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 12/2/25. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 15 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 1-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/2/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/2/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 9-14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the is not support for the amendments in the independent claims. The claims in view of the specification are taught by the current prior art.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
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.
Generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350, 94 USPQ2d at 1171; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed)”. Additionally, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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. Representative claim(s) 1, 2, and 15 recite(s)
“permitting the at least one employer to select the at least one candidate and permitting the at least one partner to communicate the selection to the at least one candidate;
facilitating the at least one candidate to accept the selection by the at least one employer by notifying the at least one partner {and is configured to allow the employer to view the candidate, assess the candidate, and offer to select the candidate and communicate such offer to the partner, provide a means for the at least one partner to interface with the at least one candidate and propose them to the at least one employer, permit the at least one candidate to confirm the employer's selection, perform a verification of at least one credential of a candidate wherein the at least one partner will transmit the confirmation to the employer and the at least one employer cannot directly contact the candidate - claim 1};”
{provide an at least partially electronic workspace for the at least one candidate wherein the at least one employer is able to view the partially electronic workspace and wherein the employer and employee are each using a different terminal and are located remotely relatively to each other; allows the at least one employer to create one or more tasks in the workspace and permits the candidate to interact with the one or more tasks; provide the at least one employer an electronic repository whereby the at least one employer can store information related to the one or more tasks and the at least one candidate - claim 1 original}, and
wherein the computer memory is further configured to store information regarding a skillset of at least one candidate and information regarding a set of needs of the at least one employer and propose an at least one candidate to an at least one employer if their degree of overlap meets a preset threshold set by the at least one employer and at least one partner (claim 2).
The claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes the bolded portion of the representative claims above is new matter. Initially, Examiner notes the bolded portion recites
“permitting the at least one partner to communicate the selection to the at least one candidate”,
“facilitating the at least one candidate to accept the selection by the at least one employer by notifying the at least one partner {and is configured to allow the employer to view the candidate, assess the candidate, and offer to select the candidate and communicate such offer to the partner, wherein the at least one partner will transmit the confirmation to the employer and the at least one employer cannot directly contact the candidate - claim 1}”,
“wherein the employer and employee are each using a different terminal and are located remotely relatively to each other”, and
“and propose an at least one candidate to an at least one employer if their degree of overlap meets a preset threshold set by the at least one employer and at least one partner”
which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. Examiner notes the closest portions of the original disclosure include [0006, 0021, 0026-0027, 0039, 0018, 0021, 0023, 0005, 0022] which only states
[0006] “Some embodiments of the invention may permit the client to select, or may only permit, the system itself to automatically select the candidate with the highest alignment with the client's requirements and automatically initiate the hiring process.”,
[0021] “notify the at least one employer if it has matched an at least one candidate and is configured to allow the employer to select the candidate, assess the candidate, and offer to select the candidate, provide a means for the at least one partner to interface with the at least one candidate and propose them to the at least one employer, permit the at least one candidate to confirm the employer's selection,”,
[0026-0027, 0039] “Similarly, in some examples of the invention the invention features a computerized interface that is connected to a network and the at least one candidate, if selected by the at least one employer and if the at least one candidate accepted the selection, is capable of performing at least one task related to the needs of the employer using the computerized interface.”,
[0018] “wherein the worker can perform workitems and other tasks for the client, and the client can view them”,
[0021] “wherein the at least one employer is able to view the partially electronic workspace”,
[0023] “Additional embodiments may have the computer processor configured to enable the partner to perform at least one of the following functions: consult with the at least one employer; assess the at least one candidate; or provide at least one of mentorship, coaching, or training to the at least one candidate, or is further configured to enable the partner to review potential matches between the at least one candidate and at least one employer”,
[0005] “In some further embodiments, the modules and their sub-modules, as applicable, may be implemented on a computer system and possibly through a network, wherein the system may comprise singular computer system, a cloud, a series of servers, a hybrid of the foregoing, or in alternative arrangements. For example, some embodiments may be configured to run the work module on a cloud server, while the workspace and work modules runs on an instance on a client's server. In some embodiments, one or more of the modules may be web based such that the users access them through the internet, while in others they, or some of the modules, may be downloaded or installed software applications.”, and
[0022] “wherein the computer processor will only match the at least one candidate to the at least one employer if the degree of overlap of the skillset of the at least one candidate and the needs of the at least one employer exceed a preset threshold.”.
None of these portions however disclose the above bolded claim language. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 1, 2, and 15.
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) 1-20 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 15 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to automated assistance of worker location, acquisition, training, and utilization.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-14 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 15-20 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: wherein the computer memory stores a plurality of information including at least information regarding at least one partner, at least one candidate, and at least one employer;
to match the at least one candidate with the at least one employer, notify the at least one employer if it has matched an at least one candidate and is configured to allow the employer to view the candidate, assess the candidate, and offer to select the candidate and communicate such offer to the partner, provide a means for the at least one partner to interface with the at least one candidate and propose them to the at least one employer, permit the at least one candidate to confirm the employer's selection, perform a verification of at least one credential of a candidate wherein the at least one partner will transmit the confirmation to the employer and the at least one employer cannot directly contact the candidate;
provide an at least partially electronic workspace for the at least one candidate wherein the at least one employer is able to view the partially electronic workspace and wherein the employer and employee are each using a different terminal and are located remotely relatively to each other; allows the at least one employer to create one or more tasks in the workspace and permits the candidate to interact with the one or more tasks; provide the at least one employer an electronic repository whereby the at least one employer can store information related to the one or more tasks and the at least one candidate; and
wherein the computer is connected to a network.
Claim(s) 15: maintaining a platform accessible by at least one partner, at least one candidate, and at least one employer;
receiving information related to an at least one need of the at least one employer and information related to an at least one skillset of the at least one candidate;
determining whether the at least one skillset of the at least one candidate matches the at least one need of the at least one employer to a sufficient degree wherein the sufficient degree is determined by the at least one employer and at least one partner;
notifying the at least one employer if the at least one skillset of the at least one candidate matches the at least one need of the at least one employer to the sufficient degree set by the at least one employer;
permitting the at least one employer to select the at least one candidate and permitting the at least one partner to communicate the selection to the at least one candidate;
facilitating the at least one candidate to accept the selection by the at least one employer by notifying the at least one partner;
providing a computerized workspace where the at least one candidate can perform one or more tasks for the at least one employer where the computerized workspace is at least partially shared between the at least one candidate and at least one employer.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 15 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 automated assistance of worker location, acquisition, training, and utilization.
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 system comprising: computer processor and memory, electronic workspace, electronic repository, network (claim(s) 1), platform, computerized workspace (claim(s) 15), computer memory (claim(s) 2), computer processor (claim(s) 2-5, 7-8, 13-14), computerized interface (claim(s) 6, 10, 12), network (claim(s) 17).
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 [0005]) 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 [0005]) 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 nonobviousness.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria (US 2019/0019160 A1) in view of Raajaratnam et al. (US 2015/0154529 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 15 (currently amended), Champaneria teaches a method for the management of employer and candidate relationships, the method comprising:
{the system comprising: at least one computer processor communicably connected to at least one computer memory,
wherein the computer memory stores a plurality of information including at least information regarding at least one partner, at least one candidate, and at least one employer;
wherein the computer processor is programmed to;
wherein the computer processor is connected to a network - claim 1}
maintaining a platform accessible by at least one partner, at least one candidate, and at least one employer;
receiving information related to an at least one need of the at least one employer and information related to an at least one skillset of the at least one candidate [for the limitations above, see at least [0051] “Further, many embodiments are described in terms of sequences of actions to be performed by, for example, elements of a computing device. It will be recognized that various actions described herein can be performed by specific circuits (e.g., application specific integrated circuits (ASICs)), by program instructions being executed by one or more processors, or by a combination of both.”;
Figs. 13-14 and [0236, 0238] “Looking next at exemplary FIG. 13, a component diagram of the overall structure of the system may be shown. In an exemplary embodiment, an AI BOT 1004 may be a central part of the system, … The AI BOT 1004 may also be linked to a database 1002. The AI BOT 1004 may manage communications with particular candidates via particular communication channels 1008”;
[0238] “In a first step, the AI BOT may access certain information about the candidate and the job 1012 from the database 1002. Such information may include, for example, information like candidate details, job details, current application status, any information that can be collected from context variables, and so forth 1010.”;
[0052] “In particular, the method and system may make use of a method for providing a candidate with a score for a particular job opening. The method and system may then collect any other information that may be necessary, and may be configured to notify employers about one or more high-scoring candidates that have been found for a job opening. The method and system may further operate to maintain bi-directional communication until such time as the position has been filled.”;
[0007] “A method and system for automating some aspects of a recruiting process may be described. Such a method may operate to match résumés and job descriptions, and may initiate communications between a candidate and a recruiter once an appropriate match has been found. This may allow recruiters to focus on the highest level of vetting, and on aspects of the recruitment process such as promoting of the hiring company and salary negotiations.”;
[0265] “For example, in some exemplary embodiments, it may be desired to structure the above invention as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform, which may be accessible through a public API. According to such an exemplary embodiment, one or more clients, who may for example be hiring managers at outside companies, may make use of the public API to send jobs to the SaaS platform. The SaaS platform will then operate to generate a curated list of candidates for submission back to the client, which may be, for example, delivered directly into the application tracking system of the client. In some exemplary embodiments, some or all (or none) of the above processes may be made accessible by a public API, as may be desired.”;
[0087] “In a loading step 23 of a sourcing step 2, a résumé (including a CV/resume document or any other information) of a sourced candidate or of more than one sourced candidate may be input into the system, and may be parsed. … The parsed data may then be structured and stored in a database.”;
[0008] “The method may next include generating, on the automated recruitment system, a first data point matrix, the data point matrix based on the one or more job requirements. The method may next include automatically posting, with the automated recruitment system, on a network, one or more posts comprising the job description.”;
[0055-0056] “Turning briefly to exemplary FIG. 2, FIG. 2 displays, in more detail, an exemplary embodiment of a flowchart depicting a method of performing a job entry step 1. According to an exemplary embodiment, in a first step 11 of a job entry step 1, a job description may be input into the system. In some embodiments, the text of the job description, and any other information that has been provided by the hiring manager that may be outside of the job description, may be parsed by the system (for example, by a system configured to use natural language processing) and key points, concepts, and requirements of the job may be identified from the job description.
In a next step 12 of a job entry step 1, the information that had been automatically parsed from the job description in step 11 may be reviewed by a human operator, such as a recruiter. The recruiter may then elect to edit the information that had been produced in the automatic parsing step 11. In some exemplary embodiments, the recruiter may have to review and approve the information in order to continue with the job entry step 1; in other exemplary embodiments, the recruiter may have the option to do so.”;
[0070] “Turning next to exemplary FIG. 3, FIG. 3 displays, in more detail, an exemplary embodiment of a flowchart depicting a method of performing a sourcing step 2. According to an exemplary embodiment, a system may receive inputs from automatic sourcing 211 and manual sourcing 212, and may in each case load résumés into the system in a loading step 23.”];
determining whether the at least one skillset of the at least one candidate matches the at least one need of the at least one employer to a sufficient degree wherein the sufficient degree is determined by the at least one employer and at least one partner [see at least [0099] “In an exemplary embodiment, to facilitate searching (using a sematic engine or otherwise) during a matching step 32, the search functionality of the system may be configured to be iterative in nature and may broaden with subsequent iterations, similar to the automatic sourcing search 211 performed in the previous step 2. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, if the system performs a search for candidates that score above a pre-set primary threshold, and is unable to identify a particular prerequisite number of candidates for the position which score above that threshold, the system may perform a new search with looser search criteria, such as a pre-set secondary threshold or an automatically calculated secondary threshold.”;
[0231] “(For example, if a first potential response and a second potential response would have different meanings but have scores that are very similar to one another, it may be contemplated that both the first potential response and the second potential response may be provided to a recruiter or hiring manager for review.)”];
notifying the at least one employer if the at least one skillset of the at least one candidate matches the at least one need of the at least one employer to the sufficient degree set by the at least one employer {notify the at least one employer if it has matched an at least one candidate - claim 1} [see at least [0104] “Lastly, according to an exemplary embodiment, an optional confirmation step 34 of a matching step 3 may be performed after a post-processing step 33 or after a matching step 32 if a post-processing step is not performed. In a confirmation step 34, depending on the configuration of the system, a final list of matching candidates may be provided by the system, for example to a recruiter and/or to the hiring company, in order to permit manual review and confirmation of the final list by either or both of the recruiter and the hiring company. In an exemplary embodiment, this step may take place prior to initiating contact with the candidates.”];
permitting the at least one employer to select the at least one candidate and permitting the at least one partner to communicate the selection to the at least one candidate;
facilitating the at least one candidate to accept the selection by the at least one employer by notifying the at least one partner {and is configured to allow the employer to view the candidate, assess the candidate, and offer to select the candidate and communicate such offer to the partner, provide a means for the at least one partner to interface with the at least one candidate and propose them to the at least one employer, permit the at least one candidate to confirm the employer's selection, perform a verification of at least one credential of a candidate wherein the at least one partner will transmit the confirmation to the employer and the at least one employer cannot directly contact the candidate - claim 1} [for the limitations above,
Examiner note: the permitting limitation is not supported by the specification and is interpreted based on instant specification [0006, 0021, 0026-0027, 0039] as permitting the at least one employer to select the at least one candidate,
Examiner note: the facilitating limitation is not supported by the specification and is interpreted based on instant specification [0018, ] as and is configured to allow the employer to select the candidate, assess the candidate, and offer to select the candidate, provide a means for the at least one partner to interface with the at least one candidate and propose them to the at least one employer, permit the at least one candidate to confirm the employer's selection, perform a verification of at least one credential of a candidate,
then see at least [0181-0183] “Additionally, in some exemplary embodiments, the candidate may be requested to provide (or may optionally be requested to provide) answers to additional qualifying or screening questions, as previously discussed. Such questions may be, for example, clarification questions about the candidate's experience, or may be any other appropriate questions, as may be desired. In some embodiments, these questions may be provided as a part of the process of vetting the candidate for the position, and the candidate may be disqualified from applying for the position based on the answers that the candidate provides, or based on a lack of response or lack of appropriate response from the candidate.
In a next step, which may be a submission step 6 (as shown in FIG. 1), the results of a recruitment campaign may be assembled. According to an exemplary embodiment, once one or more completed and vetted applications have been generated by the system, the completed and vetted applications may be submitted to the recruiter and/or to the hiring manager. …
The hiring manager, or any other appropriate party, may then undertake a review step 7. In a review step, a hiring manager may review the completed and vetted applications and make any necessary changes or take any other necessary steps (such as, for example, requesting more information from the candidate) and may then undertake to schedule an interview with the candidate.”;
[0104] “Lastly, according to an exemplary embodiment, an optional confirmation step 34 of a matching step 3 may be performed after a post-processing step 33 or after a matching step 32 if a post-processing step is not performed. In a confirmation step 34, depending on the configuration of the system, a final list of matching candidates may be provided by the system, for example to a recruiter and/or to the hiring company, in order to permit manual review and confirmation of the final list by either or both of the recruiter and the hiring company. In an exemplary embodiment, this step may take place prior to initiating contact with the candidates.”;
[0052] “Such a method and system may function to better match candidates with job openings, and may implement rules permitting the processes of vetting candidates and setting up job interviews to be automated with a computer.”;
[0073] “In another exemplary embodiment, the AI BOT may perform vetting of a candidate through searching; for example, in an exemplary embodiment, the AI BOT may search corporate staff directory pages in order to verify that a candidate was employed at a corporation during a particular time.”;
[0119] “For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, the system may, when attempting to alert a candidate of something (such as that the candidate is being requested to indicate their interview availability for the next day) first send a message by email, and then, when the candidate has not responded in a specific period of time (such as a three-hour period) the system may then be configured to send an SMS text message to confirm whether the candidate is available for the interview. If the candidate still does not respond within a certain time period, the system may be configured to place a telephone call to the candidate”].
Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Raajaratnam discloses
providing a computerized workspace where the at least one candidate can perform one or more tasks for the at least one employer where the computerized workspace is at least partially shared between the at least one candidate and at least one employer {provide an at least partially electronic workspace for the at least one candidate wherein the at least one employer is able to view the partially electronic workspace and wherein the employer and employee are each using a different terminal and are located remotely relatively to each other; allows the at least one employer to create one or more tasks in the workspace and permits the candidate to interact with the one or more tasks; provide the at least one employer an electronic repository whereby the at least one employer can store information related to the one or more tasks and the at least one candidate - claim 1 original} [Examiner note: the first section of the providing limitation of claim 1 is not supported by the specification and is interpreted based on instant specification [0005] as provide an at least partially electronic workspace for the at least one candidate wherein the at least one employer is able to view the partially electronic workspace,
then see at least [0032, 0041] for a computer 200 does the following; [0054, 0069] selecting a new subtask and/or unfinished subtask based for a user based on the user’s competency score; [0023] unfinished subtask can be an incorrectly completed subtask; [0018] tasks include writing a code thus an unfinished subtask (an incorrectly completed subtask) such as an error in the code which is a problem record (e.g., bug report) for a software component as code is for software and may be used by hardware; [0060-0061, 0063] steps 308, 310, and 314 for select a new subtask and unfinished subtask, create a task (work item) by combining a new subtask and unfinished subtask, assign the task to a user; [0027-0028] scoring (competency and accuracy) of users based on ratio of work submitted correctly to work submitted thus correct work improves the score and incorrect work lowers the score; [0064-0065] step 316 validated work determines if received sub-task of task is completed correctly or becomes an unfinished subtask (problem record);
[0033] “A crowdsourcing platform offers one or more tasks to the one or more crowdworkers. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform may offer a dummy task to the one or more crowdworkers. The dummy task includes a hyperlink or link that directs a crowdworker to the actual task. In an embodiment, the act of clicking on the hyperlink is equivalent to accepting the offer to attempt the task corresponding to the dummy task. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform presents a user interface to the one or more crowdworkers through a web-based interface or a client application. The one or more crowdworkers may access the one or more tasks/dummy tasks through the web-based interface or the client application. Further, the one or more crowdworkers may submit a response for each of the one or more tasks to the crowdsourcing platform through the user interface. In an embodiment, each of the one or more tasks includes one or more sub-tasks. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform server 102 may be realized through an application server, including, but not limited to, Java application server, .NET framework, and Base4 application server.”;
[00036] “The requestor computing device 106 is a computing device used by a requestor. In an embodiment, the requestor computing device 106 submits the plurality of task requests to application server 104. In an embodiment, the plurality of task requests corresponds to the plurality of new sub-tasks. Some examples of a sub-task may include, but are not limited to, digitization of a document, generating a report, evaluating a document, conducting a survey, writing a code, extracting data, translating text, and the like.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Champaneria with Raajaratnam to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Raajaratnam. Doing so would further define Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Raajaratnam’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal [see at least Raajaratnam [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Champaneria and b) Raajaratnam and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended), modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 1,
and Champaneria teaches wherein the computer memory is further configured to store information regarding a skillset of at least one candidate and information regarding a set of needs of the at least one employer and propose an at least one candidate to an at least one employer if their degree of overlap meets a preset threshold set by the at least one employer and at least one partner [Examiner note: the first section of the store limitation is not supported by the specification and is interpreted based on instant specification [0008, 0022] as store information regarding a skillset of at least one candidate and information regarding a set of needs of the at least one employer,
then see at least [0238] “In a first step, the AI BOT may access certain information about the candidate and the job 1012 from the database 1002. Such information may include, for example, information like candidate details, job details, current application status, any information that can be collected from context variables, and so forth 1010.”;
[0087] “In a loading step 23 of a sourcing step 2, a résumé (including a CV/resume document or any other information) of a sourced candidate or of more than one sourced candidate may be input into the system, and may be parsed. … The parsed data may then be structured and stored in a database.”]; and
the computer processor is further configured to analyze a skillset of the at least one candidate and a set of needs of the at least one employer to determine a degree of overlap between them [see at least [0099] “In an exemplary embodiment, to facilitate searching (using a sematic engine or otherwise) during a matching step 32, the search functionality of the system may be configured to be iterative in nature and may broaden with subsequent iterations, similar to the automatic sourcing search 211 performed in the previous step 2. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, if the system performs a search for candidates that score above a pre-set primary threshold, and is unable to identify a particular prerequisite number of candidates for the position which score above that threshold, the system may perform a new search with looser search criteria, such as a pre-set secondary threshold or an automatically calculated secondary threshold.”].
Regarding claim 3, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 2,
and Champaneria teaches wherein the computer processor will only match the at least one candidate to the at least one employer if the degree of overlap of the skillset of the at least one candidate and the needs of the at least one employer exceeds a preset threshold [see at least [0099] “In an exemplary embodiment, to facilitate searching (using a sematic engine or otherwise) during a matching step 32, the search functionality of the system may be configured to be iterative in nature and may broaden with subsequent iterations, similar to the automatic sourcing search 211 performed in the previous step 2. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, if the system performs a search for candidates that score above a pre-set primary threshold, and is unable to identify a particular prerequisite number of candidates for the position which score above that threshold, the system may perform a new search with looser search criteria, such as a pre-set secondary threshold or an automatically calculated secondary threshold.”].
Regarding claim 4, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 1,
and Champaneria teaches wherein the computer processor is further configured to enable the partner to perform at least one of the following functions: consult with the at least one employer; assess the at least one candidate; or provide at least one of mentorship, coaching, or training to the at least one candidate [see at least [0181-0183] “Additionally, in some exemplary embodiments, the candidate may be requested to provide (or may optionally be requested to provide) answers to additional qualifying or screening questions, as previously discussed. Such questions may be, for example, clarification questions about the candidate's experience, or may be any other appropriate questions, as may be desired. In some embodiments, these questions may be provided as a part of the process of vetting the candidate for the position, and the candidate may be disqualified from applying for the position based on the answers that the candidate provides, or based on a lack of response or lack of appropriate response from the candidate.
In a next step, which may be a submission step 6 (as shown in FIG. 1), the results of a recruitment campaign may be assembled. According to an exemplary embodiment, once one or more completed and vetted applications have been generated by the system, the completed and vetted applications may be submitted to the recruiter and/or to the hiring manager. …
The hiring manager, or any other appropriate party, may then undertake a review step 7. In a review step, a hiring manager may review the completed and vetted applications and make any necessary changes or take any other necessary steps (such as, for example, requesting more information from the candidate) and may then undertake to schedule an interview with the candidate.”;
[0104] “Lastly, according to an exemplary embodiment, an optional confirmation step 34 of a matching step 3 may be performed after a post-processing step 33 or after a matching step 32 if a post-processing step is not performed. In a confirmation step 34, depending on the configuration of the system, a final list of matching candidates may be provided by the system, for example to a recruiter and/or to the hiring company, in order to permit manual review and confirmation of the final list by either or both of the recruiter and the hiring company. In an exemplary embodiment, this step may take place prior to initiating contact with the candidates.”].
Regarding claim 5, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 1,
and Champaneria teaches wherein the computer processor is further configured to enable the partner to review potential matches between the at least one candidate and at least one employer to determine if the computer processor's analysis requires supplementation and to supplement or override the analysis to force or cancel a match between the at least one candidate and at least one employer [see at least [0104] “Lastly, according to an exemplary embodiment, an optional confirmation step 34 of a matching step 3 may be performed after a post-processing step 33 or after a matching step 32 if a post-processing step is not performed. In a confirmation step 34, depending on the configuration of the system, a final list of matching candidates may be provided by the system, for example to a recruiter and/or to the hiring company, in order to permit manual review and confirmation of the final list by either or both of the recruiter and the hiring company. In an exemplary embodiment, this step may take place prior to initiating contact with the candidates.”].
Regarding claim 6, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 5, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Raajaratnam discloses
wherein the at least one candidate and at least one employer connect to the system through a cornputerized interface wherein at least some elements of the interface are visible to both parties [see at least [0032] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system environment 100 in which various embodiments can be implemented. The system environment 100 includes a crowdsourcing platform server 102, an application server 104, a requestor computing device 106, a database server 108, a crowdworker computing device 110, and a network 112.”;
[0033] “A crowdsourcing platform offers one or more tasks to the one or more crowdworkers. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform may offer a dummy task to the one or more crowdworkers. The dummy task includes a hyperlink or link that directs a crowdworker to the actual task. In an embodiment, the act of clicking on the hyperlink is equivalent to accepting the offer to attempt the task corresponding to the dummy task. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform presents a user interface to the one or more crowdworkers through a web-based interface or a client application. The one or more crowdworkers may access the one or more tasks/dummy tasks through the web-based interface or the client application. Further, the one or more crowdworkers may submit a response for each of the one or more tasks to the crowdsourcing platform through the user interface. In an embodiment, each of the one or more tasks includes one or more sub-tasks. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform server 102 may be realized through an application server, including, but not limited to, Java application server, .NET framework, and Base4 application server.”;
[0034] “The application server 104 receives a plurality of task requests from the requestor computing device 106. In an embodiment, the plurality of task requests corresponds to a plurality of new sub-tasks. The application server 104 stores the new sub-tasks as a first pool of sub-tasks in the database server 108. When the crowdworker clicks on the hyperlink in the dummy task, the application server 104 receives a notification of this acceptance to attempt the task. On receiving the notification, the application server 104 selects one or more new sub-tasks from the received plurality of new sub-tasks for the purpose of creation of a task. In addition to the selection of the one or more new sub-tasks, the application server 104 selects at least one additional sub-task from a second pool of sub-tasks in the database server 108. … The application server 104 combines the selected one or more new sub-tasks and the at least one additional sub-task to create the task. The selection of the additional sub-task has been described later in conjunction with FIG. 4. Post the creation of the task, the application server 104 presents the task to the crowdworker. … Some examples of the application server 104 may include, but not limited to, Java application server, .NET framework, and Base4 application server.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Raajaratnam to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Raajaratnam. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Raajaratnam’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal [see at least Raajaratnam [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Raajaratnam and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 5,
and Champaneria teaches wherein the computer processor is configured to further consider one or more criteria set by the at least one employer and determine whether the one or more criteria is applicable to the at least one candidate prior to matching [see at least [0099] “In an exemplary embodiment, to facilitate searching (using a sematic engine or otherwise) during a matching step 32, the search functionality of the system may be configured to be iterative in nature and may broaden with subsequent iterations, similar to the automatic sourcing search 211 performed in the previous step 2. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, if the system performs a search for candidates that score above a pre-set primary threshold, and is unable to identify a particular prerequisite number of candidates for the position which score above that threshold, the system may perform a new search with looser search criteria, such as a pre-set secondary threshold or an automatically calculated secondary threshold.”].
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Raajaratnam as applied to claim(s) 7 and 15 above and further in view of Broberg (US 2006/0277056 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 7, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Broberg discloses
wherein the computer processor is configured to enable the at least one employer to adjust the one or more criteria and needs at any time, and is further configured to enable the at least one employer to adjust a matchmaking weight of the one or more criteria and its needs and have the matchmaking weight impact the computer process's determination of whether to match the at least one employer with the at least one candidate [see at least [0018-0019] “The approach of the present system is in contrast to a traditional database approach. … The result is an expert system that has intrinsic knowledge and rules that allow it to determine how closely an applicant matches particular target criteria. For a simple example, if one criterion is that the applicant live within a 30 mile radius of an office, and the candidate actually lives 31 miles away, the system is configured with the knowledge and ability to recognize that 31 is very close to 30. (In an inflexible evaluation, if the 30 mile criteria was not met, the applicant would be eliminated or penalized regardless of how little over 30 the actual value was). Likewise, in the present system, if the employer specifies a particular desired type of experience, training or certification, the expert system would be able to examine the applicant's experience, training or certification data to find characteristics that are relevant to the criteria and rank them according to how closely they match the ideal candidate characteristic.”
[0019] “This expert system is designed to embody broad knowledge of the applicant selection process for the specific job type. … It provides the interface to the employer to select the specific criteria and weightings that are important to that employer for a particular job.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Broberg to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Broberg. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Broberg’s method “to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal” [see at least Broberg [0001-0005] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Broberg and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 8, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Broberg discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to permit the at least one employer to adjust the matchmaking weight of the one or more criteria and its needs relative to each other and make the weights of some of the one or more criteria and its needs dependent on the at least one candidate's possession of others [see at least [0018-0019] “The approach of the present system is in contrast to a traditional database approach. … The result is an expert system that has intrinsic knowledge and rules that allow it to determine how closely an applicant matches particular target criteria. For a simple example, if one criterion is that the applicant live within a 30 mile radius of an office, and the candidate actually lives 31 miles away, the system is configured with the knowledge and ability to recognize that 31 is very close to 30. (In an inflexible evaluation, if the 30 mile criteria was not met, the applicant would be eliminated or penalized regardless of how little over 30 the actual value was). Likewise, in the present system, if the employer specifies a particular desired type of experience, training or certification, the expert system would be able to examine the applicant's experience, training or certification data to find characteristics that are relevant to the criteria and rank them according to how closely they match the ideal candidate characteristic.”
[0019] “This expert system is designed to embody broad knowledge of the applicant selection process for the specific job type. … It provides the interface to the employer to select the specific criteria and weightings that are important to that employer for a particular job.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Broberg to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Broberg. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Broberg’s method “to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal” [see at least Broberg [0001-0005] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Broberg and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 9, .
and Champaneria the at least one candidate, if selected by the at least one employer and if the at least one candidate accepted the selection, is capable of performing at least one related to the needs of the employer [see at least [0104] “Lastly, according to an exemplary embodiment, an optional confirmation step 34 of a matching step 3 may be performed after a post-processing step 33 or after a matching step 32 if a post-processing step is not performed. In a confirmation step 34, depending on the configuration of the system, a final list of matching candidates may be provided by the system, for example to a recruiter and/or to the hiring company, in order to permit manual review and confirmation of the final list by either or both of the recruiter and the hiring company. In an exemplary embodiment, this step may take place prior to initiating contact with the candidates.”;
[0119] “For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, the system may, when attempting to alert a candidate of something (such as that the candidate is being requested to indicate their interview availability for the next day) first send a message by email, and then, when the candidate has not responded in a specific period of time (such as a three-hour period) the system may then be configured to send an SMS text message to confirm whether the candidate is available for the interview. If the candidate still does not respond within a certain time period, the system may be configured to place a telephone call to the candidate”].
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Raajaratnam discloses
wherein the cornputerized interface is connected to a network and the at least one candidate is capable of performing at least one task related to the needs of the employer using the computerized interface [see at least [0032] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system environment 100 in which various embodiments can be implemented. The system environment 100 includes a crowdsourcing platform server 102, an application server 104, a requestor computing device 106, a database server 108, a crowdworker computing device 110, and a network 112.”;
[0033] “A crowdsourcing platform offers one or more tasks to the one or more crowdworkers. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform may offer a dummy task to the one or more crowdworkers. The dummy task includes a hyperlink or link that directs a crowdworker to the actual task. In an embodiment, the act of clicking on the hyperlink is equivalent to accepting the offer to attempt the task corresponding to the dummy task. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform presents a user interface to the one or more crowdworkers through a web-based interface or a client application. The one or more crowdworkers may access the one or more tasks/dummy tasks through the web-based interface or the client application. Further, the one or more crowdworkers may submit a response for each of the one or more tasks to the crowdsourcing platform through the user interface. In an embodiment, each of the one or more tasks includes one or more sub-tasks. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform server 102 may be realized through an application server, including, but not limited to, Java application server, .NET framework, and Base4 application server.”;
[0034] “The application server 104 receives a plurality of task requests from the requestor computing device 106. In an embodiment, the plurality of task requests corresponds to a plurality of new sub-tasks. The application server 104 stores the new sub-tasks as a first pool of sub-tasks in the database server 108. When the crowdworker clicks on the hyperlink in the dummy task, the application server 104 receives a notification of this acceptance to attempt the task. On receiving the notification, the application server 104 selects one or more new sub-tasks from the received plurality of new sub-tasks for the purpose of creation of a task. In addition to the selection of the one or more new sub-tasks, the application server 104 selects at least one additional sub-task from a second pool of sub-tasks in the database server 108. … The application server 104 combines the selected one or more new sub-tasks and the at least one additional sub-task to create the task. The selection of the additional sub-task has been described later in conjunction with FIG. 4. Post the creation of the task, the application server 104 presents the task to the crowdworker. … Some examples of the application server 104 may include, but not limited to, Java application server, .NET framework, and Base4 application server.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Raajaratnam to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Raajaratnam. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Raajaratnam’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal [see at least Raajaratnam [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Raajaratnam and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, modified Champaneria teaches the method of claim 15, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Broberg discloses
the method further comprising: weighing one or more characteristics of the at least one candidate in addition to the at least one skillset of the at least one candidate based on weights provided by the at least one employer [see at least [0018-0019] “The approach of the present system is in contrast to a traditional database approach. … The result is an expert system that has intrinsic knowledge and rules that allow it to determine how closely an applicant matches particular target criteria. For a simple example, if one criterion is that the applicant live within a 30 mile radius of an office, and the candidate actually lives 31 miles away, the system is configured with the knowledge and ability to recognize that 31 is very close to 30. (In an inflexible evaluation, if the 30 mile criteria was not met, the applicant would be eliminated or penalized regardless of how little over 30 the actual value was). Likewise, in the present system, if the employer specifies a particular desired type of experience, training or certification, the expert system would be able to examine the applicant's experience, training or certification data to find characteristics that are relevant to the criteria and rank them according to how closely they match the ideal candidate characteristic.”
[0019] “This expert system is designed to embody broad knowledge of the applicant selection process for the specific job type. … It provides the interface to the employer to select the specific criteria and weightings that are important to that employer for a particular job.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Broberg to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Broberg. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Broberg’s method “to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal” [see at least Broberg [0001-0005] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Broberg and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, modified Champaneria teaches the method of claim 18, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Broberg discloses
the method further comprising: facilitating determining the weight of the one or more characteristics and the at least one skillset of the at least one candidate based on the needs of the at least one employer [see at least [0018-0019] “The approach of the present system is in contrast to a traditional database approach. … The result is an expert system that has intrinsic knowledge and rules that allow it to determine how closely an applicant matches particular target criteria. For a simple example, if one criterion is that the applicant live within a 30 mile radius of an office, and the candidate actually lives 31 miles away, the system is configured with the knowledge and ability to recognize that 31 is very close to 30. (In an inflexible evaluation, if the 30 mile criteria was not met, the applicant would be eliminated or penalized regardless of how little over 30 the actual value was). Likewise, in the present system, if the employer specifies a particular desired type of experience, training or certification, the expert system would be able to examine the applicant's experience, training or certification data to find characteristics that are relevant to the criteria and rank them according to how closely they match the ideal candidate characteristic.”
[0019] “This expert system is designed to embody broad knowledge of the applicant selection process for the specific job type. … It provides the interface to the employer to select the specific criteria and weightings that are important to that employer for a particular job.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Broberg to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Broberg. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Broberg’s method “to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal” [see at least Broberg [0001-0005] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Broberg and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, modified Champaneria teaches the method of claim 19, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Raajaratnam discloses
the method further comprising: automatically assigning at least one task related to the at least one need of the at least one employer to the at least one candidate [see at least [0032, 0041] for a computer 200 does the following; [0054, 0069] selecting a new subtask and/or unfinished subtask based for a user based on the user’s competency score; [0023] unfinished subtask can be an incorrectly completed subtask; [0018] tasks include writing a code thus an unfinished subtask (an incorrectly completed subtask) such as an error in the code which is a problem record (e.g., bug report) for a software component as code is for software and may be used by hardware; [0060-0061, 0063] steps 308, 310, and 314 for select a new subtask and unfinished subtask, create a task (work item) by combining a new subtask and unfinished subtask, assign the task to a user; [0027-0028] scoring (competency and accuracy) of users based on ratio of work submitted correctly to work submitted thus correct work improves the score and incorrect work lowers the score; [0064-0065] step 316 validated work determines if received sub-task of task is completed correctly or becomes an unfinished subtask (problem record);
[00036] “The requestor computing device 106 is a computing device used by a requestor. In an embodiment, the requestor computing device 106 submits the plurality of task requests to application server 104. In an embodiment, the plurality of task requests corresponds to the plurality of new sub-tasks. Some examples of a sub-task may include, but are not limited to, digitization of a document, generating a report, evaluating a document, conducting a survey, writing a code, extracting data, translating text, and the like.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Raajaratnam to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Raajaratnam. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Raajaratnam’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal [see at least Raajaratnam [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Raajaratnam and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Raajaratnam and Broberg as applied to claim(s) 10 above and further in view of Bencke et al. (US 2017/0323211 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 10, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Bencke discloses
wherein the at least one employer is able to review and receive a result of the at least one candidate's performance of the at least one tasks [see at least [0047, 0113] “The feedback module 180 may be configured to receive customer feedback on the task when completed by the user. In one embodiment, the customer receives data insight from the system. The received data insight may be customized by the customer to include both raw data and weighted best answers and confidence scores. The customer may agree or disagree with the data insight, and provide this feedback to the system. The feedback from the customer may influence user reputation and other calibration points for future tasks.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Bencke to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Bencke. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Bencke’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics [see at least Bencke [0003-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Bencke and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 11,
and Champaneria teaches wherein there are at least two candidates and each has been selected by one of the at least one employers and accepted the selection, [see at least [0183] The hiring manager, or any other appropriate party, may then undertake a review step 7. In a review step, a hiring manager may review the completed and vetted applications and make any necessary changes or take any other necessary steps (such as, for example, requesting more information from the candidate) and may then undertake to schedule an interview with the candidate.”;
[0213] “For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, a hiring manager may start by selecting one or more submitted candidates that it may be desired to have interviewed by the AI BOT.”;
[0214] “In some exemplary embodiments, it may be desired to stagger the AI BOT interviews with candidates, such that, of hundreds of candidates receiving interviews, only a fraction of the candidates are engaging in interviews at any one time; in some exemplary embodiments, the AI BOT may be configured to simultaneously interview all of the candidates (or a sizeable fraction of the candidates such as hundreds of candidates) at the same time.”;
[0119] “For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, the system may, when attempting to alert a candidate of something (such as that the candidate is being requested to indicate their interview availability for the next day) first send a message by email, and then, when the candidate has not responded in a specific period of time (such as a three-hour period) the system may then be configured to send an SMS text message to confirm whether the candidate is available for the interview. If the candidate still does not respond within a certain time period, the system may be configured to place a telephone call to the candidate”].
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Raajaratnam discloses
wherein there are at least two candidates and each has been selected by,and the system is configured to permit each of the two candidates to work on the at least one tasks simultaneously through the computer interface [see at least [0003] “The requestor may upload multiple instances of such tasks so that multiple crowdworkers can work on the same task.”;
[0133] “Throughout this specification, plural instances may implement components, operations, or structures described as a single instance. Although individual operations of one or more methods are illustrated and described as separate operations, one or more of the individual operations may be performed concurrently, and nothing requires that the operations be performed in the order illustrated.”;
[0033] “A crowdsourcing platform offers one or more tasks to the one or more crowdworkers. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform may offer a dummy task to the one or more crowdworkers. The dummy task includes a hyperlink or link that directs a crowdworker to the actual task. In an embodiment, the act of clicking on the hyperlink is equivalent to accepting the offer to attempt the task corresponding to the dummy task. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform presents a user interface to the one or more crowdworkers through a web-based interface or a client application. The one or more crowdworkers may access the one or more tasks/dummy tasks through the web-based interface or the client application. Further, the one or more crowdworkers may submit a response for each of the one or more tasks to the crowdsourcing platform through the user interface. In an embodiment, each of the one or more tasks includes one or more sub-tasks. In an embodiment, the crowdsourcing platform server 102 may be realized through an application server, including, but not limited to, Java application server, .NET framework, and Base4 application server.”;
[00036] “The requestor computing device 106 is a computing device used by a requestor. In an embodiment, the requestor computing device 106 submits the plurality of task requests to application server 104. In an embodiment, the plurality of task requests corresponds to the plurality of new sub-tasks. Some examples of a sub-task may include, but are not limited to, digitization of a document, generating a report, evaluating a document, conducting a survey, writing a code, extracting data, translating text, and the like.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Raajaratnam to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Raajaratnam. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Raajaratnam’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal [see at least Raajaratnam [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Raajaratnam and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 12,
and Champaneria teaches wherein the computer processor is further configured to perform an action after the at least one candidate is selected and approves of the selection [see at least [0183] The hiring manager, or any other appropriate party, may then undertake a review step 7. In a review step, a hiring manager may review the completed and vetted applications and make any necessary changes or take any other necessary steps (such as, for example, requesting more information from the candidate) and may then undertake to schedule an interview with the candidate.”;
[0119] “For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, the system may, when attempting to alert a candidate of something (such as that the candidate is being requested to indicate their interview availability for the next day) first send a message by email, and then, when the candidate has not responded in a specific period of time (such as a three-hour period) the system may then be configured to send an SMS text message to confirm whether the candidate is available for the interview. If the candidate still does not respond within a certain time period, the system may be configured to place a telephone call to the candidate”;
[0213] “For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, a hiring manager may start by selecting one or more submitted candidates that it may be desired to have interviewed by the AI BOT.”;
[0214] “In some exemplary embodiments, it may be desired to stagger the AI BOT interviews with candidates, such that, of hundreds of candidates receiving interviews, only a fraction of the candidates are engaging in interviews at any one time; in some exemplary embodiments, the AI BOT may be configured to simultaneously interview all of the candidates (or a sizeable fraction of the candidates such as hundreds of candidates) at the same time.”].
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Bencke discloses
wherein the computer processor is further configured to automatically assign the at least one task to the at least one candidate where the assignment is based on the skillset of that at least one candidate [see at least [0048] “FIG. 2 is a flow chart diagram 200 for the example tasking system 110. FIG. 2 illustrates an example process for determining computerized tasks for assignment to a user of a plurality of users. The targeting module 120 targets 210 a user to perform a task based on targeting criteria. The prediction module 130 predicts 212 success of a targeted user to perform a task. The assignment module 110 assigns 214 a task to a targeted user if the prediction of success is greater than a threshold level. The operations module 160 manages 216 the task workflow. The assessment module 170 assesses 220 the user's completion of a task. The feedback module 180 receives 222 feedback from the customer. The tasking system 110 uses the customer feedback and data obtained from the previous stages of the flow chart diagram 200 for optimization in determining computerized tasks for assignment to a user of a plurality of users.”;
[0015, 0056] “The configuration may include targeting a user to perform a task based on the user having an appropriate skill associated with the task, meeting or exceeding a level associated with the skill, and having a historical task accuracy within a threshold percentile of a target task accuracy.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Bencke to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Bencke. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Bencke’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics [see at least Bencke [0003-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Bencke and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, modified Champaneria teaches the system of claim 13, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Bencke discloses
wherein the computer processor is further configured to make the assignment to the at least one candidate based on the skillset of the at least one candidate in relation to the need of the at least one employer [see at least [0048] “FIG. 2 is a flow chart diagram 200 for the example tasking system 110. FIG. 2 illustrates an example process for determining computerized tasks for assignment to a user of a plurality of users. The targeting module 120 targets 210 a user to perform a task based on targeting criteria. The prediction module 130 predicts 212 success of a targeted user to perform a task. The assignment module 110 assigns 214 a task to a targeted user if the prediction of success is greater than a threshold level. The operations module 160 manages 216 the task workflow. The assessment module 170 assesses 220 the user's completion of a task. The feedback module 180 receives 222 feedback from the customer. The tasking system 110 uses the customer feedback and data obtained from the previous stages of the flow chart diagram 200 for optimization in determining computerized tasks for assignment to a user of a plurality of users.”;
[0015, 0056] “The configuration may include targeting a user to perform a task based on the user having an appropriate skill associated with the task, meeting or exceeding a level associated with the skill, and having a historical task accuracy within a threshold percentile of a target task accuracy.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Bencke to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Bencke. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Bencke’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics [see at least Bencke [0003-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Bencke and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Raajaratnam as applied to claim(s) 15 above and further in view of Bencke et al. (US 2017/0323211 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Champaneria teaches the method of claim 15, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Bencke discloses
the method further comprising:
providing a mechanism for the at least one employer to evaluate the at least one candidate’s performance on the one or more tasks [see at least [0035] “The assessment module may assess if the task as completed by the user is within a predefined acceptance range. The feedback module may receive customer feedback on the task when completed by the user.”;
[0039-0040] “As shown in FIG. 1, the block diagram of the tasking system 110 may include, but is not limited to, a targeting module 120, a prediction module 130, an acquisition module 135, an assignment module 140, an operations module 160, an assessment module 170, and a feedback module 180. Each module may be embodied as software and/or hardware. …
… The assessment module 170 is configured to assign confidence scores to answers. The customer feedback module 180 is configured to interface to the customer, both in real-time and in follow-up.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Bencke to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Bencke. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Bencke’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics [see at least Bencke [0003-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Bencke and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Raajaratnam and Bencke as applied to claim(s) 16 above and further in view of Mishra (US 2022/0114912 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Champaneria teaches the method of claim 16, .
Modified Champaneria doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Mishra discloses
the method further comprising:
connecting, over a network, the at least one candidate and an at least one partner who provides assistance to the at least one candidate where such assistance is chosen from the list of: mentorship, training, or coaching [see at least [0047] “The plurality of mentors can include one or more of professors, teachers, advisors, job coaches, employers, and the like. The mentee can further include a candidate for a position such as a professional position, while a mentor can include a potential employer. The mentee and the mentors can interface with the digital platform 410. The digital platform can comprise one or more of computers, processors, servers, processor cores within integrated circuits or chips, and so on.”;
[0048] “In embodiments, a mentor uses devices that include a laptop 420 with an electronic display 422 and a tablet 440. In embodiments, a mentee uses communication devices that include a phone 430. The mentee and the plurality of mentors use these devices to communicate with each other via the digital platform, while the digital platform observes the interactions. The communication between the devices can include wired techniques, wireless techniques, a combination of wired and wireless techniques, and so on.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Champaneria with Mishra to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Mishra. Doing so would further define modified Champaneria’s (Champaneria) [0001-0006, 0027] true value of a candidate's characteristics relative to the characteristics the hiring party considers ideal via Mishra’s method to reflect the true value of a candidate's characteristics [see at least Mishra [0006, 0047-0048] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Champaneria and b) Mishra and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624