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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 1/31/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Election/Restriction
During a telephone conversation with Daniel DeLuca on 9/15/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-14. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to independent claims 1 and 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 1, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 8, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving at least an experience parameter and a job title parameter… identifying… one or more related job titles in a historical résumé dataset that are semantically related to the job title parameter; filtering the historical résumé dataset based on at least the experience parameter and the one or more related job titles to obtain a filtered résumé dataset; selecting one or more skills from the filtered résumé dataset to obtain a list of user skills; selecting one or more curated skills from a curated skills dataset based on at least the experience parameter and the one or more related job titles to obtain a list of curated skills, wherein the one or more curated skills are expressed using terms associated with resume parsing software; mapping individual skills from the list of user skills to corresponding curated skills of the list of curated skills to obtain a list of candidate skills from among the list of curated skills; and incorporating one or more candidate skills, selected from the list of candidate skills, into a résumé document” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a processing system… a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors”, “database” and “user interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a processing system… a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors” and “user interface” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). With respect to “filtering the historical résumé dataset”, the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claims 2 and 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 2, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 9, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “preparing for presentation... the list of candidate skills; and receiving… the one or more candidate skills selected from the list of candidate skills” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “user interface” and “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “user interface” and “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 3 and 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 3, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 10, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “calculating a set of similarity scores based on calculating a Cosine similarity between the job title parameter and each the job title of set of job titles in the historical résumé dataset, wherein each of the job titles in the historical résumé dataset with respective similarity scores exceeding a threshold value being as the one or more related job titles” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “user interface” and “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 4 and 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 4, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 11, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating a count dictionary for each user skill reflecting occurrences of each respective user skill in the historical résumé dataset; and arranging the list of candidate skills as an ordered list based on the count dictionary associated with each respective candidate skill” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 5 and 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 5, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 12, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “sorting… curated skills in the list... based on… the count dictionary… and a semantic similarity score” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 6 and 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 6, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 13, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the historical résumé dataset includes historical résumés that are at least 80% complete” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “processing system” and “have been downloaded at least once” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “processing system” and “have been downloaded at least once” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 7 and 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 7, Yes, the claim is to a method.
For claim 14, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “compiling the historical résumé dataset from historical résumés spanning a defined period of time” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “implementing a sliding time window having a period of between 1 year and 3 years as the defined period of time for the historical résumé dataset” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “implementing a sliding time window having a period of between 1 year and 3 years as the defined period of time for the historical résumé dataset” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as taught by Takayawas (USPGPUB 20230306063 – Paragraph [0105]), Roman (USPGPUB – Paragraph [0189]), Torbey (USPGPUB 20230075022 – Paragraph [0162]), and Edwards (USPGPUB 20140282252 – Paragraph [0039]), and Lerner (USPGPUB 2022007653 – Paragraph [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190138645, filed on 11/7/2017 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Bullock et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090125353, filed on 11/24/2008 (hereinafter Bullock).
As for independent claim 1, Zhang discloses system and method for generating a résumé, comprising:
receiving at least a first parameter and a job title parameter from a user interface;
(Zhang paragraph [0028]-[0029] discloses receiving job title, user can enter job title in text area 121, user enters role of product Manager and a first parameter such as industry as shown in fig. 1)
identifying, using a semantically similar job title selector, one or more related job titles in a historical résumé dataset that are semantically related to the job title parameter;
(Zhang paragraph [0031], [0038]-[0040], [0042] discloses job titles and associated skills related to the work experience filter by job titles can be derived from member database that host resumes such as LinkedIn, member, and career databases)
filtering the historical résumé dataset based on at least the first parameter and the one or more related job titles to obtain a filtered résumé dataset;
(Zhang paragraph [0038], [0040]-[0042] discloses Hadoop script 1139 access one or more member and job databases that contains resumes and filters the work experience dataset by job title and a first parameter such as industry)
selecting one or more skills from the filtered résumé dataset to obtain a list of user skills;
(Zhang paragraph [0040]-[0042], [0053] discloses skill in filtered in Venice database 1137 are selected for further filtering)
selecting one or more curated skills from a database of curated skills based on at least the first parameter and the one or more related job titles to obtain a list of curated skills;
(Zhang paragraph [0040], [0053] discloses selecting top skills from skills database 1140 based on role, job title and first parameter such as industry)
mapping individual skills from the list of user skills to corresponding curated skills of the list of curated skills to
(Zhang paragraph [0040], [0053] discloses list of skills in Venice database 1137 further filtered to include only the selected top skills from the skills database 1140)
obtain a list of candidate skills from among the list of curated skills; and
(Zhang paragraph [0031]-[0032] discloses displaying a list of candidate skills, top skills, in a dropdown selection box 511 as shown in fig. 5 from a list of curate skill, a list of all skills 423 appropriate to selected job title, role, once job title, role, has been selected as shown in fig. 4)
incorporating one or more candidate skills, selected from the list of candidate skills, into a résumé document, using a résumé builder user interface.
(Zhang paragraph [0031]-[0032] discloses displaying selected information such as selected job title in the resume document 110 in the resume building interface 100 as shown in figs. 4 and 5).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose system and method for generating a résumé, wherein a first parameter is an experience parameter. However, Bullock discloses system and method wherein
a received parameter is an experience parameter
(Bullock paragraph [0068] disclose receiving experience parameter, level such as novice or expert from a user interface as shown in fig. 10) and
wherein the one or more curated skills are expressed using terms associated with resume parsing software
(Examiner notes that this limitation does not have patentable weight as the limitation is not a required step in the method claim and is merely intended use. The “resume parsing software” is not part of the step of “selecting… curated skills from a database” being performed in the method claim. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, prior art rejection is provided. Bullock paragraph [0030]-[0033], [0049]-[0054], [0064]-[0065] discloses matching engine in a candidate selection software that parses resumes to identify job skills of an applicant;).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bullock with Zhang for the benefit of being able to narrow a search field with preferred limits to ascertain more relevant information.
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Zhang discloses system and method comprising:
preparing for presentation on a user interface the list of candidate skills; and
(Zhang paragraph [0031], [0038]-[0040] discloses job titles and associated skills related to the work experience filter by job titles can be derived from member database that host resumes)
receiving, from the user interface, the one or more candidate skills selected from the list of candidate skills
(Zhang paragraph [0031]-[0032] discloses displaying a list of candidate skills, top skills, in a dropdown selection box 511 as shown in fig. 5 from a list of curate skill, a list of all skills 423 appropriate to selected job title, role, once job title, role, has been selected as shown in fig. 4).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Zhang discloses system and method comprising:
generating a count dictionary for each user skill reflecting occurrences of each respective user skill in the historical résumé dataset; and arranging the list of candidate skills as an ordered list based on the count dictionary associated with each respective candidate skill.
(Zhang paragraph [0122]-[0128] discloses ranking the relevant skills based on assigning g-value and storing the top N skills, where N can be any value including all of the skills).
As for claim 8, claim 8 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Zhang paragraph [0134]-[0137] discloses processor and memory comprising executable instructions; Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the one or more curated skills are expressed using terms associated with resume parsing software” does not have patentable weight as the “resume parsing software” is outside of the scope of the claim since it is not part of the claimed system. Furthermore, the limitation “resume parsing software” is not a step being performed when the instruction is executed by the processor. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, prior art rejection has been provided).
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 9 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bullock in view of Inamdar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210097472, filed on 7/28/2020 (hereinafter Inamdar) in view of Xue et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200151672, filed on 11/9/2018 (hereinafter Xue).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Zhang discloses system and method comprising selecting the one or more related job titles
(Zhang paragraph [0031], [0038]-[0040], [0042] discloses job titles and associated skills related to the work experience filter by job titles can be derived from member database that host resumes such as LinkedIn, member, and career databases).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose system and method comprising Calculating a set of similarity scores based on calculating a Cosine similarity between the job title parameter and each job title of a set of job titles in the historical résumé dataset. However, Inamdar discloses system and method wherein identifying the one or more related job titles further comprises
calculating a set of similarity scores based on calculating a Cosine similarity between the job title parameter and each of the job title of set of job titles in the historical résumé dataset and selecting job titles based on each calculated similarity score of the set of similarity scores
(Inamdar paragraph [0043]-[0044], [0047] discloses coarse search query including job title information assigning score based on cosine similarity of job title information and job titles in resumes and ranking based on assigned score and that there can be multiple scores).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Inamdar with Zhang and Bullock for the benefit of being able to ease the challenge of filtering a large number of resumes (Inamdar [0103]).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly discloses system and method wherein identifying the one or more related job titles further comprises similarity score of the set of similarity scores that exceeds a threshold value. However, Xue discloses system and method comprising selecting based on similarity score of the set of similarity scores that exceeds a threshold value (Xue paragraph [0075] discloses selection based on threshold value).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xue’s system and method comprising similarity scores exceeding a threshold value being selected with Inamdar’s
system and method wherein identifying the one or more related job titles further comprises calculating a similarity score based on a Cosine similarity between the job title parameter and each of the job titles in the historical résumé dataset, wherein each of the job titles in the historical résumé dataset with respective similarity scores with Zhang and Bullock for a system and method wherein identifying the one or more related job titles further comprises calculating a similarity score based on a Cosine similarity between the job title parameter and each of the job titles in the historical résumé dataset, wherein each of the job titles in the historical résumé dataset with respective similarity scores exceeding a threshold value being selected as the one or more related job titles. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able to select the desired subset from a large volume of information.
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bullock in view of Inamdar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210097472, filed on 7/28/2020 (hereinafter Inamdar).
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 4 have been discussed above. Zhang discloses system and method comprising:
sorting the one or more skills in the list of curated skills based on the count dictionary associated with each user skill in the list of user skills and similarity between each of the related job titles and the job title parameter.
(Zhang paragraph [0122]-[0128] discloses sorting skills based on assigned g-value ranking relevancy and similar jo title and skill with skills not relevant to job title filtered out).
Zhang further discloses system and method comprising curated skills (Zhang paragraph [0040], [0053] discloses selecting curated skills, top skills, from skills database 1140 based on role, job title and first parameter such as industry).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly discloses system and method comprising a semantic similarity score indicative of semantic similarity. However, Inamdar discloses system and method comprising
a semantic similarity score indicative of semantic similarity
(Inamdar paragraph [0043]-[0044], [0047] discloses assigning score based on cosine similarity of job title information and job titles in resumes and ranking based on assigned score).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Inamdar with Zhang and Bullock for the benefit of being able to ease the challenge of filtering a large number of resumes (Inamdar [0103]).
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bullock in view of Jepperson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230419047, filed on 6/22/2022 (hereinafter Jepperson).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Jepperson discloses system and method wherein
the historical résumé dataset includes historical résumés that are at least 80% complete, and have been downloaded at least once.
(Jepperson paragraph [0032] discloses searching resume dataset that have been downloaded, resumes available to the public are presumed to be complete).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jepperson with Zhang and Bullock for the benefit of being able search for information in completed resumes such that search is performed only on information that are complete.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bullock in view of Fuchs, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170061320, filed on 8/28/2015 (hereinafter Fuchs) in view of Lerner, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220076537, filed on 9/9/2020 (hereinafter Lerner).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Fuchs discloses system and method comprising:
compiling the historical résumé dataset from historical résumés spanning a defined period of time
(Fuchs paragraph [0024] discloses resume dataset that are resumes received during the past 2 years).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fuchs with Zhang and Bullock for the benefit of being able to filter the most relevant information from a large volume of information by setting a limiting value.
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose system and method comprising implementing a sliding time window having a period of between 1 year and 3 years as the defined period of time for the historical résumé dataset. However, Lerner discloses system and method comprising
implementing a sliding time window having a period of between 1 year and 3 years as the defined period of time
(Lerner paragraph [0030] discloses slider 116 that can select a date range).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lerner’s system method comprising implementing a sliding time window having a period of between 1 year and 3 years as the defined period of time with Fuchs’ system and method comprising: compiling the historical résumé dataset from historical résumés spanning a defined period of time for a system and method comprising compiling the historical résumé dataset from historical résumés spanning a defined period of time; and implementing a sliding time window having a period of between 1 year and 3 years as the defined period of time for the historical résumé dataset. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able to control the limiting values for filtering large amount of data to obtain the mores relevant data set.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues “applicant respectfully disagrees at least because the limitations of Claims 1 and 8 cannot, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind”, (Remarks page 9) because “a human cannot mentally access a "historical resume dataset" to utilize encodings to perform algorithm-driven calculations semantic similarity scores between the claimed ‘job title parameter’ and the ‘historical resume dataset.’”, (Remarks page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111).
A person can access a “historical resume data set” by manually searching through a stack of resumes and give score between a job title and the stack of resumes.
Applicant argues “applicant respectfully disagrees at least because the limitations of Claims 1 and 8 cannot, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind”, (Remarks page 9) because “a human mind cannot, as a practical matter, access technical components such as a database of curated skills to map the ‘list of user skills’ derived from a first ‘historical resume dataset’ to curated skills from a second ‘list of curated skills’ derived from the ‘database of curated skills’ as required by Claims 1 and 8. Similarly, a human mind cannot "map individual skills’…[because] applicant's Specification details certain example "mapping" techniques as follows: The user skill to curated skill mapper 218 may employ various mapping techniques to map the user skills to the curated skills, for example text matching, natural language processing (NLP), semantic similarity, rulesets, fuzzy logic, or other appropriate text mapping technique. The curated skills dataset includes prevalence counts associated with the mapped user skill”, (Remarks page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111) and that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A user can manually search through a stack of resumes, select a skill set from a list of skills, and manually map by correlating the individual skill to a list of skills. A database is a generic computer merely amounts to adding the word “apply it”. The claims do not recite use of NLP. (Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, MPEP 2106.04 III C).
Applicant argues “that Claims 1 and 8, as a whole, integrate the limitations into a practical application to provide a technical solution to a technical problem. In particular, Claims 1 and 8 provide a technical solution related to computer-based creation of résumé content with respect to filters of résumé parsing software”, (Remarks page 11-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111).
The invention is directed to resume creation. Much like processing checks n Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), resume creation, regardless of usage of computer, is not a technical problem. As explained in the rejection above, the use of generic computer and database is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it”. (MPEP 2106.04: Two examples of how the Office evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application are provided. In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited. In part one of the Alice/Mayo test, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of crediting the merchant’s account before the paper check is scanned. The court first determined that the recited limitations of "crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check" is a "long-standing commercial practice" like in Alice and Bilski. 931 F.3d at 1167, 2019 USPQ2d 281076, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit then continued with its analysis under part one of the Alice/Mayo test finding that the claims are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the court determined that the claims "did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account" nor did the claims "improve how a check is scanned." Id. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the exception is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES)). Furthermore, as explained in the rejection above, “resume parsing software” is neither a required step in the method claims nor part of the system in the system claim.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues “Zhang fails to teach or suggest "... a curated skills dataset generated and maintained by a content creation system ... wherein the one or more curated skills are expressed using terms associated with resume parsing software" and "mapping individual skills from the list of user skills to corresponding curated skills of the list of curated skills to obtain a list of candidate skills from among the list of curated skills" as recited in Claim 1.”, (Remarks page 17) because “Zhang lacks any ‘curated skills dataset’ with ‘one or more curated skills are expressed using terms associated with resume parsing software”, (Remarks pages 17-18). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”, (MPEP 2111) and that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As stated in the rejection above, Zhang discloses mapping individual skills from the list of user skills to corresponding curated skills of the list of curated skills to (Zhang paragraph [0040], [0053] discloses list of skills in Venice database 1137 further filtered to include only the selected top skills from the skills database 1140; (“In an embodiment, an offline Hadoop script 1139 may be used to access the one or more member/job databases (not shown) to process the data and provide filtered sets of data to a Venice database 1137. In an example, raw position (e.g., job position, role or title) information with optional skill, geographic and industry filters associated with member profiles in the member database(s) may be accessed and then reduced to smaller, related sets of data that may be used by the resume assistant. For instance, work experience examples may be retrieved and filtered by role (e.g., job title)…. The Hadoop data retrieval 1139 mines and pre-processes the collected data into filtered and reduced data sets for storage in the Venice database 1137”, Zhang [0040]; “The skills data in database 1140 may be synchronized, or consistent with skills information stored in the Venice database 1137…. Once the top skills for the selected role are identified, the work experience examples in the Venice database 1137 may be further filtered to include only examples with the selected top skill, and or for textual and contextual information in preparation of the smart snippets, in block 1131, as discussed above.”, Zhang [0053]) obtain a list of candidate skills from among the list of curated skills (Zhang paragraph [0031]-[0032] discloses displaying a list of candidate skills, top skills, in a dropdown selection box 511 as shown in fig. 5 from a list of curate skill, a list of all skills 423 appropriate to selected job title, role, once job title, role, has been selected as shown in fig. 4; “A role and industry have been selected and displayed 421 in the resume assistant 120. In an embodiment, a list of skills appropriate for the role/industry pair may be provided in a drop down selection list 423.”, Zhang [0031]; “The position (e.g., work experience) may be formatted into a smart snippet or subset of the entire text to format for space on the user display, and/or to highlight a specified skill, phrase, or other criteria, in block 1317”, Zhang [0116]; “For each work experience example identified and retrieved for the selected criteria (e.g., role, role-industry, etc.), the text of the example is searched to determine whether it includes the selected top skill, in block 1620. In an embodiment, synonyms or similar wording may be searched in addition to an exact string search including the skill. When a match is determined by the search, a portion of the text in the work experience example may be selected as a smart snippet for display, in block 1630. The skill may be highlighted or bolded in the snippet, and the text may include some number of lines of sentences both before and/or after the text occurrence of the skill. The skill text may be rendered as a hyperlink to navigate the user to more information about the skill or bring up additional windows, panes or dialog boxes with additional information.”, Zhang [0129]). In addition, as stated in the rejection above, the limitation “wherein the one or more curated skills are expressed using terms associated with resume parsing software” does not have patentable weight as it is not a required step in the method claim 1 and is outside of the scope of system claim 8 as resume parsing software is not part of the system claim.
Applicant argues “filtering the historical résumé dataset based on at least the experience parameter and the one or more related job titles to obtain a filtered résumé dataset”, (Remarks page 19) because “Bullock similarly fails to expressly or impliedly suggest ‘an experience parameter’”, (Remarks page 18) since “the alleged experience parameter of Bullock is unrelated to filtering”, (Remarks page 18).
In response to applicants' argument that the reference fails to show certain features of applicants' invention, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As stated in the rejection above, Zhang discloses system and method comprising filtering the historical résumé dataset based on at least the first parameter and the one or more related job titles to obtain a filtered résumé dataset (Zhang paragraph [0038], [0040]-[0042] discloses Hadoop script 1139 access one or more member and job databases that contains resumes and filters the work experience dataset by job title and a first parameter such as industry). Bullock is merely cited to disclose that a parameter can be experience type.
Applicant argues “no rational underpinning for why combining the alleged ‘experience parameter’ of Bullock would result in the alleged benefit of "being able to narrow a search field with preferred limits to ascertain more relevant information" as alleged in the Office Action”, (Remarks page 19).
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that "the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references", (MPEP 2144). “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.” In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
By being able to use a more targeted parameter users are able to narrow a search field with preferred limits to ascertain more relevant information which results is a product that is more desirable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
