DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 6/15/26. Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are amended, claim(s) 23-24 is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments and/or new claims can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-22 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-22 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Foster (US 2010/0161503 A1) in view of Kannan (US 2024/0296734 A1), Rehling et al. (US 8,463,595 B1), and Jain et al. (US 2016/0335600 A1) for claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 6/15/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 7-13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because while the amendments further the 101 argument, the claims are still directed to facilitating proactive recruitment.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims improve the machine learning model similar to Desjardins is also not persuasive. Applicant’s claims are similar to claim 2 of Example 47 which included receiving continuous training data, using the computer to discretize the continuous training data to generate input data, training the artificial neural network using the input data, and detecting anomalies using the trained artificial neural network; which represented mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), held that “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”. Similar to Recentive Analytics, Applicant’s limitations only claim the application of machine learning models and not an improvement to the models themselves. The claimed limitations do not meet the criteria or considerations as indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, the rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 101 are maintained.
As noted in example 47 of the 101 examples for July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples merely mentioning machine learning will not overcome the 101 rejection.
Examiner notes that if the claims followed example 47 claim 3 steps e and f from the 101 examples for July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples the claim(s) would likely overcome 101 rejection.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 14 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to facilitating proactive recruitment.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-13, and 21 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 14, 16-19, and 22 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: displaying, in a user interface of a user device, a plurality of candidate profiles retrieved from a database storing the plurality of candidate profiles, the database accessible by a plurality of user devices;
receiving a selection of a candidate profile for target recruitment by a user of the user device;
updating a status of the candidate profile in the database based on the selection;
adding the candidate profile to a personal repository of the user within the database;
receiving a user annotation of the candidate profile;
classifying, by a sentiment analysis machine learning model trained to determine a sentiment of the user annotation, the user annotation into a notification class when the sentiment of the user is determined to be positive and into a no notification class when the sentiment of the user is determined to be negative;
scheduling a notification to be sent to the user in response to a trigger event when the user annotation is classified into a notification class;
determining occurrence of the trigger event; and
sending the notification to the user in response to the occurrence of the trigger event;
the method further comprising updating the sentiment analysis machine learning determining that the candidate was offered a position; and
using the user annotation as a positive class example for updating the sentiment analysis machine learning model.
Claim(s) 14: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 3-6, 9-13, 16-19, and 21-22 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 14 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with facilitating proactive recruitment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: The claims are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include user interface, user device, machine learning model, database (claim(s) 1, 14), A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory (claim(s) 14), non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device (claim(s) 18), database (claim(s) 5-7, 18-20), processor (claim(s) 19-20), user interface (claim(s) 21-22).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0038]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0038]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights