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 .
Claim(s) 7-20 are pending for examination. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from consideration. This action is Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 2 – Claims 7-20 in the reply filed on 1/28/2028 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, 14, and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, 14, and 19 recites “...a candidate’s capability profile...” The examiner suggests for better clarity to remove the possession towards a “...capability profile...”. For example, it is suggested to amend the claim to “a capability profile of a candidate.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 7-20 are directed to process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 7 taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A method for comparing a candidate's capability profile to a work profile, comprising:
receiving a quantitative data set representing a quantitative scoring of a candidate's abilities based on a candidate's responses to problems presented in a work simulation;
receiving a qualitative data set representing a qualitative scoring of the candidate's abilities as scored by a qualitative scoring service;
mapping the quantitative data set and the qualitative data set into a space with two or more dimensions to form a unique capabilities geometric object;
comparing the unique capabilities geometric object to an ideal geometric object representing capabilities of an ideal candidate; and
determining whether the unique capabilities geometric object deviates from the ideal geometric object in a plurality of capability areas in a positive, negative or neural amount.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 7 includes receiving a quantitative data set representing a quantitative scoring of a candidate's abilities based on a candidate's responses to problems presented in a work simulation; receiving a qualitative data set representing a qualitative scoring of the candidate's abilities as scored by a qualitative scoring service; mapping the quantitative data set and the qualitative data set into a space with two or more dimensions to form a unique capabilities geometric object; comparing the unique capabilities geometric object to an ideal geometric object representing capabilities of an ideal candidate; and determining whether the unique capabilities geometric object deviates from the ideal geometric object in a plurality of capability areas in a positive, negative or neural amount., thus, claim 7 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 7 includes receiving a quantitative data set representing a quantitative scoring of a candidate's abilities based on a candidate's responses to problems presented in a work simulation; receiving a qualitative data set representing a qualitative scoring of the candidate's abilities as scored by a qualitative scoring service; mapping the quantitative data set and the qualitative data set into a space with two or more dimensions to form a unique capabilities geometric object; comparing the unique capabilities geometric object to an ideal geometric object representing capabilities of an ideal candidate; and determining whether the unique capabilities geometric object deviates from the ideal geometric object in a plurality of capability areas in a positive, negative or neural amount, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements; therefore, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 7 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 7 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application there are no additional elements. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 7 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 7 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 8-20, claim(s) 8-20 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., claim 11 - machine learning that includes a deep neural network and/or claim 19 – tree classifier). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fleishman (US 2003/0008270 A1) discusses ... a system and method of assessing cognitive and metacognitive skills and leadership abilities used in the creative problem solving process central to leader effectiveness. The system and method provide a new model of leader performance and a validated computer based assessment battery. The system and method present scripted scenarios configured to activate a problem solving process resulting in the construction of a mental representation of the problem and requiring the selection of a set of alternative responses. The system and method define and operationalize six leadership abilities in terms of the requisite cognitive and metacognitive skills. A computerized interactive assessment battery measures these abilities by presenting six scenarios describing situations and events requiring large scale organizational interventions that require the use of these leadership abilities. The system and method measures these abilities by requiring the examinee to select, prioritize, and modify his response set in accordance with continuously updated information provided. The system and method quantify the abilities measured in terms of ability profiles and generate and display immediate feedback to the examinee in terms of normative profiles based on the scores. The assessment data is stored on a removable disk or web server for use in developing an individually tailored leadership training program based on the specific leadership ability profile identified by the use of the systems and methods leadership model. (Abstract).
Lin et al. (US 2015/0072332 A1) discusses A testing system includes apparatus and methods of testing a subject according to a forced-choice scheme. The scheme is based on Thurstonian Item-Response. Theory and is particularly relevant to personality assessment. The invention provides dynamic test generation and scoring for efficient testing of subjects using unique tests. (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626