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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 01/29/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly amended Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite: “matching a canonicalized representation to one of a plurality of predefined textual impression representations stored in a dictionary”. Applicants’ specification does not include “canonicalized representation” and “predefined textual impression representations”, let alone “matching a canonicalized representation to one of a plurality of predefined textual impression representations stored in a dictionary”.
Further, newly amended Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite: “context window”. Applicant’s specification does not include “context window”. The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2163 | (A)). Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims and thus dependent claims are rejected on the same basis as indicated above for the respective parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Claims 8-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Representative independent claim 1, analogous to independent claims 8 and 15 recites: displaying one or more impression results generated based on sentiment analysis of text; obtaining first text representing notes of an interview based on handwritten text or performing audio recognition to generate a transcript for audio associated with the interview; causing to be displayed, the first text; identifying a first textual representation indicating an impression of an interviewer toward an interviewee based on matching a representation to one of a plurality of predefined textual impression representations stored in a dictionary; generating, based on the first textual representation and context window comprising a defined quantity of text surrounding the first textual representation in the first text, a first impression score; combining a plurality of impression scores comprising the first impression score to generate an aggregate impression score indicating an overall impression of the interviewer toward the interviewee; and dynamically applying a visual emphasis that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression that is determined based on the aggregate impression score. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under at least the abstract groupings of:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). As the claims discuss handwritten notes of an interviewer regarding an interviewee and providing data representing impression relating to the interviewee, which is a clear business relations, and one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “displaying one or more impression results generated based on sentiment analysis of text”; “obtaining first text representing notes of an interview based on converting handwritten text”; “identify a first textual representation indicating an impression of an interviewer toward an interviewee”; “generating, based on the first textual representation and context comprising a defined quantity of text surrounding the first textual representation in the first text, a first impression score”; “combining a plurality of impression scores”, “applying a visual emphasis that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression”.) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of identifying, obtaining, combining and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 add additional limitations, for example: (claims 2, 9 and 16), inferring, based on the context of the first textual representation, a subject associated with the first textual representation (claims 3, 10 and 17) wherein the subject corresponds to a candidate skill of the interviewee, wherein the impression score is computed for the candidate skill of the interviewee, updating, based on the subject and the impression score, a candidate skill ranking corresponding to the candidate skill of the interviewee; and updating, based on the candidate skill ranking, a distance indicating a disparity between the candidate skill of the interviewee and a job requirement of the candidate skill (claims 5, 12, and 19) detecting a selection of the first textual representation; and in response to detecting a selection of the first textual representation, displaying at least one of the impression score or the subject in the text; (claims 6 and 13) ranking a plurality of interviewees based on a plurality of aggregate impression scores corresponding to the plurality of interviewees; (claims 7, 14 and 20) modifying the display of the first text comprises changing, for the at least of the first textual representation or context of the first textual representation, one or more of: text highlight color; font color; or fonts, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of organizing human activity and mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) memory, processor, a graphical user interface (GUI), text analysis engine and a client device, trained machine learning model (claims 4, 11 and 18) a feedback-based model, (claim 15) a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing or machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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 generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, claims 1-20 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO 113449095A, hereinafter “Cao”, over Oehrle et al. (US 2018/0189691), hereinafter “Oehrle”.
Regarding Claim 1, CAO teaches A system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one hardware processor operatively coupled with the at least one memory, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one hardware processor causes performance of operations comprising: (CAO, page 4, teaches processor and memory; CAO, page 8, teaches the computing system including the computing device and interface(s));
providing, on a client device, … for displaying one or more impression results generated … (CAO, page 2, claims 7-8, the interview representation includes at least one interview score; the step of matching the interview picture image (Examiner notes interview image is impression) with a preset post standard image to generate an interview result.);
obtaining first digitized text representing notes of an interview based on; (CAO, Abstract, interview data analysis method and device, which can be used in the technical field of artificial intelligence, and the method comprises the following steps: converting the acquired interview voice data into interview text data by an automatic voice recognition technology);
causing to be displayed, … , the first digitized text; (CAO, page 4, teaches displaying text on a display screen); identifying, by the text analysis engine, ... indicating an impression of an interviewer toward an interviewee ..., (CAO, Abstract, interview data analysis method and device, which can be used in the technical field of artificial intelligence, and the method comprises the following steps: converting the acquired interview voice data into interview text data by an automatic voice recognition technology; evaluating the interview text data by a specified evaluation technology according to a preset evaluation category to generate an interview image (Examiner is interpreting interview image as impression) of the job seeker); generating, ...and based on the … and context (CAO, pages 1-2, drawing the interview image of the job seeker… generating a composite score of the job seeker);
combining a plurality of impression scores comprising the first impression score to generate an aggregate impression score indicating an overall impression of the interviewer toward the interviewee; and (CAO, pages 1-2, drawing the interview image of the job seeker… generating a composite score of the job seeker; CAO, page 4, so that the professional ability (skill) and the personal literacy of job seekers can be comprehensively evaluated; Further, CAO, page 6, the plurality of composite scores are averaged, and the average is determined as the final composite score of the job seeker);
… that is determined based on the aggregate impression score (CAO, page 2, claims 7-8, the interview representation includes at least one interview score; the step of matching the interview picture image (Examiner notes interview image is impression) with a preset post standard image to generate an interview result: judging whether the interview score is greater than or equal to the standard score; and if the interview score is larger than or equal to the standard score, generating an interview result which is passed by the interview.)
While CAO teaches a computing system, CAO does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Oehrle teaches a graphical user interface (GUI) … via the GUI (See at least Oehrle, para 0075, FIG. 56; para 0735, teaches graphical user interfaces) based on sentiment analysis of digitized text (Oehrle, para 0186, teaches (i) “ugh” is used independently of the syntax of the main clause and so is a tone-marker, in (ii) it fills a grammatical role—it modifies the subject (manager) and it thus conveys the author's sentiment; Oehrle, para 0028 and Fig. 9 teaches example sentiments that could be supported by the system.) a first textual representation ... based on matching a canonicalized representation to one of a plurality of predefined textual impression representations stored in a dictionary (Storing data is taught throughout Oehrle; see at least para 0145, teaches knowledge models storing data; Oehrle, para 0183, teaches in text, tone is often captured by non-lexical cues. However, many embodiments will also use a combination of lexical cues and non-lexical ones. Non-lexical cues pertain to the form in which the message was delivered: uppercase letters, emoticons, non-typical use of punctuation marks (e. g., “They want us to continue using Lotus Notes?!?!”), repetition of letters and/or words (e.g., “I am sooo upset at my new manager”), including an unusual high number of typos or any other visually non-typical form of representation. Lexical cues include but are not limited to interjections (“wow”, “ugh”), discourse markers (“oh well”), parenthetical expressions (A: “When is the meeting?” B: “As I already said, it's at 2 pm”). Note also that these shall be treated by most embodiments as markers of tone. Further, see Oehrle, para 0184-0192; see at least Oehrle, para 0189, teaches “It includes any type of font treatment that is used to accentuate specific words or phrases including but not limited to bolding, italics, underline, color changes, or animation. It includes punctuation such as exclamation points and, in some contexts, such as question marks. Repetition of words (e.g. “very, very bad”)”. Examiner notes this is analogous to Applicant’s own specification, para 0130, which recites: “one or more words that are capitalized, bolded, and/or underlined, such as the “GREAT” in “what a GREAT answer” and the underlined “not” in “this is not good :(”) using a trained machine learning model (Oehrle, para 0108, a tag resolver component has the function of detecting incompatible or highly unlikely tags co-occurring for the same actor by machine learning) window comprising a defined quantity of text surrounding (Oehrle, para 0373 and 0821, teaching the surrounding text for the purposes of semantic clarity) dynamically adjusting the GUI based on applying a visual emphasis function that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression (Oehrle, para 0184-0192; see at least Oehrle, para 0189, teaches “It includes any type of font treatment that is used to accentuate specific words or phrases including but not limited to bolding, italics, underline, color changes, or animation... Further, Oehrle, para 0873, teaches colored according to the sentiments expressed about it; Even further, Oehrle, para 0830, teaches text which appears in a loud talking context to be indicated by a different font treatment such as italics, “comic book” style font treatment, and/or an accompanying embellishment such as a stylized “!!!” or “@#!$.” Some embodiments may choose other visual treatments to designate loud talking, such as the text shaking or otherwise animating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO with a graphical user interface (GUI) … via the GUI …based on sentiment analysis of digitized text … a first textual representation ... based on matching a canonicalized representation to one of a plurality of predefined textual impression representations stored in a dictionary ... using a trained machine learning model … window comprising a defined quantity of text surrounding ... dynamically adjusting the GUI based on applying a visual emphasis function that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression as taught by Oehrle with the motivation for analysis and solicitation of disparate types of data that are associated with individual members—the aim of gaining an understanding of culture, character, overall engagement, overall energy, and other characteristics (Oehrle, para 0002). The CAO invention now incorporating the Oehrle invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, CAO, now incorporating Oehrle, teaches The system of claim 1, the operations comprising. Yet, CAO does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Oehrle teaches inferring, based on the context of the first textual representation, a subject associated with the first textual representation (Oehrle, para 0184-0185, i. “I′m upset at my new manager. Ugh!” ii. “Our new manger is quite ugh.” Oehrle, para 0186, teaches (i) “ugh” is used independently of the syntax of the main clause and so is a tone-marker, in (ii) it fills a grammatical role—it modifies the subject (manager) and it thus conveys the author's sentiment towards the manager. Further, Oehrle, para 0970, user introduces a reference to a new topic (subject). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO with inferring, based on the context of the first textual representation, a subject associated with the first textual representation as taught by Oehrle with the motivation for analysis and solicitation of disparate types of data that are associated with individual members—the aim of gaining an understanding of culture, character, overall engagement, overall energy, and other characteristics (Oehrle, para 0002).
Regarding Claim 5, CAO, now incorporating Oehrle, teaches The system of claim 2, the operations comprising: … the impression score (CAO, pages 1-2, drawing the interview image of the job seeker… generating a composite score of the job seeker).
Yet, CAO does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Oehrle teaches
detecting a selection of the first textual representation; and in response to detecting a selection of the first textual representation, displaying at least one of … or the subject in the digitized text (Oehrle, para 0184-0185, i. “I′m upset at my new manager. Ugh!” ii. “Our new manger is quite ugh.” Oehrle, para 0186, teaches (i) “ugh” is used independently of the syntax of the main clause and so is a tone-marker, in (ii) it fills a grammatical role—it modifies the subject (manager) and it thus conveys the author's sentiment towards the manager. Examiner notes the subject is the manager which is displayed in the text.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO with detecting a selection of the first textual representation; and in response to detecting a selection of the first textual representation, displaying at least one of … or the subject in the digitized text as taught by Oehrle with the motivation for analysis and solicitation of disparate types of data that are associated with individual members—the aim of gaining an understanding of culture, character, overall engagement, overall energy, and other characteristics (Oehrle, para 0002).
Regarding Claim 7, CAO, now incorporating Oehrle, teaches The system of claim 1, the operations comprising.
Yet, CAO does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Oehrle teaches wherein dynamically modifying the display of the first digitized text comprises changing, for the at least of the first textual representation or context of the first textual representation, one or more of: text highlight color; font color; or fonts (Oehrle, para 0873, teaches colored according to the sentiments expressed about it; Even further, Oehrle, para 0830, teaches text which appears in a loud talking context to be indicated by a different font treatment such as italics, “comic book” style font treatment, and/or an accompanying embellishment such as a stylized “!!!” or “@#!$.” Some embodiments may choose other visual treatments to designate loud talking, such as the text shaking or otherwise animating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO with wherein dynamically modifying the display of the first digitized text comprises changing, for the at least of the first textual representation or context of the first textual representation, one or more of: text highlight color; font color; or fonts as taught by Oehrle with the motivation for analysis and solicitation of disparate types of data that are associated with individual members—the aim of gaining an understanding of culture, character, overall engagement, overall energy, and other characteristics (Oehrle, para 0002).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims are an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. CAO further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See at least CAO, page 8, teaches computer-readable media, including both non-transitory and non-transitory, removable and non-removable media, may implement information storage by any method or technology.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO and Oehrle, and further in view of Casa (US 2023/0036730 A1), hereinafter “Casa”.
Regarding Claim 3, CAO, now incorporating Oehrle, teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the subject corresponds to a candidate skill of the interviewee, wherein the impression score is computed for the candidate … of the interviewee, and wherein the operations comprise: … based on the subject and the impression score, (CAO, pages 1-2, drawing the interview image of the job seeker… generating a composite score of the job seeker; CAO, page 4, so that the professional ability (skill) and the personal literacy of job seekers can be comprehensively evaluated). Yet, CAO and Oehrle do not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Casa teaches updating, … a candidate skill ranking corresponding to the candidate skill of the …; (Casa, Figures 6A-6B, para 0150-0153, teaches job performer proficiency scores in one or more skills… and the development of such skills over time… Updates to these skills scores over time causes the system to automatically write new blocks) and updating, based on the candidate skill ranking, a distance indicating a disparity between the candidate skill of the … and a job requirement of the candidate skill (Casa, para 0014, teaches a required skill for a job; para 0103, teaches updating the jobs and skills map records; para 0146, teaches a user skills knowledge gap(s), Examiner is interpreting knowledge gaps as distance indicating disparity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO and Oehrle with updating, … a candidate skill ranking corresponding to the candidate skill of the interviewee; and updating, based on the candidate skill ranking, a distance indicating a disparity between the candidate skill of the interviewee and a job requirement of the candidate skill as taught by Casa with the motivation for evaluating and improving skills, and more specifically to tokenized engagement with skill experts for developing one or more types of skills (Casa, para 0002). The CAO and Oehrle invention now incorporating the Casa invention, has all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, CAO, now incorporating Oehrle and Casa, teaches The system of claim 3, the operations comprising.
Yet, CAO and Oehrle do not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Casa teaches refining a feedback-based model by inputting the updated distance into the feedback-based model (Casa, para 0105-0110, teaches Jane uses her client device to type in or record her responses of how she would handle each workplace situation applying user intuitive skills. Jane's responses are assigned a quantitative, qualitative and 360 feedback loop score using machine learning algorithms.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO and Oehrle with refining a feedback-based model by inputting the updated distance into the feedback-based model as taught by Casa with the motivation for evaluating and improving skills, and more specifically to tokenized engagement with skill experts for developing one or more types of skills (Casa, para 0002).
Regarding Claim 6, CAO, now incorporating Oehrle, teaches The system of claim 1, the operations comprising: … interviewees based on a plurality of aggregate impression scores corresponding to the plurality of interviewees (CAO, pages 1-2, drawing the interview image of the job seeker… generating a composite score of the job seeker; CAO, page 4, so that the professional ability (skill) and the personal literacy of job seekers can be comprehensively evaluated).
Yet, CAO and Oehrle do not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Casa teaches ranking a plurality of (job seekers) (Casa, para 0006, teaches ranking each the job seeker based on the comparison of the performance quotient to the position quotient.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CAO and Oehrle with ranking a plurality of as taught by Casa with the motivation for evaluating and improving skills, and more specifically to tokenized engagement with skill experts for developing one or more types of skills (Casa, para 0002). The CAO and Oehrle invention now incorporating the Casa invention, has all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejection in light of the most recent claim amendments and maintains the 101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks on integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements ((claim 1) memory, processor, a graphical user interface (GUI), text analysis engine and a client device, trained machine learning model (claims 4, 11 and 18) a feedback-based model, (claim 15) a non-transitory computer-readable medium) are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing or machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner has reviewed Applicants claims and specification and has found only generic computing elements used in their ordinary capacity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; the computer elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, with respect to Applicant’s remarks (pages 9-10), Applicant argues limitations “based on matching a canonicalized representation to one of a plurality of predefined textual impression representations stored in a dictionary” and “context window”. Examiner respectfully does not find these remarks persuasive as Applicant’s specification does not include these limitations. See above 112 rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks (pages 10-11) “Crucially, claim 1 further requires dynamically adjusting the GUI based on applying a visual emphasis function that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression determined based on the aggregate impression score. This limitation is not merely "displaying a result" or "presenting information". It recites an interface control mechanism that changes the appearance of the displayed digitized text as a function of computed impression strength. The GUI is dynamically adjusted - its rendering of the digitized text changes - based on the computed aggregate score. This is a specific human- computer interaction (HCI) improvement: it automatically guides a reviewer to impression- bearing portions of the digitized notes by applying visual emphasis correlated to computed impression strength. Such dynamic interface adaptation is a practical application of the computed scores. It improves the operation of the system's user interface by automatically surfacing and emphasizing relevant sections, rather than requiring a user to manually search through raw digitized text or infer emphasis from static data. The claim's interface control limitation integrates the underlying text analysis into a practical application that improves how the system presents and manages unstructured text for review.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, modifying font, color or shading of text is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Further, with respect to the GUI, Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s specification, including para 0067 in Applicant’s specification describing the GUI. Examiner has not found a unique user interface, rather, the user interface is a broadly claimed, generic user interface which does not bring about some benefit to the use of a computing device, nor does it demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field. Examiner fails to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Thus, Examiner finds that the claims recite the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes and is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks (pages 11-12) “The Applicant submits that amended claim 1 recites elements which, in combination, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. That is, even if the Examiner maintains the claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the claim is nevertheless eligible under Step 2B...” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access (See for example, Applicants spec, para 0054). Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks (page 13): “Oehrle thus fails to teach or suggest "dynamically adjusting the GUI based on applying a visual emphasis function that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression that is determined based on the aggregate impression score" of amended claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully notes the limitation in claim 1 “dynamically adjusting the GUI based on applying a visual emphasis function that modifies at least one of font, color, or shading of text in accordance with a strength of impression that is determined based on the aggregate impression score” is taught by a combination of CAO and Oehrle, as is explained in the above rejection. Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner has updated maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
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 REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights