DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
A non-final rejection was mailed on May 14, 2025. In the Response, submitted on September 10, 2025, claims 1-2, 7, 11-14, and 22 were amended, and claims 5-6, 8-10, 16-17, and 19-21 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7, 11-15, 18 and 22 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants Remarks, on Page 12 of the Response, regarding the previous claim objections have been fully considered, and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicants Remarks, on Page 12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejections of claims 4, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are only found persuasive for claim 14.
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues “the phrase ‘recognition submodule’ as recited in claims 4 and 15 has been initially defined in previous claims 3 and 14. Accordingly the antecedent basis is correct.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes claim 4 depends from claim 1. There is no antecedent support for “a recognition submodule” in the original claim 1, or the amended claim 1 (submitted on September 10, 2025). Furthermore, because claim 4 does not depend from claim 3, it cannot provide antecedent support. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the citations of claim 3 are irrelevant. Similarly, claim 15 depends from claim 12, and claim 12 does not provide an antecedent basis for “a recognition submodule”. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained below.
Applicants Remarks, on Pages 12-20 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response, in arguing that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, Applicant states “the claims recite specific technical processes for automated document retrieval, analysis, validation, and extraction…These limitations involve a structured computational process for resolving ambiguity in heterogeneous document sets—such as resumes intermingled with cover letters, job descriptions, or unrelated documents—based on multi-stage rule-based analysis and comparative scoring logic…This architecture disambiguates potentially similar-looking documents in real time based on content-derived structure and multi-source contextual information and does so within distributed, cloud-based systems where document heterogeneity is pervasive…The claims aim to automatically detect and extract resumes in complex, enterprise-scale document environments—using automated, rule-driven analysis and scoring—not merely organizing human activity… the claims implement a domain-specific process (identifier mapping with disambiguation layers) that provides a technological improvement to an existing financial transaction workflow, akin to McRO… where rule-based automation was non-abstract. Thus, the claims do not recite an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes merely reciting “automated” limitations that “involve a structured computational process” in “cloud-based systems” does not take the claims out of the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. As discussed in the previous rejection, and will be further discussed below, the recitation of “automated” functions in “cloud-based systems” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, in arguing that the claims “resolving ambiguity in heterogeneous document sets—such as resumes intermingled with cover letters, job descriptions, or unrelated documents—based on multi-stage rule-based analysis and comparative scoring logic…disambiguates potentially similar-looking document… based on content-derived structure and multi-source contextual information”, similar to Trading Tech, it appears Applicant is arguing a business process improvement, rather than an improvement to the underlying technology itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”.)
Lastly, Examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a domain-specific process (identifier mapping with disambiguation layers)” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 16 of the Response, Applicant states “amended claims 1 and 12 recite a a rule-based, multi-stage document processing pipeline implemented in a cloud computing environment, addressing technical challenge: identifying resumes from large, heterogeneous, and distributed document sets. The claims include specific technical elements: Multi-source document acquisition from device folders, email servers, and cloud databases. Rule-based feature extraction applied to each document. Dual-score validation (resume-ness and non-resume-ness) with decision thresholds. Resume detection logic based on score comparison. Presentation layer for delivering detected resumes to user interfaces. This architecture enables accurate, scalable, and automated identification of resumes in digital ecosystems — a technical improvement over manual or purely keyword- based systems.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “[r]ule-based feature extraction applied to each document” and “[d]ual-score validation (resume-ness and non-resume-ness) with decision thresholds” are limiations that recite the abstract idea. Examiner notes that “identifying resumes from large, heterogeneous, and distributed document sets” is not a technical challenge, and that retrieving documents from “device folders, email servers, and cloud databases” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Examiner further notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “detection logic based” and “Presentation layer for delivering detected resumes to user interfaces”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to McRo, because “the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a concrete, technical pipeline for automated document classification in distributed systems”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes in McRo the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. The specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set the morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Here, nothing in the specification explains that the document classification could previously only be produced by humans, such that it is the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in document classification that "improved [the] existing technological process". Rather, here, as will be discussed further in the detailed rejection, Applicant’s claimed additional elements when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 16-17 Applicant lists “Additional elements”, and states “These are not mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer…or insignificant data gathering…They solve a technical problem, with a specific, non-generic solution. Thus, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the alleged “Additional elements” (i.e., preprocessing layer, advanced analyzer rules, weighting of features, threshold adaptation, learning component, multi-device output delivery, and integration with downstream systems) are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 18 of the Response, Applicant states “The Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims — such as receiving documents, applying analyzer rules, computing scores, comparing scores, and displaying results — are merely generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and that they constitute insignificant extra-solution activity surrounding the alleged abstract idea (Page 8 of Office Action).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and urges Applicant to re-read the Non-Final Rejection dated May 14, 2025. Examiner has reproduced a portion of Page 8 of the Non-Final Action, and notes nowhere has Examiner stated “receiving documents, applying analyzer rules, computing scores, comparing scores, and displaying results — are merely generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and that they constitute insignificant extra-solution activity surrounding the alleged abstract idea” as Applicant alleges. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On Pages 18-19 of the Response, Applicant states “The ordered combination of claimed elements is not a generic application of resume identification on a standard computer. Instead, the invention defines a purpose-built, rule-based, multi-stage document processing pipeline specifically engineered to overcome technical problems associated with heterogeneous, distributed, and format- diverse document collections. Unlike conventional systems that rely on static keyword matching or manual review, the claimed arrangement implements: Source Selection and Filtering…Preprocessing Layer, Advanced Analyzer Rules…Weighting of Features…Threshold Adaptation…Learning Component…Multi-device Output Delivery…Integration with Downstream Systems…. These elements, individually and as an ordered combination, represent a non-generic arrangement of computing components that materially improves the functionality of automated document classification systems in a cloud computing environment. The specific sequence of retrieval, preprocessing, structural and semantic analysis, dual- score validation, adaptive thresholding, and integration with downstream systems achieves a technical improvement in speed, accuracy, and scalability that is absent from conventional solutions.”
As discussed above, the above “implent[ations]” are not recited in the claims. Furthermore, neither is “purpose-built, rule-based, multi-stage document processing pipeline specifically engineered to overcome technical problems associated with heterogeneous, distributed, and format- diverse document collections”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner further disagrees and notes the claims and specification are silent regarding “a technical improvement in speed, accuracy, and scalability that is absent from conventional solutions” such that “bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art” does not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
On Page 19 of the Response, in comparing the claims to BASCOM, Applicant argues “the claimed invention transforms a general-purpose computing environment into a specialized resume identification platform capable of high-volume, real-time operation in heterogenous data conditions”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes in BASCOM, the court held that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Here, nothing in the claims or specification discloses a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements (emphasis added). Rather, as will be discussed in further detail below, the additional elements, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants Remarks, on Pages 21-27 of the Response, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a document retrieval module, a document analyzer module, a validation module (and its submodules), a resume detection and extraction module, and output module in claims 1 and 12; an extraction submodule in claims 3 and 14; a recognition submodule in claims 3, 4, 14 and 15; a content reader submodule in claims 3 and 14; and a converter submodule and recognition submodule in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the recognition submodule”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a recognition submodule.”
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 1-4, 7, 11-15, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 7, and 11 recite a system comprising one or more hardware processors (i.e., machine), and claims 12-15, 18, and 22 recite a method (i.e., process) and therefore the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a series of functions of: retrieving one or more documents; analyzing each of the one or more documents retrieved wherein each of the one or more documents is analyzed based on a set of analyzer rules; and validating each of the one or more documents by determining a score of resume-ness and a score of non-resume-ness of the each of the one or more documents based on one or more predefined rules; and wherein validating one or more documents comprises: identifying one or more resume attributes, and one or more non-resume attributes in each of the one or more documents through a pattern recognition technique, wherein the one or more resume attributes comprises one or more resume sections, one or more typical resume phrase, one or more experience details, one or more education details, one or more email id type, and syntax of filename of the document; wherein the one or more non-resume attributes comprises one or more non-resume type format, one or more typical non- resume phrase, one or more non-resume details, determining the score of resume-ness of each of the one or more documents based on the identified one or more resume attributes, wherein determining the score of resume-ness comprises: detecting one or more resume attributes in the document, assigning a resume-ness value for detection of each of the one or more predefined resume attributes; and accumulating the resume-ness value to determine the score of resume-ness; determining the score of non-resume-ness of each of the one or more documents based on the identified one or more resume attributes, wherein determining the score of the non-resume-ness comprises: detecting one or more non-resume attributes in the document; assigning a non-resume-ness value for detection of each of the one or more non-resume attributes; and accumulating the non-resume-ness value to determine the score of the non-resume-ness; detect one or more resumes based on the score of the resume-ness and based on the score of the resume-ness and based on the score of the non-resume-ness for each of the one or more documents, wherein in detecting one or more resumes, if the score of the resume-ess is within a predefined resume-ness threshold, detecting the document is a resume, and wherein in detecting one or more resumes, if the score of non- resume-ness is within a predefined non-resume-ness threshold, detecting the document is not a resume; and displaying the one or more resumes detected to one or more users.
Claim 12 recites a series of steps of: retrieving one or more documents; analyzing each of the one or more documents retrieved wherein each of the one or more documents is analyzed based on a set of analyzer rules; and validating each of the one or more documents by determining a score of resume-ness and a score of non-resume-ness of each of the one or more documents based on one or more predefined rules; wherein validating one or more documents comprises: identifying one or more resume attributes, and one or more non-resume attributes in each of the one or more documents through a pattern recognition technique; wherein the one or more resume attributes comprises one or more resume sections, one or more typical resume phrase, one or more experience details, one or more education details, one or more email id type, and syntax of filename of the document; wherein the one or more non-resume attributes comprises one or more non-resume type format, one or more typical non- resume phrase, one or more non-resume details, determining the score of resume-ness of each of the one or more documents based on the identified one or more resume attributes, wherein determining the score of resume-ness comprises: detecting one or more predefined resume attributes in the document, assigning a resume-ness value for detection of each of the one or more predefined resume attributes; and accumulating the resume-ness value to determine the score of resume-ness; determining the score of non-resume-ness of each of the one or more documents based on the identified one or more resume attributes, wherein determining the score of the non-resume-ness comprises: detecting one or more non-resume attributes in the document; assigning a non-resume-ness value for detection of each of the one or more non-resume attributes; and accumulating the non-resume-ness value to determine the score of the non-resume-ness; detect one or more resumes based on the score of the resume-ness and based on the score of the resume-ness and based on the score of the non-resume-ness for each of the one or more documents, where detecting the document as a resume if the score of the resume-ess is within a predefined resume-ness threshold; wherein detecting the document is a non-resume if the score of non- resume-ness is within a predefined non-resume-ness threshold; and displaying the one or more resumes detected to one or more users.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions or fundamental economic practices. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 12 as a whole amount to: “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) one or more hardware processors (claims 1 and 12), (ii) memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of modules in the form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors (claim 1), (iii) a document retrieval module (claims 1 and 12), (iv) one or more folders on one or more user devices, one or more email servers and one or more cloud databases (claims 1 and 12), (v) a document analyzer module (claims 1 and 12), (vi) a validation module (claims 1 and 12), (vii) a resume detection and extraction module (claims 1 and 12), (viii) output module (claims 1 and 12), (ix) one or more user interfaces of the one or more user devices (claims 1 and 12), (x) an identifier submodule, a resume-ness submodule, and a non-resume-ness submodule (claim 1).
The additional elements of (i) one or more hardware processors (claims 1 and 12), and (ii) memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of modules in the form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors (claim 1) are recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 36-40 of the PG Publication disclosing hardware processors and memory) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iii) a document retrieval module (claims 1 and 12), is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 40 and 45 of the PG Publication disclosing the document retrieval module) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (iv) one or more folders on one or more user devices, one or more email servers and one or more cloud databases, are recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 35, 40 and 45 of the PG Publication disclosing folders, email servers, and cloud databases) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (v) a document analyser module (claims 1 and 12),is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 40-41 of the PG Publication disclosing the analyser module) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (vi) a validation module (claims 1 and 12) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 41,44, and 46 of the PG Publication disclosing the validation module) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (vii) a resume detection and extraction module (claims 1 and 12) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 40-41, 44, and 47 of the PG Publication disclosing the resume detection and extraction module) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (viii) output module (claims 1 and 12) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 40, 44, and 47 of the PG Publication disclosing the output module) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (ix) one or more user interfaces of the one or more user devices (claims 1 and 12) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 41 and 47 47 of the PG Publication disclosing the interfaces of user devices) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (x) an identifier submodule, a resume-ness submodule, and a non-resume-ness submodule, are recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 50-52 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the identifier submodule, a resume-ness submodule, and a non-resume-ness submodule) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figs 1 and 2), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 13, 18 and 22 recite details in the claim limitations which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, described above with respect to claims 1 and 12, these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2,7, 11, 13, 18 and 22 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 3 and 14 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 12, by reciting extracting one or more document properties based on the set of analyzer rules, wherein the one or more document properties comprise: date of document creation, date of document modification, and author of document; recognizing document type, sender and recipient of the document based on the set of analyzer rules; and reading information contained in the document based on the set of analyzer rules.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims 3 and 14 recite the additional elements of: (i) an extraction submodule, (ii) a recognition submodule, and (iii) a content reader submodule, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 48-49 of Applicant’s Publication disclosing the extraction submodule, recognition submodule, and content reader submodule), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (e.g., Fig. 2) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 4 and 15 further narrows the abstract idea of claims 1 and 12 respectively, by reciting wherein in analyzing each of the one or more documents, converting the one or more document in a standard compatible format for reading if it is recognized the document type of the one or more document in an incompatible format.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 4 recites the additional element of a converter submodule, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 49 and 67 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the converter submodule) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 4 and 15 recites the additional element of recognition submodule, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 48-49 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the recognition submodule) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (e.g., Fig. 2) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 7, 11-15, 18 and 22 are allowable over the prior art, but subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art for claims 1 and 12 include:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0138610 to Taleghani et al. (hereinafter “Taleghani”). Taleghani discloses a classifier module that may assess a document for other required conditions during the course of the analysis that may remove the electronic document 303 from consideration as a resume.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0119324 to Simard et al. (hereinafter “Simard”). Simard discloses a manager component that can evaluate static metadata related to a document, wherein the static metadata can be, but is not limited to being, date, author. Utilizing such static metadata, the manager component can infer and generate additional metadata in order to identify a content, a context, a purpose, a detail of the document, etc.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0276415 to Dane (hereinafter “Dane”). Dane discloses automatically processing candidate resumes and job specifications expressed in natural language into a common, normalized, validated form. Candidate resumes and job specifications are received in electronic form and expressed in natural language. The natural language expression of the candidate resumes and job specifications are analyzed to extract elements expressed in candidate resumes and job specifications. Each extracted element is validated against a database of valid words or phrases. The extracted, validated elements are converted for each candidate resume or job specification into corresponding set of synonymous elements. The synonymous elements are expressed in a common form used across all candidate resumes and job specifications processed by the method. A set of candidate resumes is matched with a corresponding job specification by comparing the set of elements expressed in common form for the resumes with the set of elements expressed in common form for the job specification.
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0125746 to Viola et al. (hereinafter “Viola”). Viola discloses automatically processing an electronic document, e.g., a resume, for routing over a computer network. The method includes recognizing text in the document to identify a candidate address, accessing a collection of potential destinations and comparing the candidate address to the collection of potential destinations to determine a destination for the document.
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628