Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 20, 21, 30, and 48-63 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 20, 21, and 30 are amended.
Claims 1-19, 22-29, and 31-47 are cancelled.
Claims 48-63 are new.
Claims 20, 21, 30, and 48-63 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Mar. 23, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 repeats the word d” in the limitation (emphasized) “..in claim 20, including a user interface comprising a a filter to facilitate selecting…” Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach the newly amended limitations.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 20, 30, 49, 50, 53-55, 58, and 61-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0317759, herein referred to as “Jing” in view of Goel et al. US Pub. No. 2016/0210703, herein referred to as “Goel”.
Regarding claim 21, Jing teaches:
a data processing system configured to interrogate a database of storing producer-submitted nodal objects (queries a database about career paths, e.g. Abstract and ¶[0014]; see also ¶[0004] explicitly discussing nodes),
each nodal object: (i) having informational content characterizing an object state and being associated with a producer and distinguishable from informational content associated with another nodal object; and (ii) having one or more links to other nodal objects A) links between nodal objects represent ordered relationships contributed by producers and B) a plurality of sequential links to or from a nodal object is representative of ordered sequences of the same or different producers (data structure includes nodes where each position instance represents a position held and references to the positions held immediately before and after by the person associated with the position instance, ¶¶[0017], [0063]; see also Figs. 2-5);
the data processing system including one or more
receiving input search data having a beginning specification of a nodal object that establishes a 'from' nodal object, and an end specification of a nodal object that establishes a 'to' nodal object (includes search query boxes for providing starting career position and ending career position, ¶[0048] and Fig. 4)
performing a dual-ended search of the database that, using the beginning specification and the end specification (search engine identifies results matching the career path query, ¶[0025], based on the starting and the ending career position, ¶[0026]),
generates results including (i) one or more sequences extending from the 'from' nodal object and (ii) one or more sequences extending to the 'to' nodal object (displays career paths absed on search, e.g., ¶¶[0024]-[0025], [0051] and Fig. 4)
and based on the results of the dual-ended search, identifying one or more intermediary nodal objects usable to connect the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object (identifies intermediate career position instances in career path, e.g., ¶¶[0055]-[0057] and Figs. 4, 5).
However Jing does not teach but Goel does teach:
and creating a virtual path comprising nodal objects and links from two or more different producers and connected to form an ordered sequence between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object, the virtual path representing an ordered sequence that includes at least one link from a first producer and at least one link from a second producer (aggregates career histories of these members who have actually attained the goal position in their respective careers to suggest a path forward for the user, ¶[0036]).
Further it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing with the aggregated data from multiple workers as taught by Goel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users may wish to see mixes of career transitions (e.g., from one industry to another) and accordingly would have modified Jing to aggregate career transitions, e.g., as taught by Goel.
Regarding claim 30, Jing teaches:
a database storing producer-submitted nodal objects (queries a database about career paths, e.g. Abstract and ¶[0014]; see also ¶[0004] explicitly discussing nodes),
each nodal object having: (i) informational content characterizing an object state and being associated with a producer and distinguishable from informational content associated with another nodal object, and; (ii) one or more links to other nodal objects;
wherein: A) links between nodal objects represent ordered relationships contributed by producers; and B) a plurality of sequential links to or from a nodal object is representative of ordered sequences of the same or different producers (data structure includes nodes where each position instance represents a position held and references to the positions held immediately before and after by the person associated with the position instance, ¶¶[0017], [0063]; see also Figs. 2-5);
the method including: (a) receiving input search data having; (i) a beginning specification of a nodal object that establishes a 'from' nodal object,-; and (ii) an end specification of a nodal object that establishes a 'to' nodal object (includes search query boxes for providing starting career position and ending career position, ¶[0048] and Fig. 4),
(b) performing a dual-ended search of the database that, using the beginning specification and the end specification locates:(A) one or more sequences extending from the 'from' nodal object;
and (B) one or more sequences extending to the 'to' nodal object based on the results of the dual ended-search (search engine identifies results matching the career path query, ¶[0025], based on the starting and the ending career position, ¶[0026]);
(c) identifying one or more intermediary nodal objects usable to connect the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object (identifies intermediate career position instances in career path, e.g., ¶¶[0055]-[0057] and Figs. 4, 5),
However Jing does not teach but Goel does teach:
whereby identifying intermediary nodal objects includes determining equivalence between nodal objects associated with different producers by normalising producer-supplied informational content and treating equivalent nodal objects as corresponding nodal objects (extracts relevant data from each member profile, ¶[0080])
and (d) creating a virtual path comprising nodal objects and links from two or more different producers and connected to form an ordered sequence between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object, the virtual path representing an ordered sequence that includes at least one link from a first producer and at least one link from a second producer (aggregates career histories of these members who have actually attained the goal position in their respective careers to suggest a path forward for the user, ¶[0036]).
Further it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing with the aggregated data from multiple workers as taught by Goel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users may wish to see mixes of career transitions (e.g., from one industry to another) and accordingly would have modified Jing to aggregate career transitions, e.g., as taught by Goel.
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the dual-ended search identifies a direct pathway between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object when no intermediary nodal objects are required (identifies career paths with no intermediary nodal objects, e.g., the third career path, ¶[0040] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the dual-ended search identifies one or more indirect pathways between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object that include one or more intermediary nodal objects (identifies career paths with intermediary nodes, e.g., the first career path, ¶[0044] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Goel further teaches:
wherein identifying an intermediary nodal object comprises determining equivalence between nodal objects associated with different producers by normalising producer-supplied informational content and treating equivalent nodal objects as corresponding nodal objects (aggregates career histories of these members who have actually attained the goal position in their respective careers to suggest a path forward for the user, ¶[0036]; see also ¶[0080] discussing extracting relevant data from each member profile).
Further it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing with the aggregated data from multiple workers as taught by Goel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users may wish to see mixes of career transitions (e.g., from one industry to another) and accordingly would have modified Jing to aggregate career transitions, e.g., as taught by Goel.
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Jing further teaches:
while retaining producer association information for each nodal object included in the virtual path (career position instance having various information about the person holding the position, ¶[0017]).
However Jing does not explicitly teach:
wherein the virtual path is stored separately from producer-submitted sequences
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the data separately because making parts separable is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C. That is Examiner finds storing the data separately would be obvious to, for example, store the modeled data separately from the data gathered from social networks.
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the producer-submitted nodal objects are contributed by producers associated with different organisations (includes multiple companies, e.g., ¶[0039]).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the dual-ended search identifies a direct pathway between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object when no intermediary nodal objects are required (identifies career paths with no intermediary nodal objects, e.g., the third career path, ¶[0040] and Fig. 2).
and identifies one or more indirect pathways that include one or more intermediary nodal objects when intermediary nodal objects are permitted (identifies career paths with intermediary nodes, e.g., the first career path, ¶[0044] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 61, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 30 and Jing further teaches:
while retaining producer association information for each nodal object included in the virtual path (career position instance having various information about the person holding the position, ¶[0017]).
However Jing does not explicitly teach:
wherein the virtual path is stored separately from producer-submitted sequences
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the data separately because making parts separable is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C. That is Examiner finds storing the data separately would be obvious to, for example, store the modeled data separately from the data gathered from social networks.
Regarding claim 62, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 30 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the producer-submitted nodal objects are contributed by producers associated with different organisations (includes multiple companies, e.g., ¶[0039]).
Regarding claim 63, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 30 and Jing further teaches:
outputting a plurality of candidate pathways between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object for a selected pathway level (determines multiple career paths, e.g., ¶[0044] and Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 21, 48, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing and Goel further in view of Barnfield et al, US Pub. No. 2013/0212031, herein referred to as “Barnfield”.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and does not teach but Barnfield does teach:
including a user interface comprising a a filter to facilitate selecting a pathway level, wherein the pathway level corresponds to either :(i) a number of intermediary nodal objects permitted between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object, or (ii) a searching strategy process associated with a particular number of intermediary nodal objects to be applied for extracting pathways between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object (generates multiple career paths, (i.e. recommended next step, high performance path, and fast track path), ¶[0074] and Fig. 3; see also ¶[0043] discussing the different types of paths; and ¶[0064] and Fig. 2 showing career paths are generated based on aggregated data of multiple workers).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing with the creation of career paths based on aggregated data from multiple workers as taught by Barnfield because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that people planning a career might have different priorities that previous user (e.g. might wish to focus on a high-performance path or a fast track path) and accordingly would have enabled the user to select different career paths, e.g. as taught by Barnfield.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Jing, Goel and Barnfield teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and Jing does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data processing system performs repeated dual-ended searches corresponding to different pathway levels responsive to user selection.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to performs repeated dual-ended searches because duplication of parts is obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. That is Jing teaches performing dual-ended searches, e.g., ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and Examiner finds no reason repeating this process in response to user selection would produce new and unexpected result.
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and does not teach but Barnfield does teach:
wherein the dual-ended search comprises executing a search from the 'from' nodal object and a search from the 'to' nodal object in any order or in interleaved sequence, and after each search step evaluating whether results of the searches overlap to identify at least one intermediary nodal object at which a pathway between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object can be constructed or extracted (generates multiple career paths, (i.e. recommended next step, high performance path, and fast track path), ¶[0074] and Fig. 3; see also ¶[0043] discussing the different types of paths).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing and Goel with the creation of differing career paths as taught by Barnfield because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that people planning a career might have different priorities that previous user (e.g. might wish to focus on a high-performance path or a fast track path) and accordingly would have enabled the user to select different career paths, e.g. as taught by Barnfield.
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Jing, Goel and Barnfield teaches all the limitations of claim 51 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the dual-ended search comprises expanding the search from the 'from' nodal object to a first degree of separation and expanding the search from the 'to' nodal object to a first degree of separation, in either order, and if no overlap is found, repeating the expansions for different degrees of separation until at least one intermediary nodal object is identified (if no starting or ending career positions match the query, system provides a best match, ¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 30 and does not teach but Barnfield does teach:
including a user interface comprising a a filter to facilitate selecting a pathway level, wherein the pathway level corresponds to either :(i) a number of intermediary nodal objects permitted between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object, or (ii) a searching strategy process associated with a particular number of intermediary nodal objects to be applied for extracting pathways between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object (generates multiple career paths, (i.e. recommended next step, high performance path, and fast track path), ¶[0074] and Fig. 3; see also ¶[0043] discussing the different types of paths; and ¶[0064] and Fig. 2 showing career paths are generated based on aggregated data of multiple workers).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing with the creation of career paths based on aggregated data from multiple workers as taught by Barnfield because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that people planning a career might have different priorities that previous user (e.g. might wish to focus on a high-performance path or a fast track path) and accordingly would have enabled the user to select different career paths, e.g. as taught by Barnfield.
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Jing, Goel and Barnfield teaches all the limitations of claim 56 and Jing does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data processing system performs repeated dual-ended searches corresponding to different pathway levels responsive to user selection.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to performs repeated dual-ended searches because duplication of parts is obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. That is Jing teaches performing dual-ended searches, e.g., ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and Examiner finds no reason repeating this process in response to user selection would produce new and unexpected result.
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Jing and Goel teaches all the limitations of claim 30 and does not teach but Barnfield does teach:
wherein the dual-ended search comprises executing a search from the 'from' nodal object and a search from the 'to' nodal object in any order or in interleaved sequence, and after each search step evaluating overlap between results of the searches to identify at least one intermediary nodal object usable to construct or extract a pathway between the 'from' nodal object and the 'to' nodal object (generates multiple career paths, (i.e. recommended next step, high performance path, and fast track path), ¶[0074] and Fig. 3; see also ¶[0043] discussing the different types of paths).
Further, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the career planning system of Jing and Goel with the creation of differing career paths as taught by Barnfield because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that people planning a career might have different priorities that previous user (e.g. might wish to focus on a high-performance path or a fast track path) and accordingly would have enabled the user to select different career paths, e.g. as taught by Barnfield.
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Jing, Goel and Barnfield teaches all the limitations of claim 59 and Jing further teaches:
wherein the dual-ended search comprises expanding the search from the 'from' nodal object to a first degree of separation and expanding the search from the 'to' nodal object to a first degree of separation, in either order, and if no overlap is found, repeating the expansions for different degrees of separation until at least one intermediary nodal object is identified (if no starting or ending career positions match the query, system provides a best match, ¶[0027]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights