DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
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.
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 1, 11, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”,
Regarding claim 1 (Currently amended), Sjoblom teaches A computer-implemented method for searching online profiles, the method comprising (Sjoblom, Fig. 4 discloses method for searching/retrieving user profile): receiving, at an application portal a search request from a user, wherein the search request comprises a category selection and a keyword indication associated with the category selection(Sjoblom, Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose an user interface to receive search request from users having keywords and category for candidates “FIG. 4. A search may be conducted by any combination of keywords 410, location 420 and job search category 430”), wherein the category selection comprises a category selected from one or more of: skills, job title, company, location, school, or name(Sjoblom, in Fig. 4, element 410 keywords and element 430 further discloses job skill such as “Actuarial Services” , “Administrative Services” etc. can be selected form a list of categories);
retrieving, from one or more accessible databases associated with the application portal, two or more online profiles that are determined to match the category selection and the keyword indication associated with the category selection(Sjoblom, para 0067-0068 and element 440 of Fig. 4 disclose retrieving search result from database using keywords input and category selection from user interface “The icons will appear on a map as illustrated by item 440 on FIG. 4 showing their location, for example, in relation to the hiring entity's facility. One would see an icon for each individual--behind the icon indicative of the group they are in and the numeric overall rating of that group. When the seeker hovers their mouse over any of the icons a pop up micro window appears with options to select a members profile or to select group members”);
But Sjoblom does not explicitly teach assigning, by utilizing a ranking algorithm, each respective online profile of the two or more online profiles a respective rank based on one or more ranking criteria; wherein the one or more ranking criteria comprises one or more of: a keyword match proportion, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a proportion or number of keyword matches between the search request and the respective online profile;
a subscription status, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on whether a profile owner of the respective online profile is subscribed to a service associated with the application portal;
a profile popularity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a number of views of the respective online profile in the application portal;
a profile publication indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a publication date of the respective online profile in the application portal;
or a profile activity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on an activity frequency of the profile owner of the respective online profile in the application portal;
causing presentation, to the user, of a listing of preview comprising two or more profile previews for the two or more online profiles in a ranked order, wherein the ranked order is associated with the respective rank for each of the two or more online profiles based on the one or more ranking criteria, and wherein each of the two or more profile previews comprises a subset of information contained in the two or more online profiles, and at least a profile owner's name, education history, current location, and top skills;
and causing presentation to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of the profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ranking by keyword match Schlesinger teaches assigning, by utilizing a ranking algorithm, each respective online profile of the two or more online profiles a respective rank based on one or more ranking criteria; wherein the one or more ranking criteria comprises one or more of: a keyword match proportion, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a proportion or number of keyword matches between the search request and the respective online profile;
a subscription status, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on whether a profile owner of the respective online profile is subscribed to a service associated with the application portal;
a profile popularity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a number of views of the respective online profile in the application portal;
a profile publication indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a publication date of the respective online profile in the application portal;
or a profile activity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on an activity frequency of the profile owner of the respective online profile in the application portal(Schlesinger, (here the examiner considering the number of keyword matching option for content ranking among plurality of options) para 0080 discloses ranking searched contents based on number of matching keywords criteria rule or algorithm; which can similarly be applied to candidate profile matching “The creative database contains advertisements where each advertisement has a defined category and keywords describing it. For each of the keywords defined in a tag and according to the tag category, matching advertisements are searched. In this example, Tag1 returned 40 advertisements, Tag2 returned 6 advertisements, and Tag3 returned 20 advertisements. The advertisements of each tag are ranked according to the number of matching keywords”; where prior art Sjoblom in Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose querying candidate profile using keywords).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of ranking candidate contents based on number of matching keywords of Schlesinger into searching candidates and providing a ranked result list of Sjoblom and Bernstein to produce an expected result of ranking users’ profile based on matched keywords. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the search result by ranked contents that are more similar to searched contents(Sjoblom, para 0080).
But Sjoblom and Schlesinger don’t explicitly teach causing presentation, to the user, of a listing of preview comprising two or more profile previews for the two or more online profiles in a ranked order, wherein the ranked order is associated with the respective rank for each of the two or more online profiles based on the one or more ranking criteria,
and wherein each of the two or more profile previews comprises a subset of information contained in the two or more online profiles, and at least a profile owner's name, education history, current location, and top skills;
and causing presentation to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of the profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile viewing Joseph teaches causing presentation, to the user, of a listing of preview comprising two or more profile previews for the two or more online profiles in a ranked order, wherein the ranked order is associated with the respective rank for each of the two or more online profiles based on the one or more ranking criteria(Joseph, Fig. 2 and para 0015 disclose previewing option for candidate profile “Adjacent to the search tool is a list of all profiles 105 displayed as cards housing select preview information per each candidate….”; where Schlesinger in para 0080 discloses ranking searched contents), and wherein each of the two or more profile previews comprises a subset of information contained in the two or more online profiles, and at least a profile owner's name, education history, current location, and top skills (Joseph, para 0017 and Fig. 2 disclose displaying profile with name, education, location and skills/expertise “The profile preview information involved contains the candidates identifying serial number 211, the candidate's location 212 the candidates expertise 213 which operates as their industry specific focus, the candidates education level 214”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying person’s education, location and skills/expertise in profile preview of Joseph into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom and Schlesinger to produce an expected result of displaying user profiles in compact fashion. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display candidate profiles with industry specific skillset grouped in a specific way to assist hiring managers to find compatible candidates required for hiring(Joseph, para 0004).
But Sjoblom, Schlesinger and Joseph don’t explicitly teach and causing presentation to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of the profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ranking by keyword match Baldwin teaches and causing presentation to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of the profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity(Baldwin, para 0087-0088 disclose candidate’s profile matching indicator such as “Strong Match”, “Match”, “No Match” etc. “A candidate module 406 is used to calculate the profiles 108 and a profile generator module 404 is used to calculate the profiles 107. The framework 112 can also provide a match score, in addition to just plotting their scores 166 on the profile 108, such as; Strong Match, Match, No Match, and/or Distortion” ) based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity(Baldwin, para 0120 discloses candidate’s profile matching is based on comparison of attribute matching score “A further match indicator is the framework score of the ranking of the candidate's attribute 150 score matching with a plurality of different customized profiles for a plurality of different companies 104 or at least for a defined subset of the plurality of different customized profiles 107 available in the database 110” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating candidate’s compatibility with the requirements of Baldwin into listing user’s profiles with preview in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger and Joseph to produce an expected result of visually providing candidates compatibility with requirements. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide profile selectors a quick way of selecting candidates by looking at their compatibility without having to view candidate profiles in details (Baldwin, para 0087-0088).
Regarding Claim 2, cancelled.
Regarding claim 21 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Baldwin further teaches wherein the respective visual indicator includes a number indicating a compatibility determination(Baldwin, 0087 discloses a preview of matched candidates with an indication score/number and annotation “The framework 112 can also provide a match score, in addition to just plotting their scores 166 on the profile 108, such as; Strong Match, Match, No Match, and/or Distortion”).
Regarding claim 27 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Schlesinger further teaches wherein the one or more ranking criteria include the keyword match indication, and assigning the respective rank based on the keyword match indication comprises: identifying at least one of a number of keyword matches with the keywords associated with the category selection or a proportion of keyword matches with the keywords associated with the category selection in each of the two or more online profiles(Schlesinger, para 0080 discloses ranking searched contents based on number of matching keywords “The creative database contains advertisements where each advertisement has a defined category and keywords describing it. For each of the keywords defined in a tag and according to the tag category, matching advertisements are searched. In this example, Tag1 returned 40 advertisements, Tag2 returned 6 advertisements, and Tag3 returned 20 advertisements. The advertisements of each tag are ranked according to the number of matching keywords”; where prior art Sjoblom in Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose querying candidate profile using keywords); and assigning a higher rank to those of the two or more online profiles having a greater number of at least one of the keyword matches with the keywords associated with the category selection or the proportion of keyword matches with the keywords associated with the category selection(Schlesinger, para 0080 further discloses assigning higher rank to contents based on proportion of number of matched keywords “The creative database contains advertisements where each advertisement has a defined category and keywords describing it. For each of the keywords defined in a tag and according to the tag category, matching advertisements are searched. In this example, Tag1 returned 40 advertisements, Tag2 returned 6 advertisements, and Tag3 returned 20 advertisements. The advertisements of each tag are ranked according to the number of matching keywords”; where prior art Sjoblom in Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose querying candidate profile using keywords).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently amended), Sjoblom teaches A system for searching online profiles, comprising: at least one database; and a server in network communication with the at least one database(Sjoblom, Fig. 4 and para 0004 disclose a system for searching/retrieving user profile), the server comprising at least one processor configured to: receive, at an application portal, a search request from a user, wherein the search request comprises a category selection and a keyword indication associated with the category selection (Sjoblom, Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose an user interface to receive search request from users having keywords and category for candidates “FIG. 4. A search may be conducted by any combination of keywords 410, location 420 and job search category 430”) wherein the category selection comprises a category selected from one or more of skills, job title, company, location, school, or name(Sjoblom, in Fig. 4, element 410 keywords and element 430 further discloses job skill such as “Actuarial Services” , “Administrative Services” etc. can be selected form a list of categories);
retrieve, from the at least one databases, two or more online profiles that are determined to match the category selection and the keyword indication associated with the category selection(Sjoblom, para 0067-0068 and element 440 of Fig. 4 disclose retrieving search result from database using keywords input and category selection from user interface “The icons will appear on a map as illustrated by item 440 on FIG. 4 showing their location, for example, in relation to the hiring entity's facility. One would see an icon for each individual--behind the icon indicative of the group they are in and the numeric overall rating of that group. When the seeker hovers their mouse over any of the icons a pop up micro window appears with options to select a members profile or to select group members”);
But Sjoblom does not explicitly teach assign, utilizing a ranking algorithm, each respective online profile of the two or more online profiles a respective rank based on one or more ranking criteria, wherein the one or more ranking criteria comprises one or more of:
a keyword match proportion, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a proportion or number of keyword matches between the search request and the respective online profile;
a subscription status, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on whether a profile owner of the respective online profile is subscribed to a service associated with the application portal;
a profile popularity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a number of views of the respective online profile in the application portal;
a profile publication indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a publication date of the respective online profile in the application portal;
or a profile activity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on an activity frequency of the profile owner of the respective online profile in the application portal;
cause presentation, to the user, of a listing of preview comprising two or more profile previews for the two or more online profiles in a ranked order, wherein the ranked order is associated with the respective rank for each of the two or more online profiles based on the one or more ranking criteria, wherein each of the two or more profile previews comprises a subset of information contained in the two or more online profiles and at least a profile owner's name, educational history, current location, and top skills;
and cause presentation, to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates a compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of a profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ranking by keyword match Schlesinger teaches assign, utilizing a ranking algorithm, each respective online profile of the two or more online profiles a respective rank based on one or more ranking criteria, wherein the one or more ranking criteria comprises one or more of:
a keyword match proportion, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a proportion or number of keyword matches between the search request and the respective online profile;
a subscription status, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on whether a profile owner of the respective online profile is subscribed to a service associated with the application portal;
a profile popularity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a number of views of the respective online profile in the application portal;
a profile publication indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on a publication date of the respective online profile in the application portal;
or a profile activity indication, wherein the ranking algorithm assigns the respective online profile the respective rank based on an activity frequency of the profile owner of the respective online profile in the application portal(Schlesinger, (here the examiner considering the number of keyword matching option for content ranking among plurality of options) para 0080 discloses ranking searched contents based on number of matching keywords criteria rule or algorithm; which can similarly be applied to candidate profile matching “The creative database contains advertisements where each advertisement has a defined category and keywords describing it. For each of the keywords defined in a tag and according to the tag category, matching advertisements are searched. In this example, Tag1 returned 40 advertisements, Tag2 returned 6 advertisements, and Tag3 returned 20 advertisements. The advertisements of each tag are ranked according to the number of matching keywords”; where prior art Sjoblom in Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose querying candidate profile using keywords).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of ranking candidate contents based on number of matching keywords of Schlesinger into searching candidates and providing a ranked result list of Sjoblom and Bernstein to produce an expected result of ranking users’ profile based on matched keywords. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the search result by ranked contents that are more similar to searched contents(Sjoblom, para 0080);
But Sjoblom and Schlesinger don’t explicitly teach cause presentation, to the user, of a listing of preview comprising two or more profile previews for the two or more online profiles in a ranked order, wherein the ranked order is associated with the respective rank for each of the two or more online profiles based on the one or more ranking criteria, wherein each of the two or more profile previews comprises a subset of information contained in the two or more online profiles and at least a profile owner's name, educational history, current location, and top skills;
and cause presentation, to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates a compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of a profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile viewing Joseph teaches cause presentation, to the user, of a listing of preview comprising two or more profile previews for the two or more online profiles in a ranked order, wherein the ranked order is associated with the respective rank for each of the two or more online profiles based on the one or more ranking criteria(Joseph, Fig. 2 and para 0015 disclose previewing option for candidate profile “Adjacent to the search tool is a list of all profiles 105 displayed as cards housing select preview information per each candidate….”; where Schlesinger in para 0080 discloses ranking searched contents), wherein each of the two or more profile previews comprises a subset of information contained in the two or more online profiles and at least a profile owner's name, educational history, current location, and top skills(Joseph, para 0017 and Fig. 2 disclose displaying profile with name, education, location and skills/expertise “The profile preview information involved contains the candidates identifying serial number 211, the candidate's location 212 the candidates expertise 213 which operates as their industry specific focus, the candidates education level 214”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying person’s education, location and skills/expertise in profile preview of Joseph into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom and Schlesinger to produce an expected result of displaying user profiles in compact fashion. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display candidate profiles with industry specific skillset grouped in a specific way to assist hiring managers to find compatible candidates required for hiring(Joseph, para 0004).
But Sjoblom, Schlesinger and Joseph don’t explicitly teach and cause presentation, to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates a compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of a profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ranking by keyword match Baldwin teaches and cause presentation, to the user, of a respective visual indicator proximate to each respective profile preview of the two or more profile previews wherein the listing of previews, wherein the respective visual indicator indicates a compatibility of the online profile with a job opportunity or a likelihood of a profile owner to be hired for the job opportunity (Baldwin, para 0087-0088 disclose candidate’s profile matching indicator such as “Strong Match”, “Match”, “No Match” etc. “A candidate module 406 is used to calculate the profiles 108 and a profile generator module 404 is used to calculate the profiles 107. The framework 112 can also provide a match score, in addition to just plotting their scores 166 on the profile 108, such as; Strong Match, Match, No Match, and/or Distortion” ) based on comparing data associated with each respective profile of the two or more online profiles to one or more qualification described in the job opportunity(Baldwin, para 0120 discloses candidate’s profile matching is based on comparison of attribute matching score “A further match indicator is the framework score of the ranking of the candidate's attribute 150 score matching with a plurality of different customized profiles for a plurality of different companies 104 or at least for a defined subset of the plurality of different customized profiles 107 available in the database 110” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating candidate’s compatibility with the requirements of Baldwin into listing user’s profiles with preview in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger and Joseph to produce an expected result of visually providing candidates compatibility with requirements. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide profile selectors a quick way of selecting candidates by looking at their compatibility without having to view candidate profiles in details (Baldwin, para 0087-0088).
Claim 12-14, cancelled.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”, in further view of Baird, Alexis Blevins et al (PGPUB Document No. 20160055010), hereafter, referred to as “Baird”.
Regarding Claim 3 (Currently Amended), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein: the one or more ranking criteria further comprises a content robustness indication; and assigning the respective rank based on the content robustness indication comprises: identifying at least one of a number of completed sections or a volume of information within each of the number of completed sections in each of the two or more online profiles; and assigning a higher rank to those of the two or more online profiles having a greater number of at least one of the number of completed sections or the volume of information within each of the number of completed sections.
However, in the same field of endeavor of profile ranking Baird teaches wherein: the one or more ranking criteria further comprises a content robustness indication; and assigning the respective rank based on the content robustness indication comprises: identifying at least one of a number of completed sections or a volume of information within each of the number of completed sections in each of the two or more online profiles(Baird, para 0056 discloses ranking profile based on robustness or completeness of profile by identifying complete/incomplete section in profiles “In operation 1001, the determination module 202 determines, based on accessed profile completion score criteria information (e.g., see FIG. 5), the profile completion score weight values associated with incomplete member profile fields in a member profile”); and assigning a higher rank to those of the two or more online profiles having a greater number of at least one of the number of completed sections or the volume of information within each of the number of completed sections(Baird, para 0056 discloses ranking profile based on completeness of profile “In operation 1001, the determination module 202 determines, based on accessed profile completion score criteria information (e.g., see FIG. 5), the profile completion score weight values associated with incomplete member profile fields in a member profile ..…the determination module 202 ranks the incomplete member profile fields in the member profile, based on the profile completion score weight values (that were determined in operation 1001) associated with each of the incomplete member profile fields”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of assigning ranking profile based on robustness or completeness of Baird into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of ranking profile. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to view of profile listing which are robust and complete for consideration (Baird, para 0056).
Claim 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”, in further view of Bernstein, Jeffrey (PGPUB Document No. 20230123006), hereafter, referred to as “Bernstein”,
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: receiving a filter selection on the two or more previews, wherein the filter selection comprises a designated criteria; and narrowing, based on the filter selection, the two or more profile previews to a subset of the tow or more profile previews, wherein each of the subset of the tow or more profile previews is associated with one of the two or more online profiles having the designated criteria.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile querying/retrieving Bernstein teaches further comprising: receiving a filter selection on the two or more previews, wherein the filter selection comprises a designated criteria; and narrowing, based on the filter selection (Bernstein, para 0121 discloses in a candidate search portal searching is being narrowed down by setting search criteria (Job titles or other criteria) “the talent pool 206 and/or the candidates 208 may be filtered based upon titles. Traditionally, titles have been a primary means upon which candidates are evaluated. Recruiters and/or hiring managers have become accustomed to using titles. As a result, the talent pool 206 and/or the candidates 208 may be filtered based upon at least one title”), the two or more profile previews to a subset of the tow or more profile previews, wherein each of the subset of the tow or more profile previews is associated with one of the two or more online profiles having the designated criteria (Bernstein, para 0123 and Fig. 29A-C disclose a preview of matched candidates based on assigned score/rank dictated by search criteria “The server 102 may additionally or alternatively assign a score or weighting to the titles. Weightings or scores of the titles may be displayed in, for example, a pie or ring graph and/or a spider graph, as shown in FIGS. 29A, 29B, and 29C. As shown in FIGS. 29A, 29B, and 29C, the weightings or scores of the titles may be shown for each member of the talent pool 206 and/or the candidates 208 for a plurality of different titles”; where Fig. 17 discloses list of profile previews).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying ranked profile previews of Bernstein into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of displaying user profiles with profile owners’ information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to see job seekers profile with scoring for candidate evaluation (Bernstein, para 0104 and 0106).
Claim 5, cancelled.
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, from the user, a request to transmit a message to a profile owner of one of the two or more online profiles; causing presentation, responsive to receiving the request, a contact form to the user; identifying one or more inputs provided to the contact form by the user; and transmitting, subsequent to detecting a selection of a send icon in the contact form, the message containing the one or more inputs to the profile owner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile querying/retrieving Bernstein teaches further comprising: receiving, from the user, a request to transmit a message to a profile owner of one of the two or more online profiles; causing presentation, responsive to receiving the request, a contact form to the user; identifying one or more inputs provided to the contact form by the user; and transmitting, subsequent to detecting a selection of a send icon in the contact form, the message containing the one or more inputs to the profile owner (Bernstein, para 0136-0137 disclose a means to communicate with the profile owner via an icon/link “The candidate profile may further additionally or alternatively include a turbo button or icon which requests the server 102 to contact or otherwise initiate communication with the candidate 208”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying ranked profile previews of Bernstein into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of displaying user profiles with profile owners’ information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to see job seekers profile with scoring for candidate evaluation (Bernstein, para 0104 and 0106).
Claim 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Claim 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”, in further view of LeBeau, James et al (PGPUB Document No. 20160165002), hereafter, referred to as “LeBeau”.
Regarding Claim 6 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: detecting a selection of a view profile icon within one of the two or more profile previews; and initiating, subsequent to the detecting, an online profile page associated with the one of the two or more profile previews that displays all of the information contained in the one of the two or more online profiles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile viewing LeBeau teaches further comprising: detecting a selection of a view profile icon within one of the two or more profile previews; and initiating, subsequent to the detecting, an online profile page associated with the one of the two or more profile previews that displays all of the information contained in the one of the two or more online profiles (LeBeau, para 0088 and Fig. 4C disclose a profile view icon for viewing detailed profile “Detailed profile view 415 may include profile icons 425 and notification jewels 435. Once a profile icon 425 has been selected (e.g., via input at third-party system 160”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying further details of user profile using an icon of LeBeau into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of providing an option to view detailed of a profile. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reveal profile’s details using an icon conveniently (LeBeau, para 0088).
Claim 15 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 11 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detecting, within one of the two or more profile previews, a selection of a view profile icon; and initiate, subsequent to the detecting, an online profile page associated with the one of the two or more profile previews that displays all of the information contained in the two or more online profiles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile viewing LeBeau teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detecting, within one of the two or more profile previews, a selection of a view profile icon; and initiate, subsequent to the detecting, an online profile page associated with the one of the two or more profile previews that displays all of the information contained in the two or more online profiles (LeBeau, para 0088 and Fig. 4C disclose a profile view icon for viewing detailed profile “Detailed profile view 415 may include profile icons 425 and notification jewels 435. Once a profile icon 425 has been selected (e.g., via input at third-party system 160”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying further details of user profile using an icon of LeBeau into listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of providing an option to view detailed of a profile. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reveal profile’s details using an icon conveniently (LeBeau, para 0088).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”, in view of LeBeau, James et al (PGPUB Document No. 20160165002), hereafter, referred to as “LeBeau”, in further view of Bernstein, Jeffrey (PGPUB Document No. 20230123006), hereafter, referred to as “Bernstein”.
Claim 7 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph, Baldwin and LeBeau teach all the limitations of claim 6 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising providing, within the online profile page, at least one option to visit a similar online profile page, wherein the similar online profile page comprises a predetermined amount of similar information as information contained in the online profile page.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile querying/retrieving Bernstein teaches further comprising providing, within the online profile page, at least one option to visit a similar online profile page, wherein the similar online profile page comprises a predetermined amount of similar information as information contained in the online profile page(Bernstein, para 0007 discloses similar or look-a-like candidate profiles are being identified and displayed “Data from the search area of the network is searched based on the look-a-like profile via the interface. At least one look-a-like candidate is identified from the talent pool based on the search. The look-a-like candidate is different than the individual and has the characteristic in common with the individual. The look-a-like candidate is displayed on a display”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying ranked profile previews with scores of Bernstein into querying by keyword within category of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph, Baldwin and LeBeau to produce an expected result of displaying user profiles with profile owners’ information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to see job seekers profile with scoring for candidate evaluation (Bernstein, para 0104 and 0106).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”, in view of LeBeau, James et al (PGPUB Document No. 20160165002), hereafter, referred to as “LeBeau”, in further view of Ravichandran, Hari et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164486), hereafter, referred to as “Ravichandran”.
Claim 8 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph, Baldwin and LeBeau teach all the limitations of claim 6 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: identifying; one or more interactions that the user has with the online profile page; recording, the one or more interactions; and providing, based at least on the recorded one or more interactions, a recommendation to a profile owner for how the online profile page can be improved.
However, in the same field of endeavor of profile improvement Ravichandran teaches further comprising: identifying; one or more interactions that the user has with the online profile page; recording, the one or more interactions; and providing, based at least on the recorded one or more interactions, a recommendation to a profile owner for how the online profile page can be improved (Ravichandran, para 0135 discloses recommending web/profile improvement based on users’ activities/interaction “The logic engine 620 may be configured to access information about the customer including customer activities such as, for example, but not limited to, customer business, customer profile information, and the like to determine a recommended area of improvement 630 for the customer's web presence”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of profile/web page improvement recommendations by users’ interaction information of Ravichandran into maintaining users’ profile of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph, Baldwin and LeBeau to produce an expected result of improving users’ profile. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to suggest users for improving his/her profile based on interaction information to enhance web presence(Ravichandran, para 0135).
Claim 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin”, in further view of Davar, Jonathan et al (PGPUB Document No. 20190068659), hereafter, referred to as “Davar”.
Claim 9 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising: determining whether the user is associated with a restricted category as designated by the profile owner of one of the two or more online profiles; and limiting, based on the determining, the user from viewing one or more predetermined activities occurring on the one of the two or more online profiles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of profile access control Davar teaches further comprising: determining whether the user is associated with a restricted category as designated by the profile owner of one of the two or more online profiles; and limiting, based on the determining, the user from viewing one or more predetermined activities occurring on the one of the two or more online profiles(Davar, para 0070 discloses restricting profile access by setting user access preferences “The focal group API provides the focal group application with access to the focal net information. The focal net information can include, but not limited to, social graph links, affinity and proficiency information, user profile information (as restricted by the user's access preferences), focal group affiliation, user-created reviews, ratings, and/or any user-related information contributed/created by other focal group applications”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of restricting profile access by users of Davar into search and extraction of user’s profile information of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of controlling access to users’ profile information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an option to users for restricting their profile from viewers when desired/preferred(Davar, para 0070).
Claim 18 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 11 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine whether the user is associated with a restricted category as designated by a profile owner of one of the one or more online profiles; and limit, based on the determining, the user from viewing one or more predetermined activities occurring on the one of the one or more online profiles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of profile access control Davar teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine whether the user is associated with a restricted category as designated by a profile owner of one of the one or more online profiles; and limit, based on the determining, the user from viewing one or more predetermined activities occurring on the one of the one or more online profiles (Davar, para 0070 discloses restricting profile access by setting user access preferences “The focal group API provides the focal group application with access to the focal net information. The focal net information can include, but not limited to, social graph links, affinity and proficiency information, user profile information (as restricted by the user's access preferences), focal group affiliation, user-created reviews, ratings, and/or any user-related information contributed/created by other focal group applications”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of restricting profile access by users of Davar into search and extraction of user’s profile information of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of controlling access to users’ profile information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an option to users for restricting their profile from viewers when desired/preferred(Davar, para 0070).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin, in further view of Busey, Thomas (PGPUB Document No. 20160117329), hereafter, referred to as “Busey”.
Regarding claim 22 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the respective visual indicator includes a color indicating a compatibility determination.
However, in the same field of endeavor of using visual indicator for expressing compatibility/similarity Busey teaches wherein the respective visual indicator includes a color indicating a compatibility determination (Busey, para 0055 discloses indicating compatibility or similarity by colors “the degree of similarity is indicated by one or more colors, wherein green indicates aligned, grey indicate neutral, and red indicate opposed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of expressing similarity by using colors of Busey into displaying search result of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of listing potential candidates with an indication of compatibility. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate degree of matching or similarity by colors for easier identification(Busey, para 0055).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin, in further view of Jacobs; Jonathan (PGPUB Document No. 20140195463), hereafter, referred to as “Jacobs”.
Regarding claim 23 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the respective visual indicator includes an emoticon indicating a compatibility determination.
However, in the same field of endeavor of using visual indicator for expressing compatibility/similarity Jacobs teaches wherein the respective visual indicator includes an emoticon indicating a compatibility determination (Jacobs, para 0089 discloses indicating compatibility or similarity by graphical symbols “expression mechanisms such as connectivity, hierarchy, and compatibility may be represented by abstractions such as icons and/or graphics”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of expressing similarity by using graphical symbols of Jacobs into displaying search result of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of listing potential candidates with an indication of compatibility. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate compatibility visually with suitable symbols(Jacobs, para 0089).
Claim 24-25, cancelled.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin, in further view of Kumar, Shailesh et al (PGPUB Document No. 20120310930), hereafter, referred to as “Kumar”.
Regarding Claim 26 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Sjoblom further teach wherein receiving the search request from the user, comprises: receiving, the keyword indication associated with the category selection(Sjoblom, Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose an user interface to receive search request from users having keywords and category for candidates “FIG. 4. A search may be conducted by any combination of keywords 410, location 420 and job search category 430”),
But Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin don’t explicitly teach determining, based on the keyword indication and the category selection, one or more alternative keyword indications; causing presentation, to the user, of the one or more alternative keyword indications for selection; and receiving, from the user, a selection of one alternative keyword indication of the one or more alternative keyword indications, wherein the two or more online profiles that are determined to match the category selection and the keyword indication associated with the category selection further match the alternative keyword indication.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user keyword generation Kumar teaches determining, based on the keyword indication and the category selection, one or more alternative keyword indications(Kumar, para 0048 discloses generation of alternate keywords based on keyword and its related category “generating new keywords using linguistic analysis is identifying keywords of a similar type or category. New keywords may be generated from words of the same type or category as seed set keywords”); causing presentation, to the user, of the one or more alternative keyword indications for selection(Kumar, element 340 and 350 of Fig. 3 and para 0069 disclose generation of suggested keywords and providing that to client “display or otherwise notify a user, client, or other party of suggested keywords or results generated by keyword generator 440”); and receiving, from the user, a selection of one alternative keyword indication of the one or more alternative keyword indications, wherein the two or more online profiles that are determined to match the category selection and the keyword indication associated with the category selection further match the alternative keyword indication(Kumar, element 340 and 350 of Fig. 3 and para 0069 disclose generation of suggested keywords and providing that to client and Sjoblom in Fig. 4 and para 0078 disclose an user interface to receive search request from users having keywords and category for candidates “FIG. 4. A search may be conducted by any combination of keywords 410, location 420 and job search category 430” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying/suggesting additional keywords to client of Kumar into searching and listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of retrieving query relevant user profiles. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the quality of search by updating the keyword (Kumar, para 0041).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin, in further view of Divye et al(PGPUB Document No. 20180293278), hereafter, referred to as “Divye”.
Regarding Claim 28 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the profile popularity indication is associated with a number of view of the respective online profile for a time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user profile matching Divye teaches wherein the profile popularity indication is associated with a number of view of the respective online profile for a time period(Divye, para 0069 disclose ranking contents based on user profile popularity determined by number of views in a time period “Indications of popularity that may be taken into consideration in determining the level of popularity of a commenter include, but are not limited to, the number of views of the profile page of the commenter within a specified period of time (e.g., within the last 90 days)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of user profile popularity of Divye into searching and listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of ranking user profile based on its view number. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the search accuracy of candidate profile matching by using content/candidate popularity (Divye, para 0069).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom, Leigh (PGPUB Document No. 20130317997), hereafter referred as to “Sjoblom”, in view of Schlesinger, Nati et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140164099), hereafter, referred to as “Schlesinger”, in further view of Joseph, Zia (PGPUB Document No. 20180300686), hereafter, referred to as “Joseph”, in further view of Baldwin, Ben et al (Canadian Patent application No. CA 2657495 ), hereafter, referred to as “Baldwin, in further view of Su, Zhouyue et al (PGPUB Document No. 20210019839), hereafter, referred to as “Su”.
Regarding Claim 29 (Previously Presented), Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the activity frequency of the profile owner of the respective online profile is based on one or more of: a log in activity of the online profile; or a job submission activity of the online profile.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user activity tracking Su teaches wherein the activity frequency of the profile owner of the respective online profile is based on one or more of: a log in activity of the online profile; or a job submission activity of the online profile(Su, para 0038 discloses that number and frequency of user submission or post indicates an account activity “an attribute or characteristic associated with a recommender, a recommendee, or a potential recommended social media account. Example features include, but are not limited to, age range, gender, geographic location, job title, topic of interest, followers, followees, friends, social media account activity (number and frequency of posts, shares, likes, recommendations, etc.), and engagement between profiles or accounts within a social networking system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of tracking user account activities of Su into searching and listing user’s profile in response to a query of Sjoblom, Schlesinger, Joseph and Baldwin to produce an expected result of retrieving query relevant user profiles. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to recommend user profile/account based its activities (Su, para 0038).
Response to Arguments
I. 35 U.S.C §101 Abstract idea rejection
An updated §101 Abstract idea rejection has been withdrawn in light of consideration of arguments submitted on 2/6/2026.
II. 35 U.S.C §103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but are
moot because the independent claim 1 and 11 have been amended with newly added
features which applicant’s arguments are directed towards. Since claims have been amended with new features, a new ground of rejection is presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH A DAUD whose telephone number is (469)295-9283. The examiner can normally be reached M~F: 9:30 am~6:30 pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/ABDULLAH A DAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164