ETAILED 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
This is a nonfinal rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1, 6 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the AI-based similarity engine" however, there is no engine that fits this description recited yet in the claims. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the applicant intends for this to be refer to the OCR engine, then the limitation must read on the OCR engine. Otherwise, if this refers to a different engine, then the limitation should read “an AI-based similarity engine.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
The claims are directed to A system for facilitating job hunting (Claims 1-20) with structural components such as a computing system, processor, and engines, therefore it falls under at least one potentially eligible subject matter category, particularly “machine,” or “manufacture.” Therefore, the claims are to be further analyzed under Step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
Representative claims 1, 6, and 20 are analyzed for consideration as an abstract idea and have been marked up accordingly, wherein additional elements are italicized and the abstract idea is in bold:
Claim 1- A system for facilitating job hunting via gamification, the system comprising:
a resume generator implemented in a computing system comprising a processor and memory to facilitate user-generation of a resume, the resume generator to transmit a completed resume to a database;
an OCR engine executed by the processor to analyze the completed resume and provide feedback, instruct, and permit a user to edit the resume, wherein the OCR engine further processes the resume using stored job posting data and artificial intelligence to match the resume content to employer criteria, and is configured to compute a similarity score by identifying content mismatches, skipping non-informative words, and generating structured change recommendations and wherein the completed resume is transmitted to one or more user- selected employers, wherein the user can follow-up with a submission of the completed resume; and
a gamification engine configured to execute on the computing system to gamify one or more processes in a job hunting process, wherein the gamification engine comprises executable instructions stored in memory that dynamically adjust game-state variables, scoring metrics, and progress visualizations based on event triggers including resume edits, application submissions, and employer feedback classifications,
and wherein the system submits job applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to dynamically adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks
wherein the computing system further comprises:
a communication module with a web browser extension configured to detect job-hunting websites and capture job posts for gameplay integration,
a location services module that applies a per-resume destination, zip code, and mile- radius rule to discovery and resume transmission,
a display module that renders alerts and interactive interfaces for the gamified steps, and
an inbox feature utilizing OCR to classify employer responses and automatically deactivate scheduled follow-ups associated with the classified response;
wherein the OCR engine further computes a resume-to-posting similarity score that skips common words, highlights suggested changes, and stores versioned internal resumes without overwriting the user's original resume.
Claim 6- A system for facilitating job hunting via gamification, the system comprising:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network;
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for submitting a job application and providing at least one gamification interface, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device;
a resume generator implemented on the application server comprising a processor and memory to facilitate the user-generation of a resume, the resume generator to transmit a completed resume to a database;
an OCR engine executed by the processor to analyze the completed resume and provide feedback, instruct and permit the user to edit the resume, wherein the OCR engine is further configured to compute a resume-to-positing similarity score by analyzing parsed resume content in comparison to job posting data stored in structured format, using artificial intelligence models to skip non-substantive terms, detect gaps in keyword coverage, and recommend targeted revisions, and wherein the completed resume is transmitted to one or more user- selected employers, wherein the user can follow-up with a submission of the completed resume; and
a gamification engine configured to execute on the application server to gamify one or more processes in a job hunting process, wherein the gamification engine comprises processor-executable code to dynamically adjust game-based scores, milestone, and progress animations based on system events, including tracked resume edits, submission timestamps, employer feedback classifications, and user interaction logs, and wherein system submits jobs applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to dynamically adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks.
the application program further comprising a browser-extension interface and a communication module configured to detect job-application pages and, responsive to a user-initiated Apply action, auto-populate identified third-party web form fields with user profile data and a selected internal resume, record submission analytics to a user profile, and create scheduled follow-ups using templates, the scheduled follow-ups being automatically deactivated upon classification of an employer response by an inbox OCR; and a location services component that presets, per resume, a destination, zip code, and mile radius used by the application server.
Claim 20- A system for facilitating job hunting via a gamification, the system comprising:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network;
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for submitting a job application and providing at least one gamification interface, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device;
a resume generator implemented in a computing system comprising a processor and memory to facilitate user-generation of a resume, the resume generator to transmit a completed resume to a database;
an OCR engine executed by the processor to analyze the completed resume and provide feedback, instruct and permit a user to edit the resume, wherein the OCR engine is further configured to compute a resume-to-posting similarity score by analyzing parsed resume content in comparison to job posting data stored in a structured format, using artificial intelligence models to skip non-substantive terms, detect gaps in keyword coverage, and recommend targeted revisions, and wherein the completed resume is transmitted to one or more user- selected employers, wherein the user can follow-up with a submission of the completed resume; and a
gamification engine configured to execute on the application server to gamify one or more processes in a job hunting process, wherein the gamification engine comprises processor- executable code to dynamically adjust game-based scores, milestones, and progress animations based on system events, including tracked resume edits, submission timestamps, employer feedback classifications, and user interaction logs, and wherein the system submits jobs applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to dynamically adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks;
a matching module configured to execute on the application server to match a user to a job opportunity or a volunteer opportunity, wherein following the matching of the user to the job opportunity or the volunteer opportunity, the resume is electronically transmitted to the one or more user-selected employers.
a Stand Out module configured to identify latent job opportunities using expired postings, negative employer responses, or user-identified companies, and further configured to compute opportunity-matching scores using the AI-based similarity engine and initiate multi-channel outreach events based on resume-opportunity alignment;
a Switch module configured to receive career assessment data and, responsive to satisfying a score-based gating condition, recommend alternative occupations and regenerate resume variants aligned to the alternative occupations, wherein the system reconfigures job discovery, similarity analysis, and follow-up workflows in accordance with the new target roles;
recruiter module hosted on the application server, the recruiter module comprising a ranking engine configured to receive sponsored job postings, compute candidate intent scores from game-based user interactions, and display sponsored job listings to users in a personalized ranked order based on occupation, location, and computed intent; and
wherein, responsive to such matching, the application program invokes an interface that, upon a user-initiated Apply action, auto-populates a corresponding third-party web form with fields from the user profile and the selected internal resume, records submission details to the user dashboard, schedules follow-ups using drip-campaign templates, automatically cancels future follow-ups upon classification of an employer response by an inbox OCR, and applies per- resume location rules comprising a preset destination, zip code, and mile radius for discovery and transmission.
When analyzing the limitations in bold under their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitations are merely recitations of a judicial exception under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. As claimed, the limitations recite steps that consist of fundamental activities in the field of career consulting, especially the provision of feedback to users as well as finding available jobs for candidates. In fact, the steps in bold are typically completed by career counselors, since career counselors can instruct users to fill out a resume, provide feedback, tailor the resume to employer criteria, send the resume to databases, and find matching jobs. When worded as plainly as it is, the gamification process can be interpreted as part of the abstract idea because gamification can simply refer to “rules for playing games” which has previously been determined by the courts to be considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c), which states, “An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity.” The amended claims also specify that the engine includes game-based scoring, progress tracking, and interactive visual interfaces for improving user engagement and application accuracy, however, these still describe high-level gamification features that are no more than management of personal behavior. Even considering that the “system submits job applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to “dynamically” adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks,” it is still recited so generally that it is still part of the abstract idea. This is merely because it recites the intended outcome of “adjusting game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks” based on the tracking of information. It does not specifically limit the interaction between the tracking and the resulting rewards in a manner that is more than “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals” including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Even when considering the amended features such as compute a similarity score by identifying content mismatches, skipping non-informative words, and generating structured change recommendations in claim 1, or compute a resume-to-positing similarity score by analyzing parsed resume content in comparison to job posting data stored in structured format, using artificial intelligence models to skip non-substantive terms, detect gaps in keyword coverage, and recommend targeted revisions in claims 6 and 20, these features are still further recitations of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” The limitation is recited at such a high level of generality such that it encompasses instructions to an individual that ultimately manages their personal behavior or interactions. For example, broadly computing a similarity score, by performing the steps in claim 1 is recited so broadly that is merely a set of instructions to manage written information from a user (resume data), resulting in an output of change recommendations to the user. Merely displaying the results of a broadly recited data processing step is still part of the abstract idea. Similarly in claims 6 and 20, a model is recited as a black box to perform steps that still fall under mere instructions to manage personal behavior, such as “skip non-substantive terms,” “detect gaps in keyword coverage,” and “recommend targeted revisions.” Even when specifying that the score is computed by analyzing parsed resume content in comparison to job posting data stored in a structured format(claims 6 and 20), it is still part of the abstract idea because it encompasses mere instructions to manage the interactions. The claims do not specify how the comparison occurs or recites a specific data structure, therefore it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is merely a recitation of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.”
Furthermore, even when considering the amended limitation of claim 1(which is also found in claims 6 and 20) with the steps of dynamically adjust game-state variables, scoring metrics, and progress visualizations based on event triggers including resume edits, application submissions, and employer feedback classifications, these are further steps that still fall under the scope of “certain methods of organizing human activity” particularly since they are merely instructions or outputs to an individual to manage their personal behavior and interactions between people. Furthermore, the amended limitation of “wherein the system submits job applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to dynamically adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks” is a further extension of managing personal behavior because it recites any adjustment of incentives to a user to manage their personal behavior, based on inputs that are merely “user interactions.” Furthermore, even system events such as tracked resume edits, submission timestamps, employer feedback classifications and user interaction logs (in claims 6 and 20) are still further examples of managing interactions between individuals. The examiner further notes that whether these interactions are directly between people or are conveyed through a computer does not impact their categorization under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “ Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” Therefore, a system such as the claimed invention which recites interactions between a user and a system, wherein the user inputs applications, resumes, performs job-search tasks and receives recommendations, game-based rewards, and displays progress/milestones still falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Therefore, further amended features such as detecting third-party job sites/pages and capturing job posts for gameplay integration (claim 1), are still merely collection user interaction information as it merely facilitates interactions between the user and the job posters. The features of claim 6 such as “populate identified third-party form fields with user profile data and a selected internal resume, record submission analytics to a user profile, and create scheduled follow-ups using templates,” merely recite instructions to carry out user interactions, because filling out and submitting an application is merely a “certain method of organizing human activity,” and “create scheduled follow-ups using templates” is recited broadly such that it is merely an instruction to perform a social activity (scheduling follow up interactions). Similarly, in claim 20, as a result of the user-initiated Apply action which performs the same facilitation of personal behavior above, the amended limitation of “wherein, responsive to such matching, upon a user-initiated Apply action, populates a corresponding third-party form with fields from the user profile and the selected internal resume, records submission details to the user dashboard, schedules follow-ups using drip-campaign templates.” Even these further limitations that fall outside of the scope of “certain methods of organizing human activity” as all of the activities fall within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” Furthermore, the limitation of the scheduled follow-ups being deactivated upon classification of an employer response (which is representative of claims 1, 6, and 20) is still a rule-based management of personal behavior, as it merely manages the user interactions, thus it is more of the same abstract idea.
Furthermore, the amended limitations of “applying a per-resume destination, zip code, and mile-radius rule to discovery and resume transmission”(claims 1 and 20), “a location services that presets, per resume, destination, zip code, and mile radius when discovering posts and transmitting the completed resume” (claim 6) still fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they are merely further rules or instructions based on user preferences that merely filter the discovery and resume transmission to a particular radius. This is merely an act of filtering user interactions or user activities by area similar to other examples of managing personal behavior found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), including:
i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis);
Furthermore, the amended limitations found in claim 20 such as,
“identify latent job opportunities using expired postings, negative employer responses, or user-identified companies, and further configured to compute opportunity-matching scores using similarity and initiate multi-channel outreach events based on resume-opportunity alignment;
receive career assessment data and, responsive to satisfying a score-based gating condition, recommend alternative occupations and regenerate resume variants aligned to the alternative occupations, wherein the system reconfigures job discovery, similarity analysis, and follow-up workflows in accordance with the new target roles;
receive sponsored job postings, compute candidate intent scores from game-based user interactions, and display sponsored job listings to users in a personalized ranked order based on occupation, location, and computed intent; and”
all of which still fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they are recited in a manner that encapsulates mere instructions to manage personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people. The analyzing steps such as “compute opportunity-matching scores” “score-based gating condition” and “compute candidate intent scores from game-based user interactions” are recited with such generality that they are no more than rule-based analysis that merely recite the idea of the solution, and in the present scope, they would still fall under no more than “rules for playing a game.” The amendments above include multiple examples of merely providing outputs of data analysis that are no more than instructions to a user which manage their personal behavior, for example “recommend alternative occupations, regenerate resume variants aligned to the alternative occupations.” Finally, displaying sponsored job listings to users in a personalized ranking order is still a “certain method of organizing human activity.” Not only is this a management of personal behavior, but it is also akin to an example within “commercial or legal interactions” as it is no more than a ”marketing, advertising, or sales” activity.
Therefore, all of the recitations of an abstract idea within the claims above have been identified in bold, along with an explanation for why they fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category. Therefore, the claims at least recite one abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application due to the following additional elements:
(a). resume generator to transmit(claims 1,6,20)
(b). database(claims 1, 6, 20)
(c). an OCR engine(claims 1, 6, 20)
(d). a gamification engine(claims 1, 6, 20)
(e). at least one user computing device(claims 6, 20)
(f). user network (claims 6, 20)
(g). an application server(claim 6, 20)
(h). application program(claims 6, 20)
(i). gamification interface(claim 6, 20)
(j). user interface module/ interface(claims 6, 20)
(k). matching module(claims 20)
(l). A computing system (claim 1)
(m) processor (claims 1, 6, 20)
(n) memory (claims 1, 6, 20)
(o). artificial intelligence (claims 1, 6, 20)
(p). electronically transmitted (claim 20)
(q) a communication module with a web browser extension configured to detect job-hunting websites (claim 1) / claim 6)
(r) a location services module (claim 1)
(s) a display module (claim 1)
(t) automatically deactivate scheduled follow-ups, / auto-populate (claims 1, 6, 20)
(u) a Stand Out Module (claim 20)
(v)a Switch module (claim 20)
(w) recruiter module hosted on the application server, the recruiter module comprising a ranking engine (claim 20)
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements are not considered to have integrated the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely recite components being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, recited at such a high-level of generality(i.e, a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. For example, the elements reciting generators, engines, and modules(a, b, c, d, h, i, j, k, q, r, s, u, v, w) are interpreted to merely encapsulate any form of software instructions to perform the abstract idea on generic computing devices (e, f, g, l, m, n). The various labels given to each of the modules (for example “communication module” “location services module” “stand out Module”) does not meaningfully limit the structure to anything more than a generic computing component or a device used in its ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks associated with the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). More specifically, the abstract idea of “career counseling,” and “gamification,” are merely instructed to be implemented as software steps on generic computing components such as “generators, engines, modules, computing devices, networks, servers, interfaces, computing systems, processors, and memory.” Furthermore, merely specifying the transmitting step to be done electronically, restricting the abstract idea to be performed “automatically” (for example, but not limited to “auto-populating”) or limiting the abstract idea to be performed on an application program are all equivalents of “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer or on a technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f) for more guidance.
The claims also generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). For example in claims 1, 6, and 20 the abstract idea of career consultation is being generally linked to gamification, without any clear limitations to how the abstract idea should be performed in the field of gamification. Claims 1, 6, and 20 are also generally linking career consultation/gamification to the fields of optical character recognition, and user interfaces. Furthermore, the claims merely invoke the use of “artificial intelligence” to perform the abstract idea at a high level of generality such that it is no more than using generic “artificial intelligence” as a black box to carry out the abstract data interactions, thereby being equivalent to “apply it.” Furthermore, it is also generally linking the abstract idea of “career counseling” to the technological environment or field of use of artificial intelligence, without specifically meaningfully limiting the use of artificial intelligence on the abstract idea.
Finally, even when considering all of the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the claims still do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when considering all the computing components in combination, there is no improved computing infrastructure or improvement to computer functionality beyond what is already capable of being performed by a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states, “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool.” Therefore, the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea, which reflects the present claim language, does not qualify as a “specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.”
Furthermore, even with the fields of OCR, and artificial intelligence, they are recited so generally that they are no more than a general link to the fields of use, therefore, even as a combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because such fields are not being improved upon. Though the claims might improve “gamification of job hunting” these improvements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the field of gamification falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity” particularly “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals.” It is important to note that an improvement to the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”)
Therefore, representative claims 1, 6, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea because the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements of the claim have not been found to be significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons set forth in Step 2A Prong 2. The additional elements are repeated:
(a). resume generator to transmit(claims 1,6,20)
(b). database(claims 1, 6, 20)
(c). an OCR engine(claims 1, 6, 20)
(d). a gamification engine(claims 1, 6, 20)
(e). at least one user computing device(claims 6, 20)
(f). user network (claims 6, 20)
(g). an application server(claim 6, 20)
(h). application program(claims 6, 20)
(i). gamification interface(claim 6, 20)
(j). user interface module/ interface(claims 6, 20)
(k). matching module(claims 20)
(l). A computing system (claim 1)
(m) processor (claims 1, 6, 20)
(n) memory (claims 1, 6, 20)
(o). artificial intelligence (claims 1, 6, 20)
(p). electronically transmitted (claim 20)
(q) a communication module with a web browser extension configured to detect job-hunting websites (claim 1) / claim 6)
(r) a location services module (claim 1)
(s) a display module (claim 1)
(t) automatically deactivate scheduled follow-ups, / auto-populate (claims 1, 6, 20)
(u) a Stand Out Module (claim 20)
(v)a Switch module (claim 20)
(w) recruiter module hosted on the application server, the recruiter module comprising a ranking engine (claim 20)
The additional elements, for the same reasons as stated in Prong 2, also fail to provide significantly more, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination. More specifically because merely using generic computing components such as “generators, engines, modules, computing devices, networks, servers, interfaces, computing systems, processors, and memory” to perform the abstract idea of “career counseling,” and “gamification” does not provide significantly more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components. Furthermore, the claims generally link the abstract idea to the fields of “OCR, artificial intelligence, and user interfaces,” with such generality that they do not meaningfully limit their use on the claims. No specific OCR technique, artificial intelligence algorithm or user interface structural components are recited, therefore there is no improvement to the fields. Furthermore, the claims also do not recite improvements to other technology or technical field because they do not recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more (an inventive concept). Even when viewed as a whole, all of the functionalities are either part of the abstract idea, or are merely instructed to be performed on a generic computer, and fail to expand computer functionality or provide any improvements to a particular technological environment or technical field.
Therefore representative claims 1, 6, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and are thereby patent ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5, and 7-19 are also given the full two part analysis individually, and in combination with the claims they depend upon in the following analysis.
-Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 add the additional steps of including gamification interfaces aimed at gamifying at least one step of the process. Analyzed individually, gamification itself is an abstract idea which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly, managing personal behavior, interactions or relationships between people. Analyzed in combination with the representative claims, the abstract idea is still “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” The additional element of gamification interfaces fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely instructs the abstract idea to be implemented on a computing device in its ordinary capacity, and generally links the fields of career consultation, gamification, and user interfaces. Please review MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claims 4, 9, 10, and 11 add the additional step of allowing the user to select a volunteering opportunity/interest and searching for matching volunteer opportunities. This step has already been found to be an abstract idea in the rejection of representative claim 20, and is given the same determination in combination with claims 1, and 6 respectively. Allowing the user to select a potential volunteer opportunity and finding matches is a prime example of certain methods organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people. Analyzed in combination with the representative claims, the abstract idea is still “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective volunteer opportunities.” The additional element of volunteering interfaces fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely instructs the abstract idea to be implemented on a computing device in its ordinary capacity, and generally links the fields of career consultation, volunteering, gamification and user interfaces. Please review MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claims 5, and 12 recite a claim to coaches in communication with the user to assist them in the job hunting process. As stated, this is a direct claim to “humans per se.” Anticipating the amendment of the claims to be directed to the facilitation of coaches and users, this would still be directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly interactions, relationships or behavior between people. In combination with the representative claims, the abstract idea is still “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” If the applicant intended for the coaches to be completely digital(not human), then the “virtual coach,” is treated as an additional element, which would not be found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it would merely be instructing the abstract idea to be implemented on a computing device in its ordinary capacity. Please review MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claim 13 adds the additional step of allowing the resume generator to permit editing, refining, and sharing of the resume. This step is still directed to directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly interactions, relationships or behavior between people because it does no more than allow or instruct a user to make changes to their resume. In combination with the claims they depend on, the abstract is still, “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, allowing users to make changes to their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” Additionally, there are no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more.
-Claim 14 adds the additional step of matching the user’s resume with employers or volunteer opportunities. As stated previously, this step is still directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly interactions, relationships or behavior between people because it merely states matching individuals to opportunities. In combination with the claims it depends on, the abstract is still, “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, allowing users to make changes to their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” Furthermore, the additional element, “matching module” which is also found in claim 20, has not been found to be integrated into a practical idea or be significantly more because it is merely instructing the abstract of matching to be performed on a computing device in its ordinary capacity. Additionally, it generally links the abstract idea to the field of matching. Please review MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claim 15 does not add any steps to the abstract idea and purely consists of additional elements to perform the previously stated steps. The abstract idea is still directed to “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, allowing users to make changes to their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” The additional elements are display module, and display of the gamification interface. These are examples of generally applying the abstract idea to the fields of gamification and displays. Furthermore, it simply instructs the abstract idea to performed on the module, which has been deemed to be an instruction to perform steps on a generic computing device in its ordinary capacity. Please review MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claim 16 and 17 add steps that further outline some of the gamification process, including monitoring and storing scores associated with the user which are earned within the gamification process. Monitoring and storing scores is merely a simple data processing step, which does not transform the abstract idea or limit it in any meaningful way. These limitations simply add mere data gathering steps to the abstract idea of “Facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, allowing users to make changes to their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” Furthermore, the additional element of a user module is also an example of implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing device in its ordinary capacity, and generally linking the fields of gamification and data storage. Please review MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claim 18 adds the mere data gathering step of scanning the resume, which is still part of the abstract idea of “facilitating user generation of a resume, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, allowing users to make changes to their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” It simply adds another additional element of a scanner, which is another generic computing device performing the abstract idea in its ordinary capacity. The other additional element, OCR engine, is still rejected for the same reasons set forth above. Therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application or found to be significantly more in order for it to be considered an inventive concept.
-Claim 19 adds the additional step of facilitating questions to the user to help generate the resume. These are essentially additional instructions, which is still part of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people. In combination with the claims it depends upon, it is still directed to the abstract idea of “Facilitating user generation of a resume through questions, providing feedback to the user to improve their resume, allowing users to make changes to their resume, sending the resume to employees, gamifying the process, and matching users to prospective opportunities.” The repeated additional element of a resume generator is still not found to be integrated into an abstract or found to be significantly more because, even with the additional step of asking questions, it is still an example of performing the abstract idea on a generic computing device in its ordinary capacity.
Subject Matter Distinguished Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The reasons for indicating novelty over prior art are as follows:
Claim 1 recites a combination of limitations that are not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. More specifically, neither Pande (US 20160379170 A1), nor Stewart (US 11663397 B1), nor Ahmed (US 20160260064 A1) nor Vemuri (US 20110209068 A1) teach or suggest the following limitations, even as an obvious combination:
-wherein the gamification engine comprises executable instructions stored in memory that dynamically adjust game-state variables, scoring metrics, and progress visualizations based on event triggers including resume edits, application submissions, and employer feedback classifications,
and wherein the system submits job applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to dynamically adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks
wherein the computing system further comprises:
a communication module with a web browser extension configured to detect job-hunting websites and capture job posts for gameplay integration,
a location services module that applies a per-resume destination, zip code, and mile- radius rule to discovery and resume transmission,
a display module that renders alerts and interactive interfaces for the gamified steps, and
an inbox feature utilizing OCR to classify employer responses and automatically deactivate scheduled follow-ups associated with the classified response;
wherein the OCR engine further computes a resume-to-posting similarity score that skips common words, highlights suggested changes, and stores versioned internal resumes without overwriting the user's original resume.
The specific combination of features required to be taught by the gamification engine recites a highly specific sequence of steps and features that distinguish over the prior art of record because the engine requires game-state variables, scoring metrics, and progress visualization based on event triggers including resume edits, application submissions, and employer feedback classifications. The prior art of record does not teach a gamified system that also integrates resume edits and employer feedback into the same gamified system that also includes the ability to submit job applications, track application milestones, and track resume revisions. Furthermore, while Pande does teach a gamified job search system that incentivizes certain job search tasks, the claims distinguish over Pande’s system because the present claims include communication modules, location services modules, and display modules that automatically transmits resumes through a web-browser extension. Finally, the claims also teach a specific inbox feature that automatically deactivates scheduled follow-ups based on the employer classified feedback. When considering this feature with the combination of features already discussed, it is clear that the prior art of record would not have rendered this feature obvious because it would require hindsight reconstruction to pull together the specific composition of modules, steps, features. Therefore, claim 1 distinguishes over the prior art of record, even after updated search and consideration based on the amended features.
Similarly, claim 6 also distinguishes over the prior art for the same reasons as claim 1. Therefore, since Pande (US 20160379170 A1), nor Stewart (US 11663397 B1), nor Ahmed (US 20160260064 A1) nor Vemuri (US 20110209068 A1) fail to teach or suggest:
- wherein the gamification engine comprises processor-executable code to dynamically adjust game-based scores, milestone, and progress animations based on system events, including tracked resume edits, submission timestamps, employer feedback classifications, and user interaction logs, and wherein system submits jobs applications, tracks application milestones, and tracks resume revisions to dynamically adjust game-based rewards based on completion of job search tasks.
the application program further comprising a browser-extension interface and a communication module configured to detect job-application pages and, responsive to a user-initiated Apply action, auto-populate identified third-party web form fields with user profile data and a selected internal resume, record submission analytics to a user profile, and create scheduled follow-ups using templates, the scheduled follow-ups being automatically deactivated upon classification of an employer response by an inbox OCR; and a location services component that presets, per resume, a destination, zip code, and mile radius used by the application server.
More specifically, the browser-extension interface and communication moule to detect job-application pages and auto-populate third-party form fields, in combination with the gamification features that adjust game-based scores, milestone, and progress animations based on tracked resume edits and employer feedback classifications recite a combination of features that would have not been rendered obvious by the prior art of record. The same features that distinguish over the prior art in claim 1 are also found in claim 6, specifically, “the scheduled follow-ups being automatically deactivated upon classification of an employer response by an inbox OCR; and a location services component that presets, per resume, a destination, zip code, and mile radius used by the application server.”
Furthermore, Claim 20 recites a narrower scope, compared to claims 1 and 6, which have already been deemed distinguished over the prior art for reciting:
wherein the gamification engine comprises processor- executable code to dynamically adjust game-based scores, milestones, and progress animations based on system events, including tracked resume edits, submission timestamps, employer feedback classifications, and user interaction logs,
In addition to teaching such features above, Claim 20 also teaches the following features that distinguish over the prior art when considering the limitations as a combination, for example, the prior art of record (Pande, Stewart, Ahmed, Vemuri) fail to teach or suggest:
wherein the OCR engine is further configured to compute a resume-to-posting similarity score by analyzing parsed resume content in comparison to job posting data stored in a structured format, using artificial intelligence models to skip non-substantive terms, detect gaps in keyword coverage, and recommend targeted revisions,
a Stand Out module configured to identify latent job opportunities using expired postings, negative employer responses, or user-identified companies, and further configured to compute opportunity-matching scores using the AI-based similarity engine and initiate multi-channel outreach events based on resume-opportunity alignment;
a Switch module configured to receive career assessment data and, responsive to satisfying a score-based gating condition, recommend alternative occupations and regenerate resume variants aligned to the alternative occupations, wherein the system reconfigures job discovery, similarity analysis, and follow-up workflows in accordance with the new target roles;
recruiter module hosted on the application server, the recruiter module comprising a ranking engine configured to receive sponsored job postings, compute candidate intent scores from game-based user interactions, and display sponsored job listings to users in a personalized ranked order based on occupation, location, and computed intent; and
wherein, responsive to such matching, the application program invokes an interface that, upon a user-initiated Apply action, auto-populates a corresponding third-party web form with fields from the user profile and the selected internal resume, records submission details to the user dashboard, schedules follow-ups using drip-campaign templates, automatically cancels future follow-ups upon classification of an employer response by an inbox OCR, and applies per- resume location rules comprising a preset destination, zip code, and mile radius for discovery and transmission.
Therefore, claims 1, 6, and 20 distinguish over the prior art of record (Pande, Stewart, Ahmed, and Vemuri). Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-5, and 7-19 also distinguish over the prior art by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 6 respectively. Furthermore, even the cited references and prior art of record not relied upon have been considered but still fail to teach, suggest, or render obviousness the totality of features recited in claims 1, 6, and 20, particularly Ellis (US 20110196802 A1) and O’Malley (US 20190392355 A1). The updated search and consideration for the amended features yields the following references which teach the specific features of a web-browser extension to detect job-hunting websites, but it would not have been obvious to combine this reference with the cited prior art of record to arrive at each and every claim limitation:
As a non-limiting example: Bischke et al. (US 20150339785 A1) teaches:
- a communication module with a web browser extension configured to detect job-hunting websites and capture job posts for (Bischke [0033] Third party web sites may permit a user to search job postings and/or display their resume or job qualifications. Third party web sites may permit a user (e.g., job candidate) to post interests, skills, experience, or any other information about the user for the purposes of seeking employment and/or other activities.)
However, Bischke does not teach any of the game implementation features, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art be motivated to combine Bischke with Pande, Stewart, Ahmed and Vemuri to arrive at each and every limitation. Similarly, Chevalier et al. (US 20230214941 A1) discloses a social match platform for job hunting that includes some gamification features and resume tailoring, including a web browser toolbar [0674], scheduling features [0203], and scoring features [0682], however, Chevalier holds a different scope from the present limitations because Chevalier’s scoring features are mainly for the particular jobs and their compatibility, not scoring based on completion of job search tasks. Even when considering Chevalier in combination with Pande, Stewart, Ahmed, and Vemuri it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at each and every limitation required by the claims because it may require hindsight reconstruction to arrive at the specific gamification features taught by the claims. Therefore, even after an updated search and consideration, the prior art still fails to teach or suggest each and every required limitation as required by claim 1, claim 6, and claim 20 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding applicant’s remarks over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons, in view of the updated 101 rejection of the presently amended claims. The applicant asserts that the “the invention is implemented as a multi-stage, stateful software pipeline, executed across server-side modules, browser extensions, and client devices. Each stage operates on structured outputs from previous stages and stores state-linked data objects (e.g., versioned resumes, similarity scores, application logs, and intent scores). This structured pipeline controls access to advanced functionality and produces outputs that cannot be generated through mere human activity.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the teachings above reflect a technical improvement, because merely providing a variety of stages, servers, modules, browser extensions, and client devices are not inherently indicative of computer-based technical improvements. Especially, as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the combination of computer elements, even when viewed as a combination or as a whole, still fall within the capabilities of a general-purpose computer. Even though the structured outputs are linked in sequence with each other, the outputs are still merely conveying user interactions (versioned resumes, similarity score, application logs, and intent scores). Therefore, these are more along the lines of improvements to the abstract idea, and not a technical improvement to existing technology.
Regarding applicant’s assertions over Step 2A, Prong One, the applicant alleges that the examiner dissects the claim into isolated features that may, individually appear abstract. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claim elements have not been dissected in a manner that generalizes the claims. In Step 2a Prong 1, the examiner identifies, by pointing out the features that are recitations of the abstract idea. The additional elements and their implementations are analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, the it is clear that in Step 2A, Prong One, the claims at least recite one abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” and the “technical implementations” in which the applicant argues follow the analysis under Step 2A Prong two instead. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that the claims “do not merely recite abstract concepts, or generic automation, but instead provide specific technical solutions to the problems of resume optimization, job-matching, and job application management” are not persuasive because these are improvements to the abstract idea, not technical improvements. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(a)(II),
“Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged “technically rooted innovations,” which require “substantial computer power, memory access, real-time data classification, and automation across multiple system layers” and thus cannot be performed in the human mind are not persuasive because the judicial exception identified is not “mental processes” but instead “certain methods of organizing human activity” therefore, increasing the volume of steps such that they cannot be practically performed in the human mind does not affect their categorization under “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people.” This is a separate abstract idea category that does not rely upon “mental processes” in order to be deemed patent ineligible.
Regarding the applicant’s assertion that the rejection under Step 2A, Prong One is made in error because the claims, when viewed as a whole, are not directed to a judicial exception, the examiner notes that the rejections currently clarify that Prong One identifies recitations of an abstract idea, and does not yet conclude that the claims as a whole is “directed” to an abstract idea. That conclusion is made in Prong 2, which considers how the additional elements interact with the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Prong 1 merely indicates that the claims are reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, the applicant has not established clearly how the present claims are akin to those found patent eligible in McRo. McRo indicated that methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules were not directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)), which differs from the present claims which recite at least “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Regarding applicant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong Two, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they fail to show how any of the additional elements, whether individually or as a combination are anything more than the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea. Features such as integrating closed-loop control mechanisms and structured data flows, such as: (1) an inbox classifier that modifies scheduled follow-up actions upon classification of employer responses, (2) a similarity engine that dynamically adjusts recommendations based on resume edits, and (3) a gating system that restricts module access still don’t provide specific implementation to a problem in the software arts. Instead, it merely performs abstract idea functions such as a modifying scheduled follow-up actions based upon classification of employer responses(which other than merely “applying it” to generic computers, it is merely an instruction to manage personal behavior). Furthermore, a gating system that restricts module access based on milestone progress falls under “rules for playing a game.” A similarity engine that dynamically adjusts recommendations is no more than data processing steps recited at a high level of generality such that they only indicate the intended outcome and are thus no more than a set of instructions to manage personal behavior. Thus even when considering the amended limitations, individually, or as a combination, it is still no more than abstract idea steps being performed on a generic computer or on devices in their ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks (receiving, transmitting, processing, outputting data). Therefore, the argument that the steps are not abstract content manipulations, but rather “algorithmic subsystems that modify system behavior based on internal state,” is not persuasive because the claims are merely sets of instructions to be performed on a generic computer. The alleged improvements recited are merely improvements to the abstract idea process. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument regarding precluding the claim system from being performed mentally are not persuasive because they are not relevant to the abstract idea category in Prong 1. The applicant’s assertions that the claims amount to “substantial improvements in computing efficiency” are not persuasive especially when the improvement in efficiency comes from an improvement to the abstract idea, and not an improvement to technology. Finally, improvements to “human-system interaction” and “automation of multi-platform web-based processes” are not apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the applicant has only presented the alleged improvement in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” Therefore, all of the alleged improvements do not qualify as technical improvements because they improve how the abstract idea is carried out (how resume data is processed, how job applications are submitted, and how users receive feedback and track progress). The alleged improvements are both improvements to the abstract idea or are improvements provided by the abstract idea alone, (enhancing job application efficiency, streamline user interaction with external web platforms, and improves system-based resume targeted). Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding “non-conventional applications” (AI-driven automation, dynamic browser automation, OCR classification of employer responses, semantic AI resume scoring, and gamified workflows triggered by system events) are not persuasive because the implementations of these particular technological environments or fields of use are mere instructions to apply an exception because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome. No improvements to OCR technology, artificial intelligence, browser automation, or any other technical field of use have been purported because the claims recite these elements at a high level of generality such that they are no more than “generally linking” a particular field of use to the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments regarding an improvement to technology are persuasive because the applicant has not made it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claims reflect a technical improvement. Thus none of the applicant’s arguments over 101 are persuasive and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In view of the applicant’s arguments over rejections under prior art, (35 U.S.C. 103) the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Given the specificity of the plurality of limitations as required by the amended claim language, the claims recite at least one or more elements that distinguish the present amendment over the prior art of record. The stateful pipeline of modules are recited in a manner such that it would not have been rendered obvious by Pande, Salil, Stewart, Ahmed, Vemuri, and Sreegopal, whether individually or as an ordered combination. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the cited references, fail to disclose or suggest the claimed stateful, multi-stage software pipeline in which each module consumes structured outputs, are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn by the examiner, making the claims potentially allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are also overcome. The examiner notes that while the claims overcome prior art rejections, MPEP 2106.05(I) states,
“As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Therefore, despite distinguishing over the prior art, the claims remain rejected as they have not overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Bischke et al. (US 20150339785 A1) discloses a candidate searching algorithm for recruiters, to find candidates that match a job description.
- Chevalier et al. (US 20230214941 A1) discloses a social match platform for job hunting that includes some gamification features and resume tailoring, including a web browser toolbar [0674], scheduling features [0203], and scoring features [0682].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626