DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Non-final Office Action in response to claims filed 20 February 2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility .” which appears to be an erroneous period “.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, Examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01. If one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described in the specification to achieve the claimed function and the inventor was in possession of that knowledge, the written description requirement would be satisfied. On the other hand, if the specification does not provide a disclosure of the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Regarding claims 1-18, claims 1, 6, and 18 are computer-implemented claims described in functional language. As computer-implemented functional claims, the specification must disclose the steps or algorithms with which Applicant has programmed the application to “a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting related to each of the plurality of candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations” in claim 1, “a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting, the revenue prediction module to receive a plurality of candidate activity to aid in the identification of revenue- generating candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations” in claim 6 and “forecasting, via a revenue prediction module, a revenue associated with each of the one or more employable candidate using a plurality of candidate activity data; wherein the forecasting of revenue is performed using historical contracts, submissions, billable hours, and hourly bill rates” in claim 18 However, the originally-filed disclosure does not explain how to provide revenue forecasting. The Specification only restates the claim language. Restating the claim language is not sufficient to show possession because the claims do not show how the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) performs the generation, simply the suggestion that some sort of algorithm was used (i.e. all solutions). These are high-level, result-based descriptions of what the invention is supposed to do rather than how the results are achieved. The Examiner cannot identify any disclosure of the steps or algorithms themselves that explain how to provide revenue forecasting.
Accordingly, claims 1, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 2-5 and 7-17 do not clarify this and as such, are rejected due to their dependencies.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claims 7 and 14 are further rejected under 112(a) because claims 7 and 14 are computer-implemented claims described in functional language but the originally-filed disclosure does not explain how to “wherein the evaluation module provides a recruiter score optimization to optimize future revenues” for similar reason as those discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, second paragraph
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 5, and 10-17 is/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.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, claims 5 and 10 recite the limitation “revenue calculation predictions” in line 1 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-17 are also rejected for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein the one or more credentials" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-17 are also rejected for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 11.
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 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) comparing data pertaining to the received and stored candidates and staffing availabilities and provide revenue forecasting which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities (i.e. a business relation of hiring) as well as a mental process of making a judgement upon scheduling/hiring.
The limitations of:
In claim 1: “a comparator to compare data pertaining to the plurality of candidates with the plurality of staffing availabilities to match one or more of the plurality of candidates with one or more of the plurality of staffing availabilities... a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting related to each of the plurality of candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations”
In claim 6: “a comparator to compare data pertaining to the plurality of candidates with the plurality of staffing availabilities to match one or more of the plurality of candidates with one or more of the plurality of staffing availabilities a verification module to verify one or more credentials provided by the plurality of candidates; and a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting, the revenue prediction module to receive a plurality of candidate activity to aid in the identification of revenue- generating candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations,”
In claim 18: “comparing..., the plurality of staffing availabilities with scheduling information provided by the plurality of candidates; determining... appropriate healthcare professionals to correspond to the plurality of scheduling information to determine one or more employable candidates; forecasting, ...., a revenue associated with each of the one or more employable candidate using a plurality of candidate activity data; wherein the forecasting of revenue is performed using historical contracts, submissions, billable hours, and hourly bill rates”
...as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility...a comparator...a revenue prediction module...an evaluation module...,” (or “via a comparator in operable communication with the database via a server” in claim 18) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the ““A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility...a comparator...a revenue prediction module...an evaluation module...,” (or “via a comparator in operable communication with the database via a server” in claim 18) language, “compare,” “provide,” “provide,” “verify,” ”comparing,” “determining,” and “forecasting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually scheduling candidates to staffing opportunities and forecasting future revenues based upon staffing. Similarly, the limitation of comparing scheduling availabilities to candidates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a computer or with computing components. In the context of this claim, the limitation encompasses the user thinking and making decisions about hiring for temporary staffing opportunities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the certain methods of organizing human activities or in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The claims’ recitation of a “A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility. a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals...,” (in claim 1) “A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: a computing device in operable communication with a database to store information related to a plurality of candidates and a plurality of healthcare facilities; a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals; a hiring system configured to transmit the plurality of staffing availabilities to the plurality of candidates” (in claim 6), “A method for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a plurality of scheduling information from a plurality of candidates; storing the plurality of staffing availabilities in a database in operable communication with a computing device” (in claim 18) are only extrasolution data gathering activities of receiving data, storing data and transmission of data. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using some sort of module to perform the comparison and revenue forecasting steps (and verification step of claim 6 and determining step of claim 18). The module is not a positive recitation of structure and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data query and retrieval of available and/or qualified candidates) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility. a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals...,” (in claim 1) “A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: a computing device in operable communication with a database to store information related to a plurality of candidates and a plurality of healthcare facilities; a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals; a hiring system configured to transmit the plurality of staffing availabilities to the plurality of candidates” (in claim 6), “A method for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a plurality of scheduling information from a plurality of candidates; storing the plurality of staffing availabilities in a database in operable communication with a computing device” (in claim 18), “module...via the computing device,” “system configured to...” and “server,” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the additional element of using module to perform the comparison (and verification step of claim 6) steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in Step 2B, the” A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility. a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals...,” (in claim 1) “A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: a computing device in operable communication with a database to store information related to a plurality of candidates and a plurality of healthcare facilities; a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals; a hiring system configured to transmit the plurality of staffing availabilities to the plurality of candidates” (in claim 6), “A method for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a plurality of scheduling information from a plurality of candidates; storing the plurality of staffing availabilities in a database in operable communication with a computing device” (in claim 18)” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 11-17 are dependent on claims 1 and 6 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Therefore, claims 2-3, 7-8, and 11-17 recite the same abstract idea of “comparing data pertaining to the received and stored candidates and staffing availabilities and provide revenue forecasting.” The claim recites the additional limitations further including additional aspects (evaluations, activity, work history, communication) which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 6, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are dependent on claims 1 and 6 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Therefore, claims 4-5 and 9-10 recite the same abstract idea of “comparing data pertaining to the received and stored candidates and staffing availabilities and provide revenue forecasting.” The claim recites the additional limitations further limiting the scheduling information and credentials which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 6, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-18 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolbe (US PG Pub. 2004/0024761) further in view of Hanrahan (US PG Pub. 2004/0039603).
As per claim 1, Kolbe discloses A system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: (system, Kolbe ¶43):
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network (interactive web-based database, Kolbe Abstract and ¶5-¶7; computer storing the database, ¶19);
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for a staffing system at a healthcare facility
a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals (calendar section, web-enabled cell phone, through the web-based interactive database, Kolbe ¶6, ¶9, ¶22-¶23 and ¶34) (Examiner notes Kolbe’s ability to automatically update calendars (via software on a web-enabled cell phone, professional data assistant over the web with an interactive database), is clearly the equivalent to a “calendar module” as also evidenced in Fig. 3);
a hiring system configured to transmit the plurality of staffing availabilities to the plurality of candidates (The offer of temporary employment will be broadcast via the interactive database to registered user healthcare professionals, who have been approved by the offering healthcare facility, meet the requirements for that job, and have been selected to receive an offer for consideration. The offer is reviewable by each of the professionals in the private calendar section of their user "page" located within the web-based database, Kolbe ¶6, offer temporary position, ¶16; select those professionals who will be sent the offer, ¶53);
a comparator to compare data pertaining to the plurality of candidates with the plurality of staffing availabilities to match one or more of the plurality of candidates with one or more of the plurality of staffing availabilities (A separate employee profile template is created for each employee type, e.g., Doctors, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, etc. One example would be a healthcare facility looking for a Registered Nurse who is qualified to work in the operating room, among all their approved Registered Nurses. In this way, those professionals who have been approved by the facility can be directly offered temporary positions that fit unique customized criteria, which criteria were created and compiled by the specific healthcare facility, Kolbe ¶8; based upon highest ranked temporary staffer, ¶20; based upon sorting criteria from the healthcare facility, ¶49-¶50);
While Kolbe discloses a temporary staffing system but does not expressly disclose a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting related to each of the plurality of candidates; an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations.
However, Hanrahan teaches a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting related to each of the plurality of candidates; an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations (Another optimization is directed to proactively managing the candidate pool based on evaluating candidate performance and maintaining the predetermined balance of candidates in various stages of the placement process, Hanrahan ¶55; it should be understood that the CGFNS Certification Program, as well as the CGFNS Qualifying Exam, were created to serve as a predictor evaluation process and corresponding exam for foreign nurses to more accurately forecast which candidates were likely to meet the requirements for licensure as registered nurses in the U.S, ¶86; screen process for ranking candidates, ¶120; calculating total placement costs, ¶37-¶39; for expected savings over time) (Examiner interprets the ability to determine expected savings over time as the ability to determine costs and forecasted revenues which would be required to determine savings).
Both the Kolbe and Hanrahan references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with temporary medical or healthcare staff/professionals. Before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Singletary’s method of providing previous evaluations in Kolbe’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a staffing management system that is able to cost effectively provide staffing.
The motivation being that in recent years the United States and other industrialized countries have experienced a shortage of educated and trained professionals. Shortages normally occur in an industry for two fundamental reasons: a decrease in qualified candidates and/or an increase in the number of positions to be filled. Poor pay, working conditions, lack of educational opportunity, an aging workforce, low unemployment in comparable career fields and cyclical employment are all factors which may also contribute to shortages, either singularly or in combination with one another. Increasing demand for trained professionals often results from periods of economic expansion in general, the growth of a specific industry, as well as fundamental shifts in the nature of a profession or the role of professions in an industry. Regardless of the causes, shortages of the professionals must be addressed for the near term and the long term. However, the near term solutions are often particularly difficult to resolve (Hanrahan ¶5).
As per claim 6, Kolbe discloses a system for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the system comprising: (system, Kolbe ¶43):
a computing device in operable communication with a database to store information related to a plurality of candidates and a plurality of healthcare facilities (interactive web-based database, Kolbe Abstract and ¶5-¶7; computer storing the database, ¶19);
a calendar module to receive scheduling information via the computing device, the scheduling information corresponding to a plurality of staffing availabilities provided by one or more healthcare professionals (calendar section, web-enabled cell phone, through the web-based interactive database, Kolbe ¶6, ¶9, ¶22-¶23 and ¶34) (Examiner notes Kolbe’s ability to automatically update calendars (via software on a web-enabled cell phone, professional data assistant over the web with an interactive database), is clearly the equivalent to a “calendar module” as also evidenced in Fig. 3);
a hiring system configured to transmit the plurality of staffing availabilities to the plurality of candidates (The offer of temporary employment will be broadcast via the interactive database to registered user healthcare professionals, who have been approved by the offering healthcare facility, meet the requirements for that job, and have been selected to receive an offer for consideration. The offer is reviewable by each of the professionals in the private calendar section of their user "page" located within the web-based database, Kolbe ¶6, offer temporary position, ¶16; select those professionals who will be sent the offer, ¶53);
a comparator to compare data pertaining to the plurality of candidates with the plurality of staffing availabilities to match one or more of the plurality of candidates with one or more of the plurality of staffing availabilities (A separate employee profile template is created for each employee type, e.g., Doctors, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, etc. One example would be a healthcare facility looking for a Registered Nurse who is qualified to work in the operating room, among all their approved Registered Nurses. In this way, those professionals who have been approved by the facility can be directly offered temporary positions that fit unique customized criteria, which criteria were created and compiled by the specific healthcare facility, Kolbe ¶8; based upon highest ranked temporary staffer, ¶20; based upon sorting criteria from the healthcare facility, ¶49-¶50);
a verification module to verify one or more credentials provided by the plurality of candidates; (review the professional's credentials and experience in order to solicit that professional for approval with that employer so as to receive future temporary position offers, Kolbe ¶14 and ¶49-¶50; see also employee approved list, ¶55).
While Kolbe discloses a temporary staffing system but does not expressly disclose a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting, the revenue prediction module to receive a plurality of candidate activity to aid in the identification of revenue- generating candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations.
However, Hanrahan teaches a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting, the revenue prediction module to receive a plurality of candidate activity to aid in the identification of revenue- generating candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations (Another optimization is directed to proactively managing the candidate pool based on evaluating candidate performance and maintaining the predetermined balance of candidates in various stages of the placement process, Hanrahan ¶55; it should be understood that the CGFNS Certification Program, as well as the CGFNS Qualifying Exam, were created to serve as a predictor evaluation process and corresponding exam for foreign nurses to more accurately forecast which candidates were likely to meet the requirements for licensure as registered nurses in the U.S, ¶86; screen process for ranking candidates, ¶120; calculating total placement costs, ¶37-¶39; for expected savings over time) (Examiner interprets the ability to determine expected savings over time as the ability to determine costs and forecasted revenues which would be required to determine savings).
Both the Kolbe and Hanrahan references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with temporary medical or healthcare staff/professionals. Before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Singletary’s method of providing previous evaluations in Kolbe’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a staffing management system that is able to cost effectively provide staffing.
The motivation being that in recent years the United States and other industrialized countries have experienced a shortage of educated and trained professionals. Shortages normally occur in an industry for two fundamental reasons: a decrease in qualified candidates and/or an increase in the number of positions to be filled. Poor pay, working conditions, lack of educational opportunity, an aging workforce, low unemployment in comparable career fields and cyclical employment are all factors which may also contribute to shortages, either singularly or in combination with one another. Increasing demand for trained professionals often results from periods of economic expansion in general, the growth of a specific industry, as well as fundamental shifts in the nature of a profession or the role of professions in an industry. Regardless of the causes, shortages of the professionals must be addressed for the near term and the long term. However, the near term solutions are often particularly difficult to resolve (Hanrahan ¶5).
As per claim 18, Kolbe discloses a method for obtaining staffing for a plurality of staffing opportunities available at various healthcare facilities, the method comprising the steps of (method, Kolbe ¶55):
receiving a plurality of scheduling information from a plurality of candidates (when professionals are available, Kolbe ¶58);
storing the plurality of staffing availabilities in a database in operable communication with a computing device (when professionals are available, Kolbe ¶58; interactive web-based database, ¶5-¶7 and ¶19);
comparing, via a comparator in operable communication with the database via a server, the plurality of staffing availabilities with scheduling information provided by the plurality of candidates (A separate employee profile template is created for each employee type, e.g., Doctors, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, etc. One example would be a healthcare facility looking for a Registered Nurse who is qualified to work in the operating room, among all their approved Registered Nurses. In this way, those professionals who have been approved by the facility can be directly offered temporary positions that fit unique customized criteria, which criteria were created and compiled by the specific healthcare facility, Kolbe ¶8; based upon highest ranked temporary staffer, ¶20; based upon sorting criteria from the healthcare facility, ¶49-¶50);
determining, via a scheduling module, appropriate healthcare professionals to correspond to the plurality of scheduling information to determine one or more employable candidates (The offer of temporary employment will be broadcast via the interactive database to registered user healthcare professionals, who have been approved by the offering healthcare facility, meet the requirements for that job, and have been selected to receive an offer for consideration. The offer is reviewable by each of the professionals in the private calendar section of their user "page" located within the web-based database, Kolbe ¶6, offer temporary position, ¶16; select those professionals who will be sent the offer, ¶53).
While Kolbe discloses a temporary staffing system but does not expressly disclose a revenue prediction module to provide revenue forecasting, the revenue prediction module to receive a plurality of candidate activity to aid in the identification of revenue- generating candidates; and an evaluation module to receive a plurality of recruiter data and to generate a recruiter score using the plurality of data, wherein the revenue prediction module and the evaluation module provide a predictive model for revenue calculations.
However, Hanrahan teaches forecasting, via a revenue prediction module, a revenue associated with each of the one or more employable candidate using a plurality of candidate activity data; wherein the forecasting of revenue is performed using historical contracts, submissions, billable hours, and hourly bill rates (Another optimization is directed to proactively managing the candidate pool based on evaluating candidate performance and maintaining the predetermined balance of candidates in various stages of the placement process, Hanrahan ¶55; it should be understood that the CGFNS Certification Program, as well as the CGFNS Qualifying Exam, were created to serve as a predictor evaluation process and corresponding exam for foreign nurses to more accurately forecast which candidates were likely to meet the requirements for licensure as registered nurses in the U.S, ¶86; screen process for ranking candidates, ¶120; calculating total placement costs, ¶37-¶39; for expected savings over time) (Examiner interprets the ability to determine expected savings over time as the ability to determine costs and forecasted revenues which would be required to determine savings).
Both the Kolbe and Hanrahan references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with temporary medical or healthcare staff/professionals. Before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Singletary’s method of providing previous evaluations in Kolbe’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a staffing management system that is able to cost effectively provide staffing.
The motivation being that in recent years the United States and other industrialized countries have experienced a shortage of educated and trained professionals. Shortages normally occur in an industry for two fundamental reasons: a decrease in qualified candidates and/or an increase in the number of positions to be filled. Poor pay, working conditions, lack of educational opportunity, an aging workforce, low unemployment in comparable career fields and cyclical employment are all factors which may also contribute to shortages, either singularly or in combination with one another. Increasing demand for trained professionals often results from periods of economic expansion in general, the growth of a specific industry, as well as fundamental shifts in the nature of a profession or the role of professions in an industry. Regardless of the causes, shortages of the professionals must be addressed for the near term and the long term. However, the near term solutions are often particularly difficult to resolve (Hanrahan ¶5).
As per claims 2, 7, and 13, Kolbe and Hanrahan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 6 and claim 12 below. Hanrahan further discloses an evaluation module configured to receive one or more evaluations and correspond the evaluation to one of the plurality of healthcare professionals (Another optimization is directed to proactively managing the candidate pool based on evaluating candidate performance and maintaining the predetermined balance of candidates in various stages of the placement process, Hanrahan ¶55; it should be understood that the CGFNS Certification Program, as well as the CGFNS Qualifying Exam, were created to serve as a predictor evaluation process and corresponding exam for foreign nurses to more accurately forecast which candidates were likely to meet the requirements for licensure as registered nurses in the U.S, ¶86; screen process for ranking candidates, ¶120).
As per claims 3 and 8, Kolbe and Hanrahan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 6. Hanrahan further discloses a plurality of candidate activity, the plurality of candidate activity data transmitted to the revenue prediction module to identify revenue- generating candidates (Direct costs refer to an employer's out-of-pocket expenses for placement. Calculating the direct costs for placing employees is usually a straightforward calculation based on the cost of resources expended in the placement process. With regard to the placement of foreign nursing professionals, as will be discussed in great specificity below, examples of direct costs include: fees for various service providers (e.g., attorneys, foreign placement professionals, preparatory course providers, etc.; government fees (e.g., visa application filing, state licensure,); quasi-government fees (e.g., Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS); National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX); Test Of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL); Test of Written English (TWE); Test of Spoken English (TSE); and ICHP (International Commission on Healthcare Professionals); "Visa Screen" certificate, etc.; hourly wages for time expended by in-house Human Resources department (HR) staff members attributable to placement, advertising, travel, etc. While direct costs to an employer would seem to be readily discernible and therefore more straightforward to calculate, such is not always the case. For instance, turn-key contracts with service providers often result in additional costs to the employer which were not part of the original agreement. Even though the additional costs are direct, they are usually unexpected given the nature of a turn-key arrangement and are not included in initial placement cost estimates, Hanrahan ¶38).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Singletary’s method of providing previous evaluations in Kolbe’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a staffing management system that is able to cost effectively provide staffing.
The motivation being that in recent years the United States and other industrialized countries have experienced a shortage of educated and trained professionals. Shortages normally occur in an industry for two fundamental reasons: a decrease in qualified candidates and/or an increase in the number of positions to be filled. Poor pay, working conditions, lack of educational opportunity, an aging workforce, low unemployment in comparable career fields and cyclical employment are all factors which may also contribute to shortages, either singularly or in combination with one another. Increasing demand for trained professionals often results from periods of economic expansion in general, the growth of a specific industry, as well as fundamental shifts in the nature of a profession or the role of professions in an industry. Regardless of the causes, shortages of the professionals must be addressed for the near term and the long term. However, the near term solutions are often particularly difficult to resolve (Hanrahan ¶5).
As per claims 4 and 9, Kolbe and Hanrahan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 6. Hanrahan further discloses wherein the evaluation module provides a recruiter score optimization to optimize future revenues (reduce indirect placement costs to employer by recruiter, Hanrahan ¶113; recruiting subpart, ranking, ¶130) (Examiner interprets providing the candidate with the best savings as the optimization of future revenues).
As per claims 5 and 10, Kolbe and Hanrahan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 6. Hanrahan further discloses wherein one or more revenue calculation predictions are provided based on the plurality of candidate activity data (Direct costs refer to an employer's out-of-pocket expenses for placement. Calculating the direct costs for placing employees is usually a straightforward calculation based on the cost of resources expended in the placement process. With regard to the placement of foreign nursing professionals, as will be discussed in great specificity below, examples of direct costs include: fees for various service providers (e.g., attorneys, foreign placement professionals, preparatory course providers, etc.; government fees (e.g., visa application filing, state licensure,); quasi-government fees (e.g., Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS); National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX); Test Of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL); Test of Written English (TWE); Test of Spoken English (TSE); and ICHP (International Commission on Healthcare Professionals); "Visa Screen" certificate, etc.; hourly wages for time expended by in-house Human Resources department (HR) staff members attributable to placement, advertising, travel, etc. While direct costs to an employer would seem to be readily discernible and therefore more straightforward to calculate, such is not always the case. For instance, turn-key contracts with service providers often result in additional costs to the employer which were not part of the original agreement. Even though the additional costs are direct, they are usually unexpected given the nature of a turn-key arrangement and are not included in initial placement cost estimates, Hanrahan ¶38).
As per claim 11, Kolbe and Hanrahan disclose as shown above with respect to claim 10. Kolbe further discloses wherein the one or more credentials are comprised of one or more of the following: a vaccination history, one or more licenses, and one or more qualifications (review the professional's credentials and experience in order to solicit that professional for approval with that employer so as to receive future temporary position offers, Kolbe ¶14; e.g., R