DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 23 December 2025.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 20 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/148988. Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 23 December 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20.
Amendment to claims 1, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 is insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 2, 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of pending claims, Applicant argues that claims do not recite an abstract idea and if they did it is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not improve upon conventional functioning of a computer or upon conventional technology or technical processes. Rather, the claimed preprocessing is removing a step for the computer, which is not improving the computer or the technology. It is arguably improving the abstract idea by performing a step early, but otherwise it is a simple automation of entirely abstract function. Claims remain ineligible and properly rejected under 35 USC 101.
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, 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite pre-processing text of a role description for a role with a title wherein preprocessing incudes removing organization text, training data using word embeddings to classify text of role descriptions into a plurality of classes, filtering extraneous information from the preprocessed text by mapping sentences of the preprocessed text to the plurality of classes, converting preprocessed text to a vector representation using a sentence embedding model, performing a similarity analysis using the vector representation to extract competencies that correspond to the role description, wherein the similarity analysis employs a cosine similarity analysis for vector A and vector B using an equation, identifying competencies from role titles that are similar to the role title, aggregating the competencies into an aggregation of competencies, ordering the competencies in the aggregation based on aggregated similarity scores, adjusting a proficiency level associated with each of the competencies in the aggregation based on band level and competency type, selecting a plurality of competencies, and augmenting the role with metadata that includes the selected plurality of competencies and proficiency levels associated with the competencies. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the system, and the computer program product are directed to eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of determining role qualifications for hiring interviews as a type of business relations, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping as there are dependent claims to mathematical equations. Additionally, there are limitations that describe mental processes as another group of abstract idea, including the functions of identifying, inferring, aggregating, ordering, adjusting, and selecting. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are pre-processing text of a role description for a role with a title wherein preprocessing includes removing organization text, training data using word embeddings to classify text of role descriptions into a plurality of classes, filtering extraneous information from the preprocessed text by mapping sentences of the preprocessed text to the plurality of classes, converting preprocessed text to a vector representation using a sentence embedding model, performing a similarity analysis using the vector representation to extract competencies that correspond to the role description, wherein the similarity analysis employs a cosine similarity analysis for vector A and vector B using an equation, identifying competencies from role titles that are similar to the role title, aggregating the competencies into an aggregation of competencies, ordering the competencies in the aggregation based on aggregated similarity scores, adjusting a proficiency level associated with each of the competencies in the aggregation based on band level and competency type, selecting a plurality of competencies, and augmenting the role with metadata that includes the selected plurality of competencies and proficiency levels associated with the competencies.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to computer implementation, computer hardware system, machine learning engine, using natural language processing, hardware processor, computer program product, and computer readable storage medium, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Training data to classify text is mathematics, so the use of the machine learning engine in that instance is merely apply it.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: computer implementation, computer hardware system, machine learning engine, using natural language processing, hardware processor, computer program product, and computer readable storage medium. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further detail on inferring including: mapping, filtering, converting, and performing analysis and similarity analysis through an equation, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights