Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 3, 9 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11 and 16-20 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-20 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Nov. 12, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn, under Step 2A Prong 1, because the claims reflect a technical solution. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because improvements are a consideration under Step 2A Prong 2, not Prong 1.
Second, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant asserts changing the function reflects an improvement because it saves the system from processing erroneous requests (i.e., creating groups when one is not needed) and disables the pathway for generating duplicate requests, citing Example 23 and Ex parte Rockwell. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because showing an improvement involves a technical solution to a technical problem, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and management of communication groups in a recruitment context is not a technical problem, it is a business or operational problem. That is, Examiner does not find the present claims reflect an improvement (i.e., integrate the abstract idea into a practical application) because the present claims do not solve a technical problem, the claims solve an administrative or operational problem (i.e., organizing and coordinating groups when hiring).
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. Applicant essentially asserts Tondepu only teaches backend pre-creation checks, Novac only teaches a visual change based on the user’s actions, and Roget is based on the user’s role, thus the combination of references does not teach replacing a button’s functionality based on the actions of others. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, Tondepu’s teaching of the backend pre-creation checks would involve the actions of other users (e.g., other users providing the data). Thus, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches changing the button’s function based on the actions of others.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 4-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1, 2, 4-8,10-13 and 15-18 are directed to a process; and claims 19 and 20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…determining whether one or more preset display conditions in a recruitment workflow of a first recruitment item are satisfied;
displaying a first control in an associated page of the first recruitment item if the one or more preset display conditions are satisfied, or hiding the first control if the one or more preset display conditions are not satisfied:
determining a target person and creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control, wherein the first communication group is associated with a recruitment progress of the target person in the first recruitment item;
generating a first type of notification message according to a progress event and sending the first type of notification message to the first communication group, in response to determining and generating the progress event of a recruitment process for the target person in the first recruitment item, and
after creating the first communication group, in response to determining that the first communication group exists for the target person in the first recruitment item, automatically changing the function of the first control to entering the first communication group after being triggered: or automatically changing a function of the first control and the function description displayed on the first control to entering the first communication group, wherein the target person is a candidate of the first recruitment item;
wherein the creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control comprises:
if the first control is triggered while another user creates, through the first control, the first communication group associated with the recruitment progress of the target person in the first recruitment item, displaying second reminder information and changing the function of the first control to entering the first communication group created by the another user.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitation encompass commercial or legal interactions. These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions because these limitations essentially encompass parts of the recruiting or hiring process. That is, these limitations essentially encompass forming a group or team for reviewing job applicants for an open position. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…determining whether one or more preset display conditions in a recruitment workflow of a first recruitment item are satisfied;
displaying a first control in an associated page of the first recruitment item if the one or more preset display conditions are satisfied, or hiding the first control if the one or more preset display conditions are not satisfied:
determining a target person and creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control, wherein the first communication group is associated with a recruitment progress of the target person in the first recruitment item;
generating a first type of notification message according to a progress event and sending the first type of notification message to the first communication group, in response to determining and generating the progress event of a recruitment process for the target person in the first recruitment item, and
after creating the first communication group, in response to determining that the first communication group exists for the target person in the first recruitment item, automatically changing the function of the first control to entering the first communication group after being triggered: or automatically changing a function of the first control and the function description displayed on the first control to entering the first communication group, wherein the target person is a candidate of the first recruitment item.
wherein the creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control comprises:
if the first control is triggered while another user creates, through the first control, the first communication group associated with the recruitment progress of the target person in the first recruitment item, displaying second reminder information and changing the function of the first control to entering the first communication group created by the another user.
These additional elements do not integrate abstract idea into practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of displaying the first control based on preset display conditions, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) (discussing Ultramercial). That is, these additional elements are only restricting access to content based on rules which does not reflect a practical application.
Second, the additional elements of the first control based in a page that is triggered and changing the function of the trigger as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., a generic button being displayed based on contextual actions in a graphical user interface).
Third, the additional elements of changing the function based on another user creating the first communication group, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only using computers to monitor data, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing FairWarning).
Fourth, the additional elements of generating and sending the notification based on a progress event, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data (i.e., sending data based on user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Fifth, claims 19 and 20 further recite the additional elements of “at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program code, and the at least one processor is configured to invoke the program code stored in the at least one memory” and a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer- readable storage medium is used to store program code”, respectively. These additional elements when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., a generic button in a graphical user interface). Claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of sending a message after a timeout event. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data based on a timeout (i.e., sending user input data based on time), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of displaying or hiding the control based on conditions. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate he abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) (discussing Ultramercial). That is, these additional elements are only restricting access to content based on rules which does not reflect a practical application.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of various alternative for displaying various types of information. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of displaying data.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because adding optional members to the group is part of creating a group or team for reviewing job applicants.
Claims 6 and 7 further recite the additional elements displaying a group creation interface with various alternatives for information. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., generic buttons in a graphical user interface).
Claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because claim 8 recites various alternatives for choosing and ordering people in the hiring team, which is a part of creating a group or team for reviewing job applicants.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of sending a group creation message. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data based on a timeout (i.e., sending data based on user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 11 and 12 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the claims recite various alternatives for setting group administrators and group names, which is a part of creating a group or team for reviewing job applicants.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of adding a chatbot in various alternatives. These additional elements of using a chatbot, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (chatbot) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of changing the control if the first control is triggered or if the group is dissolved. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., generic buttons in a graphical user interface).
Claim 16-18 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the claim recites various alternatives for the progress events and timeout events. These progress events and timeout events are all a part of the recruiting or hiring process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramel et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0120587, herein referred to as “Bramel”, in view of Novac, Dennis "Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?" User Experience StackExchange, Apr. 10, 2019, herein referred to as “Novac”, further in view of Roget "How to conditionally render React UI based on user permissions" Medium May 25, 2021, herein referred to as “Roget”; further in view of Tondepu et al, US Pub. No. 2018/0288144, herein referred to as “Tondepu”.
Regarding claim 1, Bramel teaches:
determining whether one or more preset conditions in a recruitment workflow of a first recruitment item are satisfied (creates a private group for people associated with the recruiting requisition based on user input, ¶¶[0036]-[0038] and Fig. 3A)
displaying a first control in an associated page of the first recruitment item (input mechanisms associated with candidate, ¶[0052] and Fig. 3D, and candidate is represented by a webpage, ¶[0055]; see also ¶[0058] discussing various user input mechanisms),
and determining a target person (candidate is added to a requisition, ¶[0042] and Fig. 3D; see also e.g., ¶[0024] noting requisition is for a candidate or new employee)
and creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control (creates a private group for people associated with the recruiting requisition based on user input, ¶¶[0036]-[0038] and Fig. 3A)
wherein the first communication group is associated with a recruitment progress of the target person in the first recruitment item (creates a unique thread for the candidate in the private group, ¶[0042] and Fig. 3A);
generating a first type of notification message according to a progress event (user-initiated event is generated when a member of the hiring team performs various steps in the recruiting process, ¶¶[0043]-[0045])
and sending the first type of notification to the first communication group, in response to determining and generating the progress event of a recruitment process for the target person in the first recruitment item (information synchronization component posts a message to the thread in response to the user-initiated event, ¶¶[0043]-[0045] and Fig. 3A);
and after creating the first communication group, entering the first communication group (actuatable input mechanisms select message feed that is displayed, e.g., shows messages in the thread corresponding to the candidate Christine K, ¶[0052] and Fig. 3D)
wherein the target person is a candidate of the first recruitment item (candidate is added to a requisition, ¶[0042]; see also e.g., ¶[0024] noting requisition is for a candidate or new employee);
displaying second reminder information and entering the first communication group created by the another user (actuatable input mechanisms select message feed that is displayed, e.g., shows messages in the thread corresponding to the candidate Christine K, ¶[0052] and Fig. 3D).
However Bramel does not teach but Novac does teach:
in response to determining that the first communication group exists for the target person in the first recruitment item, automatically changing the a function of the first control to entering the first communication group after being triggered; or automatically changing the function of the first control or changing the function of the first control and the function description displayed on the first control (changes button text and function after user actions, pg. 1 of PDF provided with this Office Action; see also pg. 3 of PDF provided with this Office Action showing various examples of buttons changing text and function).
and changing the function of the first control (changes button text and function after user actions, pg. 1 of PDF provided with this Office Action; see also pg. 3 of PDF provided with this Office Action showing various examples of buttons changing text and function).
That is, Bramel teaches a control for creating a private communication group, Novac teaches changing button text and function after user actions, thus the combination teaches automatically changing the function of the first control or changing the function of the first control and the function description displayed in response (changing button text and function after user actions) to determining that the first communication group exists for the target person in the first recruitment item (creates a private group for people associated with the recruiting requisition based on user input;
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel with the button changing text and function of Novac because Novac explicitly suggests doing so to make the user interface less confusing, especially when the two different functionalities are equally important to the users, pg. 4 of PDF provided with this Office Action; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Bramel and Novac does not teach but Roget does teach:
displaying a first control in an associated page of the first recruitment item if the one or more preset display conditions are satisfied, or hiding the first control if the one or more preset display conditions are not satisfied (controls access to what features users can see based on user role, pgs. 2, 5).
That is, Bramel teaches creating a private group for people associated with the recruiting requisition, Roget teaches controlling access to what features users can see based on user role. Thus the combination of Bramel, Novac and Roget teaches displaying or hiding a control based on user role (i.e., whether or not the user is in the private group).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel and Novac with the conditional visibility of Roget because Bramel suggests doing so, se MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Bramel teaches controlling access based on users’ roles, ¶[0050]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized this would entail limiting functionalities available to users based on their roles.
However the combination of Bramel, Novac and Roget does not teach but Tondepu does teach:
wherein the creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control comprises: if the first control is triggered while another user creates, through the first control, the first communication group associated with the recruitment progress of the target person in the first recruitment item (attempts to create group is verified against existing groups to avoid duplication with an existing group, ¶¶[0040], [0076]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel, Novac and Roget with the verification against existing groups of Tondepu because Tondepu explicitly suggests doing so to prevent creation of duplicate groups, ¶¶[0040], [0076]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Roget further teaches:
wherein the one or more preset display condition comprises at least one of a following: a current user accessing the associated page of the first recruitment item is a person who is related to the first recruitment item and has a preset function, the current user has a preset permission, the first recruitment item has candidates, and the first recruitment item is not terminated (controls access to features based on user role, pgs. 2, 5).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel and Novac with the conditional visibility of Roget because Bramel suggests doing so, se MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Bramel teaches controlling access based on users’ roles, ¶[0050]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized this would entail limiting functionalities available to users based on their roles.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: a group type of the first communication group is displayed in an associated region of the first control; before the first communication group is created, a first identifier is displayed in the associated region of the first control, wherein the first identifier is used to display, after being triggered, a notification message that can be received in the first communication group; a second control is displayed in the associated page of the first recruitment item, wherein the second control is used to switch the target person displayed in the associated page of the first recruitment item; a function description that describes a current function of the first control is displayed on the first control; person information of the target person is displayed in the associated page of the first recruitment item; and the recruitment process for the target person is displayed in the associated page of the first recruitment item (shows information on candidate recruitment process, e.g., Fig. 3D and ¶[0052]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein the creating a first communication group in response to a trigger operation on the first control comprises: displaying a group creation interface in response to the trigger operation on the first control, wherein the group creation interface displays optional members, and the optional members comprise related personnel of the first recruitment item (user input provides the identities of the various members of hiring team and recruiters, ¶¶[0030], [0037]; see also ¶[0026] discussing user interfaces; and ¶[0050] discussing people in some hiring teams and not others);
and creating the first communication group and adding selected optional members as members of the first communication group in response to a trigger operation on a third control on the group creation interface (adds hiring team members and recruiters to the private group, ¶[0038]; see also e.g. ¶[0050] discussing people in the hiring teams that are not in the human resources department).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: functions of the optional members in the first recruitment item are displayed on the periphery of the optional members; the optional members comprise at least one of the following: recruiters, employment personnel, department heads, interviewers, evaluators, and assistants; and hiding the current user who triggers the first control among the optional members (adds hiring team members and recruiters to the private group, ¶[0038]; see also e.g. ¶[0050] discussing people in the hiring teams that are not in the human resources department).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein after creating the first communication group, the method further comprises: sending a group creation notification in the first communication group, wherein the group creation notification comprises at least one of the following: a creator of the first communication group, the target person, a position delivered by the target person, a process stage at which the target person is, a function description of the first communication group, and a control for viewing details of the target person (sends various status update messages to the hiring team, e.g., ¶¶[0043]-[0045], [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
further comprising at least one of the following: if personnel mentioned in the first type of notification message are not members of the first communication group, no reminder is sent to the mentioned personnel; adding a chat robot when the first communication group is created, and sending the first type of notification message through the chat robot; or adding a chat robot when the first communication group is created, and dissolving the first communication group if the chat robot is moved out of the first communication group (if hiring team member is removed from the team, hiring member is removed from the communication group, ¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein after creating the first communication group, the method further comprises at least one of the following: in response to that the first communication group is dissolved, changing the first control back to a state of the first control before the first communication group is created; and in response to that the first control is triggered while the first communication group is dissolved, displaying third reminder information to prompt that the first communication group is dissolved (posts message to group when position is filled, ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein the progress event of the recruitment process for the target person comprises at least one of the following: an evaluation schedule for the target person in the first recruitment item, an evaluation result, an interview schedule, an interview result, an admission schedule, an admission result, a salary schedule, a salary result, feedback of the target person on admission, near entry time for the target person, entry of the target person, change of the progress stage at which the target person is, delivery transfer of the target person to another position, and delivery termination of the target person (changes recruitment stage of the candidate, ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein the first type of notification message displays at least one of the following: a description of the progress event, associated information of the progress event, the target person, a position delivered by the target person, associated personnel of the progress event, handling results of the associated personnel on the progress event, and the control for viewing the details of the target person; and/or the second type of notification message displays at least one of the following: a description of the timeout event, the target person, the position delivered by the target person, related personnel of a timeout event, first reminder information mentioning handlers, and the control for viewing the details of the target person (changes recruitment stage of the candidate, e.g. “call back for second interview”, ¶[0045]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and further recite: “at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program code, and the at least one processor is configured to invoke the program code stored in the at least one memory to perform an information processing method, comprising” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer- readable storage medium is used to store program code, and when the program code is executed by a processor, the processor is enabled to perform an information processing method, comprising”, respectively. These limitations are taught by Bramel in e.g., ¶¶[0056], [0072], [0081]. Accordingly claims 19 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 11, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu, further in view of Hermsdorff et al, US Pub. No. 2013/0191299, herein referred to as “Hermsdorff”.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Hermsdorff does teach:
generating a second type of notification message according to a timeout event and sending the same to the first communication group, in response to generating the timeout event of the recruitment process for the target person in the first recruitment item (provides time limit to perform reviews, ¶[0189] and status is indicated as closed, ¶[0188]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu with the time limits of Hermsdorff because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized open positions would likely need to be filled quickly and would have modified Bramel to include time limits to encourage the hiring teams to act quickly.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and does not teach but Hermsdorff does teach:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: at least one preset person among the optional members is selected by default; the interviewers are ranked reversely among the optional members according to an order of interview rounds; the evaluators are ranked reversely among the optional members according to a schedule; and the assistants are ranked among the optional members according to position settings (opens meetings to everyone, ¶[0117]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel, Novac and Roget with the meeting organization of Hermsdorff because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized hiring team would likely need to have meetings about the hirings and accordingly would have modified Bramel to organize meetings, i.e., as in Hermsdorff.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Hermsdorff does teach:
wherein after creating the first communication group, the method further comprises at least one of the following: setting a current user who triggers the first control as a group owner of the communication group; generating a group name of the first communication group based on a name of the target person and a recruitment position of the first recruitment item; and setting the group owner and a group administrator in the first communication group to be able to edit group information (administrator creates owner who is authorized to name group, ¶[0107]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu with the administration of Hermsdorff because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized hiring team would likely need to have various owners (e.g., primary points of contacts for various open positions or candidates) about the hirings and accordingly would have modified Bramel to provide administrative functionalities, i.e., as in Hermsdorff.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget, Tondepu and Hermsdorff teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and Bramel further teaches:
wherein the generating a group name of the first communication group based on a name of the target person and a recruitment position of the first recruitment item comprises: if the target person has never lost a candidate qualification before creating the first communication group, determining the group name of the first communication group according to a preset naming rule, or if the target person has ever lost a candidate qualification before creating the first communication group, determining the group name of the first communication group according to the preset rule and a number of times the target person became a candidate; or if the target person is also a candidate of a second recruitment item and a second communication group associated with the recruitment progress of the target person in the second recruitment item exists, determining the group name of the first communication group according to a preset naming rule (group communication includes candidate identifier (i.e., Christine K.), ¶¶[0051]-[0052] and Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and does not teach but Hermsdorff does teaches:
wherein the timeout event of the recruitment process for the target person comprises: no progress beyond first duration after the evaluation schedule, beyond second duration from time of the interview schedule to current time, no result beyond third duration after interview, no feedback beyond fourth duration after the admission result is generated, and staying of the target person at a preset stage for fifth duration (provides limit for the reviewer to provide feedback, ¶[0189]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the recruiting system of Bramel, Novac, Roget and Tondepu with the time limits of Hermsdorff because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized open positions would likely need to be filled quickly and would have modified Bramel to include time limits to encourage the hiring teams to act quickly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights