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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed April 1, 2026. Claims 1 and 30 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-17, and 19-32 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-17, and 19-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) features to provide a vertical application operable to automatically match a plurality of candidate resumes with a plurality of job specifications for open roles to identify matches between candidates and open roles, where the vertical application requires data that encodes meaning, where the data is heterogeneous and is broad in scope and is not limited to a pre-defined and limited set of words or terms or concepts, and the system comprises at least one data store embodied on a non-transitory storage medium containing a structured machine-readable representation of the data that conforms to a machine readable processable language that encodes meaning, wherein at least some parts of at least come of the candidate resumes and at least some parts of the at least some of the job specifications are stored in the structured, machine readable representation of the data, wherein the structured machine-readable representation of the data is a machine language comprising combinations of semantic nodes and passages, and in which each semantic node represents an entity and is itself represented by an identifier and each passage is either (i) a semantic node or (ii) a combination of semantic nodes; and where machine-readable meaning comes from choice of semantic nodes and a way the semantic nodes are combined and ordered as passages, in which semantic nodes are represented in the machine language, the machine language including semantic links between semantic nodes wherein the semantic links are themselves semantic nodes, in which each semantic node denotes one specific meaning, in which a combination of semantic nodes defines a semantic node,
In which the structured, machine-readable representation of data includes factual statements, query statements, reasoning statements and reasoning passages, wherein the reasoning passages are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps
in which the structured machine-readable representation of data uses a shared syntax that applies to semantic nodes and passages that represent the factual statements, the query statements, the reasoning statements, and the reasoning passages, wherein the syntax is an unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured, machine-readable representations of data to a depth;
wherein the system is configured so that data is automatically translated into the machine readable representation by a machine learning system that generates the semantic nodes or passages that represent the data, wherein the system is configured to:
(a) store or access in the non-transitory storage medium the structured, machine- readable representation of data that conforms to the machine-readable processable language;
(b) automatically process the structured, machine-readable representation of data, including processing at least some of the reasoning passages represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps, to make a sequence of logical reasoning steps in order to match skills or experience with a requirement in a job specification, and to generate an explanation of which bits of the job specification match the skills and experience of the candidates, including for a match where there are no keywords in common between relevant parts of natural language versions of the candidate resume and the job specification and
(c) store a final answer of the reasoning, and the explanation of the reasoning, in the processable language.
The features to automatically match candidates and open roles can be achieved by a human performing obtaining resumes and job specifications for open roles and reviewing the resumes and openings to determine matches. The features for data that encodes meaning, where the data is heterogeneous and broad and is not limited to a pre-defined and limited set of words or terms or concepts is a data organization and manipulation that can be achieved by the person, using pen and paper, organizing words, terms or concepts in a database format. The feature for a data store containing structured machine-readable representations of data encodes meaning is a pre/post solution activity that can be achieved by a human, using pen and paper to store data or access data of a desired format that is representative of machine readable processable language, for storing resumes and job descriptions. The feature for the machine-readable representation of the data is a machine language comprising combinations of semantic nodes and passages: and in which each semantic node represents entities and is represented by an identifier and each passage is either a semantic node or combination of semantic nodes where meaning comes from choice of semantic nodes and a way they are combined, in which semantic nodes are represented in the machine language, the machine language including semantic links between semantic nodes wherein the semantic links are themselves semantic nodes, in which each semantic node denotes one specific meaning, in which a combination of semantic nodes defines a semantic node, In which the structured, machine-readable representation of data includes factual statements, query statements, reasoning statements and reasoning passages, wherein the reasoning passages are represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps in which the machine-readable representation of data uses a shared syntax that applies to semantic nodes and passages that represent factual statements, query statements and reasoning statements, wherein the syntax is a simple unambiguous syntax comprising nesting of structured, machine-readable representations of data to any arbitrary depth, is a data manipulation/organization step that can be achieved by the human, via mental processing and using pen and paper, perform natural language processing of semantic nodes, passages, meanings, links, syntax and processing of statements/text. The feature for the vertical application is an application that automatically matches candidates to jobs, can be achieved by the person accessing a list of potential candidates and a list of job positions, reviewing information regarding the candidates and deciding if they are potential candidates for fulfilling the job requirements. The feature for wherein the system is configured so that data is automatically translated into the machine readable representation by a machine learning system that generates the semantic nodes or passages that represent the data is a data manipulation/organization step that can be achieved by the human, via mental processing and using pen and paper, perform natural language processing of semantic nodes, meanings, links, syntax and processing of statements/text base on natural language learning rules and principles to organize data in a desired format. The feature to store or access in the structured, machine- readable representation of data that conforms to the machine-readable processable language is a data organization and data gathering step that can be achieved by the person, using pen and paper, creating, organizing and acquiring data. The limitation to (b) automatically process the structured, machine-readable representation of data, including processing at least some of the reasoning passages represented in the processable language to represent semantics of reasoning steps, to make a sequence of logical reasoning steps in order to match skills or experience with a requirement in a job specification, and to generate an explanation of which bits of the job specification match the skills and experience of the candidates, including for a match where there are no keywords in common between relevant parts of natural language versions of the candidate resume and the job specification, can be achieved by the person reviewing the passages and the candidates and using pen and paper, write any reasoning explanations for the information and data in a logical reasonable series of steps that are considered for matching the candidates. The feature for (c) store a final answer of the reasoning, and the explanation of the reasoning, in the processable language when automatically matching candidates to jobs, is an extra solution activity that can be achieved by the person organizing the sheets of paper from the reasoning information.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computing device, the generic vertical application and modules. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computer, generic vertical application, non-transitory storage medium and computer system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer, generic vertical application, non-transitory storage medium and computer system to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-13, 17, 19-30, and 32 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of organizing, translating or manipulating data/language representations that can be achieved by the person mentally organizing or translating data/language representations or using pen and paper, writing data/language representations in a desired format.
Dependent claims 14, 15-16 and 31 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims for neural architecture or neural networks are directed to mathematical calculations and data organization that can be applied to achieved data/language representations in desired format.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eTerminal-disclaimer
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-17 and 19-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-206 of copending Application No. 18/001,368. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions are both directed to automatically processing machine representations, and the claims of the instant application are encompassed within the claims of 18/001,368 and/or made obvious of the within the claims of 18/001,368.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-17 and 19-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Applications No. 18/088,573, 18/088,580; 18/088,579; 18/088,571; 18/088,572; 18/088,575; 18/088,584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions of the instant application and the aforementioned applications are directed to automatically processing machine representations, and the claims of the instant application are encompassed within and/or made obvious of the within the claims of 18/088,573, 18/088,580; 18/088,579; 18/088,571; 18/088,572; 18/088,575; 18/088,584.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “elements of amended Claim 1 are not mental processes under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because they could not, as a practical matter be performed entirely in a human’s mind. The Examiner notes, as indicated in the rejection above, the recited claim limitations are directed to features that are directed to activities that can be accomplished via human mental processes and by a human using pen and paper executing steps based on natural language processing and/or rule and principles. The recited steps for storing or accessing data, processing reasoning passages, and storing a final answer are directed to steps that can be achieved by a person mentally and using pen and paper.
Applicant argues amended Claim 1 recites a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computer, generic vertical application (recited in the preamble), non-transitory storage medium and computer system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant argues, “Claim 1 recites a practical application because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), Claim 1 provides an improvement to computer functionality.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes, the claims do not include any additional elements that would provide any meaningful limitations that provide any inventive concepts to the claims. The recited limitations and the additional elements such as generic computer, non-transitory storage medium and computer system do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not specifically recite any specific physical elements that would add meaningful limitations to provide inventive concepts of technology improvement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-17, and 19-32 would be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and the nonstatutory double patenting rejections can be overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights