifically expand a selected job posting summary. Thus, Zavrel further teaches:
wherein, in response to the user selecting one of the job posting summaries from the list of job posting summaries, the one or more processors are further configured to expand the selected job posting summary within the second section of the display screen so as to display additional summary information. (In ¶0048; Figs. 3 – 4: the function of expanding a selected job posting summary is taught as the system’s interface shown in Fig. 3 allows the user to see the “list of candidates 308” that includes “one or more profile summaries 310” which can be further expanded when the user selects the “expansion tab 316” per each result (see Fig. 4; see ¶0048 – 49). Also, and although this exemplary embodiment is shown for “list of candidates 308” as final results to reflect this functionality, the same functionality can be applied to an employer information and its corresponding lists as results (see ¶0042 for more details).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and Shibata to provide the ability of specifically expand a selected job posting summary, as taught by Zavrel in order to improve “search results through partial selection of an initial result” (¶0001; Zavrel), but more specifically to “instruct the query manager 132 to present additional information (e.g., within an expanded profile summary 402 of FIG. 4)” (¶0048; Zavrel).
Regarding claim 47:
The combination of Muhammedali, Shibata and Zavrel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 46.
Muhammedali teaches the job posting summaries based on resume keywords selected by the user (see Figs. 15F – 15H (1534); see ¶0113 – 114; Muhammedali). Further, Muhammedali teaches that the user can further expand the candidate profile/resume summary by clicking “Show More” (see Fig. 15H (1540); Muhammedali). However, Muhammedali does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically visually emphasize a selected and expanded job posting summary containing the resume keywords claimed in claim 46. Of note, Shibata does not teach the specific resume, job posting summaries or the claimed resume/job posting sections as shown in brackets “[]” below but previously taught by Muhammedali as discussed above. Thus, Shibata further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to visually emphasize the [selected job posting summary that is expanded]. (In ¶0091; Figs.5 and 7 - 9: further teaches that the “when the user selects the word in either of the input document and the retrieved document which are displayed on the screen, the corresponding words in the other document are distinguishably displayed in the case where the selected word is the retrieval keyword or the feature word. Thus, those words stated in the document on the basis of which the retrieval process has been executed can be grasped at a look”, which is an example directed to visually emphasize the selected job posting summary that can be expanded as a “targeted document”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali to provide the ability of specifically visually emphasize a selected and expanded job posting summary containing the resume keywords claimed in claim 46, as taught by Shibata in order to “know those words in the input document which are the retrieval keywords used for the retrieval of the designated retrieved document”, to “further grasp the weights of the words in the retrieved document” and/or “easily find out the desired document from within the group of retrieved documents by performing the job of finding the document in which the more important keyword is more emphasized.” (¶0035 and ¶0073; Shibata). Further such ability provided by Shibata into Muhammedali system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of simultaneously and visually emphasizing common keywords selected by a user, in one of the document sections using a computer to the known method and computer system for searching/filtering similar keywords between candidate profiles/resumes and the employer’s job postings and corresponding job posting summaries sections, as provided by Muhammedali. Thus, applying the side-by-side comparison and keyword highlight functions provided by Shibata for such sections in a computer enables the user to quickly analyze, compare and filter potential candidate profiles to be hired for a job posting, by finding similarities or differentiations between these document sections). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Neither Muhammedali or Shibata explicitly teaches the ability of specifically expanding a selected job posting summary. Thus, Zavrel further teaches:
…job posting summary that is expanded. (In ¶0048; Figs. 3 – 4: the function of expanding a selected job posting summary is taught as the system’s interface shown in Fig. 3 allows the user to see the “list of candidates 308” that includes “one or more profile summaries 310” which can be further expanded when the user selects the “expansion tab 316” per each result (see Fig. 4; see ¶0048 – 49). Also, and although this exemplary embodiment is shown for “list of candidates 308” as final results to reflect this functionality, the same functionality can be applied to an employer information and its corresponding lists as results (see ¶0042 for more details).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and Shibata to provide the ability of specifically expanding a selected job posting summary, as taught by Zavrel in order to improve “search results through partial selection of an initial result” (¶0001; Zavrel), but more specifically to “instruct the query manager 132 to present additional information (e.g., within an expanded profile summary 402 of FIG. 4)” (¶0048; Zavrel). Further such ability provided by Shibata and Zavrel into Muhammedali system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of simultaneously and visually emphasizing common keywords selected by a user, between two distinct document sections wherein one section can be further expanded (as provided by Zavrel) using a computer to the known method and computer system for searching/filtering similar keywords between candidate profiles/resumes and the employer’s job postings and corresponding job posting summaries sections, as provided by Muhammedali. Thus, applying the side-by-side comparison and keyword highlight functions provided by Shibata for such sections and the expansion feature provided by Zavrel in a computer enables the user to quickly analyze, compare and filter potential candidate profiles to be hired for a job posting, by finding similarities or differentiations between these document sections). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammedali (WO Pub. No. 2015175652 A1) in view of Shibata (U.S. Pub. No. 20060282415 A1) in further view of Zavrel (U.S. Pub. No. 20190042652 A1) and Ching (U.S. Patent. No. 9916383 B1).
Regarding claim 39:
The combination of Muhammedali, Shibata and Zavrel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 42.
Muhammedali teaches the list of profiles (see Figs. 15F – 15G (1538) and ¶0116; Muhammedali) and the job posting summaries based on resume keywords selected by the user (see Figs. 15F – 15H (1534); see ¶0113 – 114; Muhammedali). Further, Zavrel teaches the feature of dynamically adjusting the list of profiles (see Figs. 5 and 9 and ¶0042; Zavrel). However, neither Muhammedali, Shibata or Zavrel explicitly teach the ability of further visually indicate each job posting summary with the additional resume keyword during the generation of the dynamic adjustment of the list of profiles. Thus, Ching discloses computer services “allow a user to search for documents using keywords” that “provide a list of documents that contain within the document one or more of the keywords supplied by the user” and the “user may then be able to access one or more of the documents to analyze the contents and identify where the keywords are used” (see C1; L21 – 28; Ching) thus, teaches:
wherein, to dynamically adjust the list of profiles, the one or more processors are further configured to visually indicate in real-time, each of the job posting summaries that comprise a summary of a job posting that includes the additional resume keyword. (In C29; L8 – 19; Figs. 6, 23D, 23E and 23F: teaches that upon the user inputting “a new keyword to the keyword string” via “the Adaptive Search function 2225” that is further “configured to process and to accept the new keyword to refine the current keyword string for further search and analysis of the targeted documents, an example of which is illustrated in FIG. 23E” (see C29; L1 – 7), the “Document Comparator module 2105 includes the Adaptive Mapping function 2230 that can be configured to update keyword mappings upon receiving the refined keyword. The updated keyword mappings can be based at least in part on the refined keyword string, an example of which is illustrated in FIG. 23F. The user can select the documents provided by the Adaptive Search function 2225 to get a side-by-side display of multiple sections of documents. By repeating steps described herein with reference to FIGS. 23C to 23F, the user can adaptively refine keywords and search documents based on the refined keywords, improving the quality and efficiency of document analysis” wherein for the “side-by-side display”, the “Side-by-Side Comparison function 2220 can be configured to indicate each keyword and/or associated keyword using distinct fonts, typeface, colors, etc. to enable a user to identify the keywords and to analyze more easily the targeted documents.” (see C28; L51 – 63). See C18; L48 – 59 wherein “keywords can be highlighted, bolded, italicized, colorized, or the like when displayed to a user” as well as “If more than one keyword is included in the document (e.g., different keywords), then each of the different keywords can be indicated in a manner that is consistent for the keyword but different from other keywords. For example, keywords can be color coded to facilitate identification of where the same keyword appears in the selected document sections.” Examiner notes that the disclosed function of “Side-by-Side Comparison” can be implemented in “targeted documents” such as job posting summaries documents and their respective resume keywords, as provided by Muhammedali.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali, Shibata and Zavrel to provide the ability of further visually indicate each job posting summary with the additional resume keyword during the generation of the dynamic adjustment of the list of profiles, as taught by Ching in order to “enable a user to identify the keywords and to analyze more easily the targeted documents” and “advantageously allow the user to detect potential inconsistence between multiple documents” (C28; L57 – 63; Ching). But also, for the user to be able to “adaptively refine keywords and search documents based on the refined keywords, improving the quality and efficiency of document analysis” (C29; L15 – 19; Ching).
Claims 31 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammedali (WO Pub. No. 2015175652 A1) in view of Shibata (U.S. Pub. No. 20060282415 A1) in further view of Schwartz (U.S. Pub. No. 20160171090 A1).
Regarding claim 31:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Muhammedali teaches profiles such as “employment candidates” and job postings such as “job search results” being selected and highlighted in Figs. 15E – 15H from a list of profiles in two sections while However, neither Muhammedali or Shibata explicitly teaches specifically highlighting an item (e.g. a profile, a resume, a project, etc.), only while a cursor is hovered over the selected keyword. Thus, Schwartz discloses “software-implemented data analytics” via “systems and methods for analyzing people and connections within an organization, e.g., in order to identify the right people with the right expertise for a particular purpose, or to understand trends that could better inform institutional investment decisions” (see ¶0002 – 3; Schwartz), thus teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to highlight the at least one of the profiles from the list of profiles only while a cursor is hovered over the selected keyword. (In ¶0177; Figs. 2 and 9 - 11: teaches that “selecting, e.g., hovering over, keywords in a keyword cloud interface of an entity profile interface may update the related projects interface to highlight those projects related to the selected keywords”. Refer to ¶0197, ¶0204 for more details of the hovering function to display highlighted keywords or projects (directed to profiles from the list of profiles).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and Shibata to provide the ability of specifically highlighting a an item (e.g. a profile, a resume, a project, etc.), only while a cursor is hovered over the selected keyword, as taught by Schwartz in order to satisfy the need for “simple intuitive systems and methods for analyzing people and connections within an organization” but most importantly to “identify the right people with the right expertise for a particular purpose, or to understand trends that could better inform institutional investment decisions” (¶0003; Schwartz).
Regarding claim 48:
The combination of Muhammedali and Shibata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 43.
Muhammedali teaches profiles such as “employment candidates” and job postings such as “job search results” being selected and highlighted in Figs. 15E – 15H from a list of profiles in two sections while However, neither Muhammedali or Shibata explicitly teaches specifically highlighting an item (e.g. a profile, a resume, a project, etc.), only while a cursor is hovered over the selected keyword. Thus, Schwartz further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to highlight one or more resume keywords within the resume only while a cursor is hovered over the selected job posting summary. (In ¶0177; Figs. 2 and 9 - 11: teaches that “selecting, e.g., hovering over, keywords in a keyword cloud interface of an entity profile interface may update the related projects interface to highlight those projects related to the selected keywords”. Refer to ¶0197, ¶0204 for more details of the hovering function to display highlighted keywords or projects (directed to profiles from the list of profiles).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhammedali and Shibata to provide the ability of specifically highlighting a an item (e.g. a profile, a resume, a project, etc.), only while a cursor is hovered over the selected keyword, as taught by Schwartz in order to satisfy the need for “simple intuitive systems and methods for analyzing people and connections within an organization” but most importantly to “identify the right people with the right expertise for a particular purpose, or to understand trends that could better inform institutional investment decisions” (¶0003; Schwartz).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dexter (U.S. Pub No. 20110119262 A1) is pertinent because it “concerns semantic analysis of natural languages, including by utilizing matching algorithms.”
Hoeber (U.S. Patent No. 7788261 B2) is pertinent because it is “a method for displaying commonly occurring terms in search results.”
Obeid (U.S. Patent No. 11488111 B2) is pertinent because it is “a computer system and method for managing access to a resume database, searching the resume database, generating a resume summary based on a stored resume and job description, accessing a resume management and recruitment workflow system via a graphical user interface, and composing a resume for a candidate.”
Das (U.S. Pub No. 20190325398 A1) is pertinent because it “a system and method of generating skill centric online resumes with verifiable skills and customized views to assist in hiring.”
Lehal (U.S. Pub No. 20230401247 A1) is pertinent because it “pertains to a system and method for clause and clause cluster classification for structured document construction and analysis using clause taxonomy. The present invention also pertains to the categorization of clauses in documents, in particular in legal documents and contracts, and the presentation of clause categorization for document analysis, interpretation, annotation, versioning, and construction.”
Ursitti (U.S. Patent No. 7676455 B2) is pertinent because it “provide a user interface for subjecting the information to human analysis, after which suitable information is provided to a database or databases.”
Buhrmann (U.S. Pub No. 20160232160 A1) is pertinent because it “concerns semantic analysis of natural languages, including by utilizing matching algorithms.”
Michaels (U.S. Pub No. 20200193382 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relates to comparing the context of various documents, and in particular, to a system, method and apparatus to match resumes with job descriptions (or vice versa) using semantic evaluations.”
Chevalier (U.S. Pub No. 20230214941 A1) is pertinent because it is “directed generally to matching people, companies, organizations, and/or the like that may benefit from being connected (e.g., job candidates and recruiters, donors and charitable organizations, advertisers and target audiences, self forming groups, and/or the like) using a social platform, and more particularly, to SOCIAL MATCH PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS (hereinafter “SMP”).”
Shanlin Gu (U.S. Pub No. 20140289142 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to automated information processing area. More particularly, the present invention relates to method, apparatus and system for evaluating a skill level of a job seeker.”
Hardtke (U.S. Pub No. 20140122355 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relates to computer-based methods of matching candidates with job openings.”
Zhao (U.S. Pub No. 20170177708 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relates to data processing systems. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to methods, systems and computer program products for sending recommendations in a social network.”
Vailaya (U.S. Pub. No. 20190026300 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to document searching, and more particularly, this invention relates to methods for processing search queries, and index structures”.
Munzer (U.S. Pub No. 20150347976 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relates to computer technology for solving technical challenges in determining query attributes (e.g., locations, skills, positions, job titles, industries, years of experience and other query terms) for search queries.”
Silverstein (U.S. Pub No. 20130187926 A1) is pertinent because it presents “through a user interface, a document that contains information about an employment relationship of a person with an entity, while the document is being presented through the user interface, receiving from a presenter video information capturing a presentation about the information contained in the document, and providing a coordinated presentation of the document and the presentation to the presenter or to a party other than the presenter, through a user interface..”
Carpenter (U.S. Pub No. 20180336528 A1) is pertinent because it is “a server is used to screen a job candidate”
Jersin (U.S. Pub No. 20190197486 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relates to computer technology for solving technical challenges in determining query attributes (e.g., locations, skills, positions, job titles, industries, years of experience and other query terms) for search queries.”
Zhang – b (U.S. Pub No. 20080222103 A1) is pertinent because it is “generally relates to information technology, and more particularly, to a system and method for interactively browsing information.”
Zhang – c (U.S. Patent No. 9665641 B1) is pertinent because it is about “system, methods, and user interface for searching documents related to resumes or job descriptions as a special type of unstructured data.”
Rudloff (U.S. Pub No. 20110099118 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to systems and methods for the electronic distribution of job listings, such as over the Internet.”
Krishnan (U.S. Pub No. 20160147848 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to apparatus and methods for searching and visual presentation. More particularly, the disclosure relates to visual presentation of search results to assist cognitive pattern recognition.”
Gupta (U.S. Pub No. 20200065769 A1) is pertinent because it is “generally relate to big data analytics and machine learning applied to the field of identifying, ordering and contacting candidates, and more particularly to a system and method for identifying, ordering, and contacting candidates for a target position based on a position detail profile for the target position.”
Berg (U.S. Pub No. 20090063468 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to systems and methods for managing career opportunities and a system and method for developing a career website (or jobsite) and/or directing potential candidates to a company website, and more particularly to developing a career website and optimizing content of the career website for search engine placement.”
MacDaniel (U.S. Pub No. 20090070126 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to the field of the online job search market, and more particularly to a system and method for employers to post employment opportunities, for job seekers to post resumes, wherein the employment opportunities and/or resumes are ranked depending on the amount of viewing by an individual.”
Sergott (U.S. Pub. No. 20190318317 A1) is pertinent because it is “directed to systems and methods for providing job searching services, recruitment services and/or recruitment-related services as they may relate to suppliers, hiring managers and/or hiring entities, in a network environment”
Bue (U.S. Patent No. 11157877 B1) is pertinent because it “relates to the field of job posting systems. More particularly, the present technology relates to techniques for automatically creating and sharing job-related information”.
Pearson (U.S. Pub No. 20150006421 A1) is pertinent because it is about a systems and methods that comprises of “(1) determining whether a number of active candidate profiles for a campaign for an employment position satisfies a configurable threshold; (2) responsive to determining that the number of active candidate profiles for the campaign for the employment position does not satisfy the configurable threshold, automatically generating an electronic posting for the employment position; and (3) automatically providing the electronic posting for the employment position to one or more candidate source computing entities for display.”
Kurzius (U.S. Patent No. 6385620 B1) is pertinent because it is “a system for automated candidate recruiting using a network includes a candidate web engine operable to communicate with the network and to present a candidate survey form to a client of the network, the candidate web engine further operable to receive candidate qualification data from the client that is entered in the form.”
Carter (U.S. Pub No. 20150006422 A1) is pertinent because it is “a computer-based system for presenting employment analysis and recommendation is disclosed using an employment matching server system, operatively coupled to a public network.”
Meier (U.S. Pub No. 20170270485 A1) is pertinent because it “provide[s] systems or methods of matching job postings and candidates. The system may be used by a recruiter to post job postings and identify suitable candidates, and the system may be used by a job-seeking candidate to post a resume and identify suitable job postings.”
Champaneira (U.S. Pub No. 20190019160 A1) is pertinent because it is a “method and system for automating some aspects of a recruiting process may be described. Such a method may operate to match résumés and job descriptions, and may initiate communications between a candidate and a recruiter once an appropriate match has been found. This may allow recruiters to focus on the highest level of vetting, and on aspects of the recruitment process such as promoting of the hiring company and salary negotiations.”
Zhang (U.S. Pub No. 20190138645 A1) is pertinent because it recognizes that “users new to the generation of a document type, may obtain copies of similar documents through web searches, requesting a copy from friends or colleagues, etc. However, there is no guarantee that the template used, or the content copied, or relied upon is fully relevant, accurate or of high quality. Further, obtaining quality example content may be time consuming.”
Compare Suit, Compare Word Documents with Compare Suite – Case Studies (January 15, 2015) is pertinent because it discusses an application that includes a function called “Compare File” which allows to “quickly find which information is different into these files” including keywords and can be applied to search keywords between resumes and job descriptions.
Jobscan, Jobscan Tutorial (March 16, 2017) is pertinent because it discusses an application that includes functions to “optimize your resume against any job description and make yourself a top candidate”.
Hu, 8 Things You Need To Know About Applicant Tracking Systems (January 21, 2015) is pertinent because it discusses “how to get your CV noticed by Applicant Tracking Systems, so that it can then go on to the real human beings who will call you for interviews.”.
Cain, After putting my résumé through an online scan, I realized the problem with using the same one for every job (March 6, 2017) is pertinent because it discusses the “applicant tracking systems (ATS)” called “Jobscan” in which “this recruitment software often weeds out candidates based on keywords in their applications.”
Guo, RésuMatcher: A personalized résumé-job matching system (August 23, 2015) is pertinent because it discusses a “resume matching system, RésuMatcher, which intelligently extracts the qualifications and experience of a job seeker directly from his/her résumé, and relevant information about the qualifications and experience requirements of job postings.”
Singh, PROSPECT: A System for Screening Candidates for Recruitment (October 26–30, 2010) is pertinent because it discusses “PROSPECT, a decision support tool to help these screeners shortlist resumes efficiently.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
