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 .
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.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 9 – 12: Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended limitation steps in the pending claims were considered but are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the “simultaneous nature of the interactive functionality between the first and second sections of the claimed interface systems” recited and clarified by the Applicant (see p.10 from Remarks), in the independent claims are now clearly supported by the combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das which make the subsequent arguments moot since it constitutes new grounds of rejection in the amended limitations which did not rely on any of the references previously applied in the prior rejection and further challenged by the Applicant in the Remarks. For clarity purposes and to promote compact prosecution, the new prior art of Ching introduced, is related to “the field of document search and analysis” and provides “network sites” with services that “allow a user to search for documents using keywords” as well as providing “a list of documents that contain within the document one or more of the keywords supplied by the user” (see C1; L17 – 31) which are further extended for search services “on an internal network to allow systems and/or employees to search internal documents stored in a company document data store” (see C8; L39 – 46; i.e. providing Applicant Tracking System (ATS) services, for example). Thus, Ching reasonably teaches the functionality claimed for either selecting a keyword or a job posting in one of their respective sections that are dynamically changing and adapting based on user input while showing these documents in a side-by-side format. Moreover, the resume document section (i.e. “a first section with the resume” claimed) and 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) are also taught by Muhammedali in Fig. 15H (1536, 1538 and 1540) and ¶0023 for the system to be used by recruiters as well as ¶0085 for the system to be used by candidates. Similarly, Das teaches that its system can allow “in some embodiments, the automated matching of job postings on the platform with resumes on the platform, wherein a resume can be identified based upon matching of at least two (or any desired number of) elements via the #“skill” tagging of each resume and a job posting” (see ¶0033; Das). Also, Das system can “provide customized viewing of resumes based on the audience, such as viewing modes or displays for peers, mentors, managers, human resources, and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired group, which can include the same information (or a limited set of information), but in a format which may be more appropriate for the identified viewer” (see ¶0034; Das).
Further, the Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings while considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of each claim. Thus, under the BRI of the claim limitations pointed by the Applicant are still reasonably taught by at least the combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das. Finally, due to the BRI of the claim language, the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have re-arrange or interchange the functions of modifying the “the list of job posting summaries” or “the resume” to “visually emphasize” one of the postings summaries from its corresponding list or resume keywords for the first and second sections (i.e. the “first section with the resume” and the “second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries”), upon the user selecting (i.e. clicking/tapping) keywords of the resume section and/or one of the job posting summaries from its corresponding list section (i.e. from any of these sections) to refine or re-adjust the matching keywords results based on the user’s (i.e. either the candidate or recruiter) necessity (see MPEP 2144.04). Because the same functionalities of “simultaneous interactive display” of keywords upon user selection of a keyword/one of the job posting summaries from a list, in either of the two sections in a “side-by-side” format visualization argued in pp. 10 – 12 from Remarks, can be advantageously provided, to a job seeker or candidate, as well as to a recruiter or employer to obtain accurate and clear visuals of their corresponding searching results. Therefore, due to the reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
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, 39 – 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 Ching (U.S. Patent. No. 9916383 B1) in further view of Das (U.S. Pub. No. 20190325398 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Muhammedali 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 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 resume keywords 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. 15H (1536 and 1538): teaches the simultaneous population of a 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 shown in Figs. 15G - 15H (directed to the list of job posting summaries; see ¶00116 for more details) and a second section with a candidate’s resume in “1538 and 1540” (directed to the resume’s depiction since the user can click in “show more” to see further details of “Katy J” resume in Fig. 15H; 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) being typographically emphasized in a first section for a candidate profile (also, “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), wherein “Skills/Keywords” are highlighted in its respective sub-section in Fig. 15H. But also, the “related skills” and “job titles” that are emphasized in bold for the job posting summary listings, for example “photoshop” which appears in both sections (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) 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; Muhammedali). But, Muhammedali does not explicitly teach the ability of receiving input of a user selecting a keyword from a resume document section to then emphasize the common keyword in a second job posting document section next to the resume document section. However, Ching teaches:
receiving, via an input device, a user selection of a selected keyword from the resume keywords displayed in the first section; and (In C28 – 29; L64 – 67 and L1 – 7; Fig. 11 (1104 – 1108); Fig. 23C – 23E and Fig. 26C: teaches a “Document Comparator module 2105 includes the Adaptive Search function 2225 that can be configured to provide additional search capabilities”. For example, “a user can select (e.g., through a click or tap on the keyword) a keyword. The Adaptive Search function 2225 can then a way (e.g., a pop up text box) for the user to input a new keyword to the keyword string. The Adaptive Search function 2225 can be 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”. Refer to Fig. 11 and C28; L51 – 64 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 to provide the ability of receiving input of a user selecting a keyword from a resume document section to then emphasize the common keyword in a second job posting document section next to the resume document section, as taught by Ching in order to “enable a user to identify the keywords and to analyze more easily the targeted documents” (C28; L57 – 63; Ching) and 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).
Neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teaches the ability of upon user selection of a displayed keyword in a first section, specifically for a resume, modify the depiction of the resume to visually emphasize a posting from the list of job posting summaries that further includes the selected keyword. However, Das teaches:
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 ¶0034; Figs. 3 – 5: teaches that the system lets a user click “skills” so the “viewer can be directed to a link that contains a graphical representation 502 of the veracity/verification of the skill 502” and “display or suppress the associated activities that have been used to support the verification of the skill” from the “option 506” (e.g. keywords; see ¶0039 - 40 and Fig. 3) and “allows a potential employer to select an area, such as course work 304, and the system will present all of the user's/registrant's relevant posting/entries related to the user's/registrant's course work so that a user can review the postings/entries”. But also, the system can allow “in some embodiments, the automated matching of job postings on the platform with resumes on the platform, wherein a resume can be identified based upon matching of at least two (or any desired number of) elements via the #“skill” tagging of each resume and a job posting”. Such visual emphasis that modifies the resume is illustrated in Fig. 4 within a resume as “circles” and other highlights (see ¶0036 and ¶0039) and a “links” section (see ¶0039 – 40) that can correspond to at least one job postings from the job posting list as stated above. Finally, the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have re-arrange or interchange the functions of modifying the “the list of job posting summaries” or “the resume” to “visually emphasize” one of the postings summaries from its corresponding list or resume keywords for the first and second sections (i.e. the “first section with the resume” and the “second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries”), upon the user selecting (i.e. clicking/tapping) keywords of the resume section and/or one of the job posting summaries from its corresponding list section (i.e. from any of these sections) to refine or re-adjust the matching keywords results based on the user’s (i.e. either the candidate or recruiter) necessity (see MPEP 2144.04).)
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 Ching to provide the ability of upon user selection of a displayed keyword in a first section, specifically for a resume, modify the depiction of the resume to visually emphasize a posting from the list of job posting summaries that further includes the selected keyword, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
Regarding claim 43:
Muhammedali 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 for “a job title or a skill (step 804 a)” (see ¶0080), for example in the “Campaign Database 3319 f (step 716)” directed to search-terms 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 profiles 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. 15H (1536 and 1538): teaches the simultaneous population of a 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 shown in Figs. 15G - 15H (directed to the list of job posting summaries; see ¶00116 for more details) and a second section with a candidate’s resume in “1538 and 1540” (directed to the resume’s depiction since the user can click in “show more” to see further details of “Katy J” resume in Fig. 15H; 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 ¶0114) being typographically emphasized in a first section for a candidate profile, wherein “Skills/Keywords” are highlighted in its respective sub-section in Fig. 15H. But also, the “related skills” and “job titles” that are emphasized in bold for the job posting summary listings, for example “photoshop” which appears in both sections (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 selection of a profile from a list of profiles (see ¶0116 and Fig. 15G; Muhammedali) 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; Muhammedali). But, Muhammedali does not explicitly teach the ability of receiving input of a user selecting a job posting summary from a list of job posting summaries (i.e. list of documents) section to then emphasize the common keyword in the resume document section next to the portion of the list of job posting summaries document section. However, Ching 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 C28; L42 – 50; Fig. 11 (1104 – 1108); Fig. 23C – 23E and Fig. 26C: teaches “Document Comparator module 2105 includes the Side-by-Side Section function 2215 that can be configured to display a list of sections from each of a number of selected documents. The list of sections for each document can provide a number of matches in each section with respect to each keyword, each keyword using a distinct color, for example. The user can select a section form this list for each selected document for further analysis, an example of which is illustrated in FIG. 23C”. Similarly, “Document Comparator module 2105 includes the Side-by-Side Comparison function 2220 that can be configured to display side-by-side the relevant portions (e.g., paragraphs, sentences, etc.) from the selected sections, where the relevant portions may be determined with respect to the keywords and/or associated keywords” (see C23; L14 – 56). Refer to Fig. 11 and C28; L51 – 64 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 to provide the ability of receiving input of a user selecting a job posting summary from a list of job posting summaries (i.e. list of documents) section to then emphasize the common keyword in the resume document section next to the portion of the list of job posting summaries document section, as taught by Ching in order to “enable a user to identify the keywords and to analyze more easily the targeted documents” (C28; L57 – 63; Ching) and 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).
Neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teaches the ability of upon user selection of a job posting in a second section, specifically for a list of job posting summaries, modify the resume to visually emphasize resume keywords among posting keywords of the job posting summarized. However, Das teaches:
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 ¶0034; Figs. 3 – 5: teaches that the system lets a user click “skills” (e.g. keywords; see ¶0039 and Fig. 3) and “allows a potential employer to select an area, such as course work 304, and the system will present all of the user's/registrant's relevant posting/entries related to the user's/registrant's course work so that a user can review the postings/entries”. But also, the system can allow “in some embodiments, the automated matching of job postings on the platform with resumes on the platform, wherein a resume can be identified based upon matching of at least two (or any desired number of) elements via the #“skill” tagging of each resume and a job posting”. Such visual emphasis of at least job posting when modifying the resume is illustrated in Fig. 4 within a resume as “circles” and other highlights (see ¶0036 and ¶0039) and a “links” section (see ¶0039 – 40) that can correspond to at least one job postings from the job posting list being highlighted as stated above. Examiner notes that this claimed invention can “provide customized viewing of resumes based on the audience, such as viewing modes or displays for peers, mentors, managers, human resources, and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired group, which can include the same information (or a limited set of information), but in a format which may be more appropriate for the identified viewer” (see ¶0033) wherein the user is the candidate to view keywords matching between job postings and their resume, in this case. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have re-arrange or interchange the functions of modifying the “the list of job posting summaries” or “the resume” to “visually emphasize” one of the postings summaries from its corresponding list or resume keywords for the first and second sections (i.e. the “first section with the resume” and the “second section with at least a portion of the list of job posting summaries”), upon the user selecting (i.e. clicking/tapping) keywords of the resume section and/or one of the job posting summaries from its corresponding list section (i.e. from any of these sections) to refine or re-adjust the matching keywords results based on the user’s (i.e. either the candidate or recruiter) necessity (see MPEP 2144.04).)
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 upon user selection of a job posting in a second section, specifically for a list of job posting summaries, modify the resume to visually emphasize resume keywords among posting keywords of the job posting summarized, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das, 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, Ching and Das, 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, Ching and Das, 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 claim 39:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teach the ability of dynamically adjusting the list profiles by visually indicating each job posting summary with the additional resume keyword. Thus, Das further 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 ¶0110; Figs. 3 – 5: teaches the dynamic adjustment of the list of profiles and the visual indication in real-time with additional reference keywords for each of the job posting summaries, as the system can present the “#“skill” tagging of each resume and a job posting” (see ¶0034 and Fig. 3) and in Fig. 4 is further illustrated as the as the “circles” and other highlights within the resume (directed to the list of profiles; see ¶0036 and ¶0039) and a “links” section (see ¶0039 – 40) that can correspond to at least one job posting from the job posting list of the presented “user's/registrant's relevant posting/entries” for that additional keyword.)
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 Ching to provide the ability of dynamically adjusting the list profiles by visually indicating each job posting summary with the additional resume keyword, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
Regarding claims 40 and 44:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das, 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, Ching and Das, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 43.
Muhammedali teaches the feature of maintaining visual indication of profile results after user removes the input device (e.g. deselect or uncheck) from the selected keyword from the job-related skills from the screen sections as shown in Fig. 15F and 15G (see ¶0115; Muhammedali) However, neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teach the maintaining visual emphasis, specifically, of resume keywords after the user removes the input device from the selected job posting summary. However, Das 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 ¶0054; Figs. 4, 9 – 10 and 13B: teaches that “a work, skill or other type of search 958 can be conducted to sift resumes and queries can be edited 960 or created 962 as desired so that resumes can be screened/displayed as desired” even after reviewing any “postings” within the “links” section in the resume as shown in Fig. 4. The “presented resume 900 can include the resume information asserted by the user/registrant and the skills categorization along with links to the postings associated with that user's/registrant's skills” that can be job postings (see ¶0034), in accordance to ¶0097 from Applicant specs. Also, “user/registrant can navigate the system by using buttons 1308 1310 to add, remove or edit skills within the user's/registrant's resume, it should be noted with particularity, that while the addition/editing form for skills is presented in a particular format, any known, convenient and/or desired format can be employed” (see ¶0057).)
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 Ching to provide the of ability of ability of maintaining visual emphasis, specifically, of resume keywords after the user removes the input device from the selected job posting summary, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
Regarding claims 50 and 52:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 43 and 23, respectively.
Neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teach the ability of specifically present job postings based on how closely they correspond with the search-terms when generating the list of job posting summaries. However, Das further teaches:
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 ¶0039; Fig. 5: teaches that the system “in FIG. 5, the graphical representation 502 can provide the user with information such as the number of postings made by the user that are associated with the relevant skill and a circle that is, by way of non-limiting example, shows a thicker arc 504 covering approximately ⅔ of the circle indicating approximately a 66% verification of the skill”. Further, this display of information for posting can also be enabled to job posting summaries specifically (see ¶0034 and ¶0040).)
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 Ching to provide the of ability of specifically present job postings based on how closely they correspond with the search-terms when generating the list of job posting summaries, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
Regarding claims 51 and 53:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 43 and 23, respectively.
Neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teach the abilities of specifically categorize resume keywords by type/color code and typographically/visually emphasizing the resume keywords with colors and their types. However, Das 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, (In ¶0047; Fig. 13B: teaches that “a user/registrant 702 can enter resume information into the resume engine 710 and the resume information can be categorized into relevant skills” (see ¶0041 also).)
and typographically emphasize the resume keywords by visually emphasizing them in colors associated with their type. (In ¶0036; Fig. 4 - 5: teaches an example wherein “the technical skills section 410” from the resume, “individual skills can be represented as circles of various sizes or colors and/or circles having portions of an arc in a thicker line (or line of different color) wherein the length of the arc in a thicker line and/or the size of the circle is representative of the degree of veracity or verification associated with the given skill”.)
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 Ching to provide the abilities of specifically categorize resume keywords by type/color code and typographically/visually emphasizing the resume keywords with colors and their types, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
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 Ching (U.S. Patent. No. 9916383 B1) in further view of Das (U.S. Pub. No. 20190325398 A1) and Zavrel (U.S. Pub. No. 20190042652 A1).
Regarding claim 38:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching, Das 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, Ching and Das, 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, Ching or Das 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 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; Figs. 5 and 9: 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, Ching and Das 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, Ching and Das, 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, Ching or Das 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, Ching and Das 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, Ching, Das and Zavrel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 46.
Muhammedali teaches that the user can further expand the candidate profile/resume summary by clicking “Show More” (see Fig. 15H (1540); Muhammedali). However, neither Muhammedali or Ching explicitly teaches the ability of specifically visually emphasize a selected and expanded job posting summary. Thus, Das further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to visually emphasize the selected job posting summary that is expanded. (In ¶0039 – 40; Fig. 5 (506): teaches that upon user clicks a “skill” from the “technical skills” section in the resume shown in Fig. 4, the user is directed to a “link that contains a graphical representation 502 of the veracity/verification of the skill 502” that provides “the user with information such as the number of postings made by the user that are associated with the relevant skill and a circle” and additionally, the user can further click an option to expand/display or “suppress” associated “activities” related to the skill and that can be “relevant postings or forums” wherein such postings can be job posting summaries (see ¶0040).)
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 Ching to provide the ability of specifically visually emphasize a selected and expanded job posting summary, as taught by Das in order to have “resume elements and postings” that “can be categorized and associated with one or more skills in an automated manner using key words and/or phrases and/or any other known, convenient and/or desired technique” (¶0041; Das).
Neither Muhammedali, Ching or Das explicitly teaches the ability of specifically expand 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, Ching and Das 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).
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 Ching (U.S. Patent. No. 9916383 B1) in further view of Das (U.S. Pub. No. 20190325398 A1) and Schwartz (U.S. Pub. No. 20160171090 A1).
Regarding claim 31:
The combination of Muhammedali, Ching and Das, 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 Das teaches the visual emphasis of keyword(s) or “skills” in the resume section that further includes a “links” section of “user's/registrant's relevant posting/entries” related to the user's/registrant's experience/work which can correspond to job posting lists (see ¶0034, ¶0036 and ¶0039 – 40; Figs. 3 – 5; Das). However, neither Muhammedali, Ching or Das 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 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, Ching and Das 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, Ching and Das, 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 Das teaches the visual emphasis of keyword(s) or “skills” in the resume section that further includes a “links” section of “user's/registrant's relevant posting/entries” related to the user's/registrant's experience/work which can correspond to job posting lists (see ¶0034, ¶0036 and ¶0039 – 40; Figs. 3 – 5; Das). However, neither Muhammedali, Ching or Das 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, Ching and Das 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:
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.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626