Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/376,829

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECOMMENDING NEXT BEST ACTION TO CREATE NEW EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS FOR JOB APPLICANTS

Final Rejection §101§102
Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner
EL-HAGE HASSAN, ABDALLAH A
Art Unit
3623
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allow Rate
107 granted / 267 resolved
-11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
311
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§102
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 267 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . Status of the Application This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/04/2023. Status of Claims Claims 1-2 filed on 10/04/2023 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-2 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1-2 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of matching user with job opening and providing pathway to obtain the job. With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “obtaining information about a plurality of users and a plurality of opportunities; based on the information, matching individual users with corresponding opportunities, including determining a likelihood that the user will be hired for the opportunity” The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary skilled in the art can reasonably analyze resume data and job data and provide pathway recommendations. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. Claim 2 recites a Mental Process because the claimed elements describe a process for matching user with job opening and providing pathway to obtain the job. As a result, claim 2 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A computing system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “obtaining” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “obtaining” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Claim 2 does not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 1. As a result, claim 2 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A computing system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors”. The step of “obtaining” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “obtaining” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claim 2 does not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 1. As a result, claim 2 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Ortiz III (US 20150088774 A1). Regarding claim 1. Ortiz teaches A computing system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors perform operations that include: [Ortiz, para. 0004 Ortiz teaches “An example apparatus, system and method is provided for generating an adaptive career pathway for an individual, In an example, the apparatus or system can include at least one communication interface, at least one memory to store processor-executable instructions, and at least one processing unit, communicatively coupled to the at least one communication interface and the at least one memory”] obtaining information about a plurality of users and a plurality of opportunities; based on the information, matching individual users with corresponding opportunities, including determining a likelihood that the user will be hired for the opportunity [Ortiz, Abstract Ortiz teaches “(A) receive data indicative of two or more of an educational level, a skill level, a personality metric, a residence location, a score in an educational course, a score in a vocational course, a job location, and a skill set selected by the individual; (B) compute an assessment vector associated with the individual based on the received data; (C) perform a GAP analysis to compare the assessment vector to a database of job taxonomy vectors, wherein each job taxonomy vector comprises data indicative of deconstruction parameters associated with a specified job” wherein receiving user’s data and job data. See also para. 0028 “The example career pathway can include at least one of a skills assessment of the individual, a recommendation of certificate training for the individual, and job matching” wherein job matching. See also “an employability score” wherein likelihood to be hired]. Regarding claim 2. wherein the operations further comprise: for a given user, determining, based on the matchings and the information, an action pathway to facilitate the given user in meeting an objective at a future time interval [Ortiz, claim 1 Ortiz teaches “An apparatus for generating an adaptive career pathway for an individual”]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose telephone number is (571) 272-0819. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000. /ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2023
Application Filed
May 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596980
INSPECTION SYSTEM AND INSPECTION METHOD FOR BUILDING COMPONENTS OF BUILDING STRUCTURES BASED ON COMMON DATA ENVIRONMENT AND BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578995
Distributed Actor-Based Information System and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572995
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLAN DETERMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566862
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMICALLY ASSESSING CURRENT RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A MARITIME ACTIVITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12511599
COMPUTER NETWORK WITH A PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING MATURITY MODEL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+39.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 267 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month