DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 5/142026, Applicant, on 8/13/2026, amended Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19-20. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are pending in this action and have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the amended claims and 6 particular limitations and states that these are inherently rooted in technology and requires a data processor for implementation, and that the claims are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field and thus contain no abstract ideas and are significantly more. Examiner disagrees as the claim limitations and additional elements were taken both individually and in ordered combination, and the claims were found to have the abstraction of a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, which are not practically integrated nor significantly more, as the claims are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination of elements, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims using NFTs and are directed at generating scores for candidate hires. This can be done in the human mind, and using tokens, NFTs, crypto, etc. is just a utilization of current technologies, as Applicant has stated on p. 2 of the Remarks of 3/26/2026, to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. DDR is completely irrelevant here, as the fact patterns are different. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as the cloud platform, processor, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they merely are receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as a computer system with a processor, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction. An improvement to the hiring process is an improvement to the abstraction even if made to be more efficient and accurate, which there is no evidence of, and not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitation of retrieving and aggregating a first plurality of tokens into a first skill wallet for a first user, wherein each token of the first plurality of tokens corresponds to a given skill of the first user, and wherein the first plurality of tokens comprises a first set of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), authenticating the first plurality of tokens (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), retrieving and aggregating a second plurality of tokens into a second skill wallet for a second user, wherein the second plurality of tokens comprises a second set of NFTs (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), authenticating the second plurality of tokens (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a compatibility between the first skill wallet and each job listing of a plurality of job listings (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), reading a first plurality of token units stored within each NFT of the first set of NFTs to generate a first score for the first skill wallet based on a sum of the first plurality of token units, indicating a first compatibility of the first skill wallet with a first job listing of the plurality of job listings and reading a second plurality of token units stored within each NFT of the second set of NFTs to generate a second score for the second skill wallet based on a sum of the second plurality of token units, indicating a second compatibility of the second skill wallet with the first job listing (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), providing, to a respective employer, an indication of which score is higher among the first and second scores based on the first compatibility and the second compatibility with the first job listing (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and returning a given number of job listings which are most compatible with the first skill wallet based on having highest scores of the plurality of job listings (Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing job skills; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of assigning skills to users, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a cloud platform, one or more platforms external to the cloud platform via a network, a computer system, processor, memory, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing user skills. For example, generating a score for each job listing based on a compatibility between the job listing and the first skill wallet encompasses any manager, supervisor, or person looking at a job position and a candidate resume and assigning a score based on how relevant the experience on the resume is to the position, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The cloud platform, external platforms, network, system, computer, processor, memory, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0048] In some implementations, the current subject matter may be configured to be implemented in a system 700, as shown in FIG. 7A. The system 700 may include a processor 710, a memory 720, a storage device 730, and an input/output device 740. Each of the components 710, 720, 730 and 740 may be interconnected using a system bus 750”
Which states that any type of suitable computing device can be used with a processor, memory, and input/output device , such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processor, memory, medium, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no other additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Selvakummar (U.S. Publication No.2011/029,5759), Samarthyam (U.S. Publication No.2024/010,0444), and Jersin (U.S. Publication No. 2019/019,7180). Selvakummar, a method and system for multi-source talent information acquisition, evaluation and cluster representation of candidates, teaches determining a compatibility between the first skill profile and each job listing of a plurality of job listings, generating a score for each job listing based on a compatibility between the job listing and the first skill wallet, returning a given number of job listings which are most compatible with the first skill wallet based on having highest scores of the plurality of job listings, and retrieving and aggregating a first plurality of skills into a first skill profile and matrix for a first user, wherein each skill corresponds to a given skill of the first user, it does not explicitly state use of tokens in a skill wallet, or tokenization of the skills, nor does it teach providing a higher score to an employer. Samarthyam, a system and method for artificial intelligence based skill tracking, and non-fungible token based skill representation, teaches retrieving and aggregating a first plurality of tokens into a first skill wallet for a first user, wherein each token of the first plurality of tokens corresponds to a given skill of the first user where skills are placed into tokens which are then put into a digital wallet thus a skill wallet, and authenticating the first plurality of tokens where the system uses two factor authentication and generating a score for each job listing based on a compatibility between the job listing and the first skill wallet where a rank/score of the results of the skills of the user based on their skill wallet. Jersin, a system and method of using feedback to create and modify candidate streams, teaches highly ranked candidates being scored, and taking of the higher candidate, but does not teach a tokenization process for a skill wallet. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches use of tokens in a skill wallet, or tokenization of the skills, nor does it teach providing a higher score to an employer, along with the authentication process of the skill wallets, along with the other limitations of the Claims, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240100444 A1
SAMARTHYAM; SANTHOSH et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED SKILL TRACKING AND NON-FUNGIBLE TOKEN (NFT) BASED SKILL REPRESENTATION
US 20190197180 A1
Jersin; John Robert et al.
USING FEEDBACK TO CREATE AND MODIFY CANDIDATE STREAMS
US 20110295759 A1
Selvakummar; Paaul Randhip et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MULTI-SOURCE TALENT INFORMATION ACQUISITION, EVALUATION AND CLUSTER REPRESENTATION OF CANDIDATES
US 20230036730 A1
Casa; Sallyann Della
TOKENIZATION OF EXPERT TIME FOR SOFT SKILL DEVELOPMENT
US 20220327492 A1
VONTOBEL; Marc et al.
ONTOLOGY-BASED TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FOR MAPPING SKILLS, JOB TITLES AND EXPERTISE TOPICS
US 20180239829 A1
Dialani; Vijay et al.
PROVIDING QUERY EXPLANATIONS FOR AUTOMATED SOURCING
US 20110302100 A1
Selvakummar; Paaul Randhip
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF TALENT ON THE BASIS OF A TARGET CANDIDATE PROFILE
US 20030191684 A1
Lumsden, Jill A. et al.
Personal experience analysis system
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM 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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 10/5/2026
Prosecution Insights