Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claim(s) 1-15 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 were amended. Claim(s) 2-13 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority filed in Japan on June 08, 2021, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 Applicant’s Response, filed August 28, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 9-10, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15, do not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 recite(s) “managing registrants registered for employment for a business operator,” “store attributes of the registrants so as to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator,” “a step of accepting registration information from the registrants,” “storing, the information, with discrimination with respect to the attributes of the registrants,” “a step of accepting, from the business operator, job offering information and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity,” “a step of presenting, to the registrants, the job offering information corresponding to the attributes of the registrants, in accordance with the accepted information indicating the range of registrants,” “wherein the step of accepting accepts, as the information indicating the range of registrants, information indicating whether presentation is only to the first registrant, or to a range also including the first registrant and the second registrant,” and “wherein the step of presenting the job offering information, in accordance with the accepted range, performs the presentation to the corresponding registrants such that the job offering information corresponding to the respective attributes of the registrants is presented only to the first registrant, or to the first registrant and the second registrant,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an job recruiter and job applicant(s), which, the recruiter is able to determine job offers for job applicant(s), which the recruiter can then accept job applicant(s) for the job and the job offer information will be presented to the job applicant(s), which is merely a business relation. Thus, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, as an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite managing registrants registered for employment for a business operator (i.e., collecting), which, the a step of accepting registration information from the registrants and a step of accepting, from the business operator, job offering information and information indicating a rage of registrants (i.e., analyzing). The system includes a step of presenting, to the registrants, the job offering information corresponding to the attributes of the registrants, in accordance with the accepted information indicating the range of registrants. The step of presenting the job offering information, in accordance with the accepted range, performs the presentation to the corresponding registrants such that the job offering information corresponding to the respective attributes of the registrants is presented only to the first registrant, or to the first registrant and the second registrant (i.e.,
displaying) thus collecting information, analyzing that information, and then displaying the job offering information is merely related to a mental processes. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes. However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see above analysis.
Second, applicant argues, on page 9-10 in applicant’s arguments, that the application is now integrated into a practical application. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration. Here, in this the specification discloses that system is used to securely keep workers, information on job seekers preliminary registered, job offering information is distributed to the job seekers when this information is present, and matching with the job offering information in a more efficient manner, see paragraph 0003, 0005, and 0148. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely efficiently securing labor and procedures after the registrant is employed is efficiently processed, paragraph 0148, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely managing, storing, accepting, storing, accepting, presenting, presenting, accepting, and presenting, respectively, job offer information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., an information processing apparatus, a processor, a memory, a computer, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case the system will manage registrants registered for employment for a business operator (e.g., gathering), which the system includes a step of accepting registration information from the registrants and a step of accepting, from the business operator, job offering information and information indicating a rage of registrants (e.g., analyzing). The system includes a step of presenting, to the registrants, the job offering information corresponding to the attributes of the registrants, in accordance with the accepted information indicating the range of registrants. The step of presenting the job offering information, in accordance with the accepted range, performs the presentation to the corresponding registrants such that the job offering information corresponding to the respective attributes of the registrants is presented only to the first registrant, or to the first registrant and the second registrant (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering information then determining accepted job registrants, and based on that acceptance displaying the job offers to the job registrants are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and presenting job offers to job applicants.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, stated merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe way to make it more efficient for securing labor and procedures after the registrant is employed is efficiently processed, paragraph 0148, however, the mere increase in efficiency of determining and presenting job offers to applicants more efficiently doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 10-11, filed August 28, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 has 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 recites an entity that is able to select job offers and present those job offers to job registrants based on applicant attributes. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 recite(s) “managing registrants registered for employment for a business operator,” “store attributes of the registrants so as to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator,” “a step of accepting registration information from the registrants,” “storing, the information, with discrimination with respect to the attributes of the registrants,” “a step of accepting, from the business operator, job offering information and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity,” “a step of presenting, to the registrants, the job offering information corresponding to the attributes of the registrants, in accordance with the accepted information indicating the range of registrants,” “wherein the step of accepting accepts, as the information indicating the range of registrants, information indicating whether presentation is only to the first registrant, or to a range also including the first registrant and the second registrant,” and “wherein the step of presenting the job offering information, in accordance with the accepted range, performs the presentation to the corresponding registrants such that the job offering information corresponding to the respective attributes of the registrants is presented only to the first registrant, or to the first registrant and the second registrant,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15, are similar to an entity receiving job applicant attributes, which the entity can then select candidates based on the certain attributes and provide job offers to those selected job applicants. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: an information processing apparatus, a processor, and a memory; Claim 14: a computer, a processor, and a memory; and Claim 15: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, a processor, and a memory) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “managing,” “storing,” executing,” “accepting,” “storing,” “accepting,” “presenting,” “accepting,” and “presenting,” respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: an information processing apparatus, a processor, and a memory; Claim 14: a computer, a processor, and a memory; and Claim 15: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, a processor, and a memory). Examiner, notes that the information processing apparatus, processor, memory, computer, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely managing, storing, executing, accepting, storing, accepting, presenting, accepting, and presenting, job offers to candidates no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., hiring applicants) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case the system will manage registrants registered for employment for a business operator (e.g., gathering), which the system includes a step of accepting registration information from the registrants and a step of accepting, from the business operator, job offering information and information indicating a rage of registrants (e.g., analyzing). The system includes a step of presenting, to the registrants, the job offering information corresponding to the attributes of the registrants, in accordance with the accepted information indicating the range of registrants. The step of presenting the job offering information, in accordance with the accepted range, performs the presentation to the corresponding registrants such that the job offering information corresponding to the respective attributes of the registrants is presented only to the first registrant, or to the first registrant and the second registrant (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering information then determining accepted job registrants, and based on that acceptance displaying the job offers to the job registrants are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and presenting job offers to job applicants.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, stated merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe way to make it more efficient for securing labor and procedures after the registrant is employed is efficiently processed, paragraph 0148, however, the mere increase in efficiency of determining and presenting job offers to applicants more efficiently doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea. Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe a field-of-use, generally linking, and how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-13: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-13 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5: The additional limitation(s) of describing “executing,” “causing,” and “calculating,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 1. The recitation(s) of “executing,” “causing,” and “a step of calculating charge information for the business operator pertaining to the employment concerning the job seeking intention information on the registrant, with discrimination with respect to the attribute of the registrant,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and/or mental processes. The additional elements that amount to “apply it,” is the processor. Examiner, notes that the processor is generically claimed that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely executing, causing, and calculating, charge information for jobs which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 5 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6: The additional limitation(s) of describing “calculating,” and “calculating,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 1. The recitation(s) of “calculating the charge information,” and “calculates predetermined charge refund information for the managing entity, about the charge information pertaining to employment of the second registrant,“ falls within certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and/or mental processes. The additional elements that amount to “apply it,” is the processor. Examiner, notes that the processor is generically claimed that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely calculating and calculating, charge information for jobs which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 6 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-13 above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-15 are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14-15, is
distinguished from the art.
Rao et al. (US 11,790,322 B1). Rao et al. teaches a database that is able to store individuals who are previous employees of a particular company. The database can also store information associated with individuals who have at least one year of relevant work experience. Rao et al., also, teaches a job seeker can enter profile information into an EHP system that allows the job seeker to enter his/her demographic information, job history information, his/her previous employment information, and his/her particular skills. Rao et al. teaches a database that is able to store individuals who are previous employees of a particular company. The database can also store information associated with individuals who have at least one year of relevant work experience. A job publisher via a job creation page that allows the job publisher to provide job posting information. The job publisher can provide the job name, skill description, and skill attributes. The EHP system is able to receive the request for the job postings from the job publisher, which the EHP system will then use the job postings to determine. Rao et al., also, teaches a job publishers can provide the EHP system with job information and publishing tears, which allows the EHP system to select and present users with visible job offers based on the publishing criteria options. Rao et al., further, teaches that the system can configure a first tier which is to be published refers to previous employees that have 5 years of trucking experience, active trucking license, active trucking certifications, and a clean driving record. The first tiered potential employees can be presented of the job posting for a certain amount of days. Rao et al., also, teaches after the certain amount of days a second tier of potential employees can be presented of the job opportunities. The second tier potential employees are employees that have not previously worked for job publisher. However, Rao et al., doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Rao et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Rao, also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Miller et al. (US 2014/0297550 A1). Miller et al. teaches applicants, which can be candidates. The candidates are internal candidates or external candidates. Miller et al., further, teaches that the applicants can be ranked based on their qualifications. The scores can depend on whether the applicant is an internal or external hire. The data of the applicants can be stored in a memory. Miller et al., further, teaches that applicant names and profile information along with the scores of the applicant(s) can be received by user that manages the candidates. However, Miller et al., doesn’t teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Rao, also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Maltese (US 2020/0202304 A1). Maltese teaches that an applicant can search for a job, which the applicant will send a job indication information. The job indication information will consist of applicant information, rating information, and resume information. Maltese, also, teaches that the employer can receive job applicant indication information, which the employer will then be provided with applicant list information. The employer will then select an applicant based on the job applicant information, which the hiring of the applicant can be sent to a server. The server can provide the hired applicant with a notification of the employer hiring the applicant. Maltese, further, teaches an employer can be presented with an applicant detail list screen, which the employer can select an applicant from an applicant list. The employer will be able to select from a group of applicants using a user interface. After the employer selects the applicant for hire then the applicant can be presented with a hired notification. However, Maltese, doesn’t teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity.
Bailey (US 2012/0239585 A1). Bailey teaches a placement fee can be created for a candidate ownership period set around three to six months, which based on those months a placement fee will be owed if a successful candidate user is hired. Bailey, further, teaches that a placement fee can be paired to a hiring company if the candidate is hired for the guaranteed time period. Bailey, also, teaches that the hiring company can select an internal candidate vs an external candidate. However, Bailey, doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Bailey, also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Bailey, also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Lappin et al. (US 2008/0301045 A1). Lappin et al. teaches a company can determine that an un-hired candidate is a good candidate for another position within the company that may not have been posted, or may be created for the candidate. Lappin et al., also, teaches a company can accept a list of candidates, which those candidates can include un-hired candidate submissions. However, Lappin et al., doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Lappin et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Lappin et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Shanmugasundaram (US 2015/0310394 A1)(hereinafter Daram). Daram teaches that an employ can choose to select a candidate for hire. The new candidate hire can then begin an onboarding process, which the new hire will be supplied with documents for review and signature prior to arriving on their first day of employment. However, Daram, doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Daram, also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Daram, also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Sharma et al. (US 2016/0132831 A1). Sharama et al. teaches a graph that represents relationships between employees, job openings, and candidates. The graph is transformed to generate a graph matrix deterministic of a mapping of nodes, which rank the candidates and can then display job information associated with a hiring manager, to select a set of candidates for hire. However, Sharma et al., doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Sharma et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Sharma et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Brdiczka et al. (US 2017/0221010 A1). Brdiczka et al. teaches a system for mining a messaging system to discover references to companies with job openings. The system can then match the candidate to the job opening. The system can take into account relationship connections such as a former or present relationship as a business contact, previous employee, current employee, business vendor, business affiliate, or other business relationship. The system can automatically discover references for a candidate to a company for employment. However, Brdiczka et al., doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Brdiczka et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Brdiczka et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
Tam et al. (US 2021/0097492 A1). Tam et al. teaches a system that compares company job offers with one another to determine a plurality of companies such as parent and child companies. However, Tam et al., doesn’t explicitly teach storing attributes of the registrants to discriminate a first registrant belonging to the business operator, from a second registrant belonging to a managing entity having a predetermined relationship with the business operator. Tam et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach accepting from the business operator and information indicating a range of registrants to which the job offering information is presented in a browsable manner, wherein the browsable manner selectively shifts between presentation to registrants belonging to the business operator and registrants belonging to the managing entity. Tam et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach presenting job information to only the first registrant, or to a range also including the first and second registrant according to the accepted range.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628