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 Claims
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 24 have been examined in this Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 24 are currently pending. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-23, and 25 have been canceled.
Priority
Application 18/600,590 filed 03/08/2024 claims priority to foreign application CN202310300634.8 filed 03/24/2023.
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
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, 8, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, 15 and 24 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for visualizing a resume. For Claims 1, 8 and 15 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
acquiring a personal resume information set comprising resume texts of a plurality of persons, constructing an individual resume visualization graph based on an entity relationship of personal resume experience in the personal resume information set;
performing person portrait modeling on different persons in the personal resume information set based on the individual resume visualization graph to obtain a person portrait data;
performing entity clustering on different persons in the personal resume information set based on the person portrait data, constructing an entity distribution visualization graph according to the clustering result;
constructing a person relationship visualization graph based on an entity relationship between different persons in the personal resume information set, wherein the constructing an individual resume visualization graph based on an entity relationship of personal resume experience in the personal resume information set comprises:
extracting a resume text of a target person in the personal resume information set;
inputting the resume text into a pre-constructed entity relationship recognition model […] to recognize a basic information entity, a basic information relationship, a resume experience entity, and a resume experience relationship corresponding to the target person in the resume text; and
constructing an individual resume visualization graph of the target person based on the basic information entity, the basic information relationship, the resume experience entity, and the resume experience relationship;
wherein the constructing an individual resume visualization graph of the target person based on the basic information entity, the basic information relationship, the resume experience entity, and the resume experience relationship comprises constructing […], an individual resume visualization graph data structure for the target person by:
taking the target person as a root node, constructing an undirected edge between the root node and the basic information entity based on the basic information relationship, and storing the basic information relationship as a label of the undirected edge data structure […];
constructing a directed edge between the root node and the resume experience entity based on a time sequence of the resume experience relationship, and storing the resume experience relationship as a label of the directed edge data structure […], wherein the directed edge data structure encodes a temporal order of the resume of the resume experience entity;
aggregating, […], all node data structures and labeled edge data structures to obtain the individual resume visualization graph,
wherein the performing person portrait modeling on different persons in the personal resume information set based on the individual resume visualization graph to obtain a person portrait data comprises:
constructing a person ID of a target person in the individual resume visualization graph, outputting an entity of each node data structure in the individual resume visualization graph data structure as an entity tag, and outputting a relationship between node data structures as an entity attribute corresponding to the entity tag; and
mapping the entity tag and the entity attribute with the person ID to obtain the person portrait data of the target person;
wherein the performing entity clustering on different persons in the personal resume information set based on the person portrait data, constructing an entity distribution visualization graph according to the clustering result comprises generating an entity distribution visualization graph by an […] visualization pipeline by:
determining a target attribute from the entity attribute, and performing entity division on an entity tag corresponding to the target attribute according to the target attribute and a pre-set division range;
counting persons corresponding to an entity tag in each division range, and […] generating a classification visualization script by writing the target attribute in each division range and an entity tag corresponding to the target attribute in the each division range as parameters into a pre-constructed graphic visualization template to obtain the classification visualization script; and
converting the classification visualization script into a visualization file in a pre-set […] format, and performing asynchronous loading of the visualization file […] to render the entity distribution visualization graph without blocking […];
wherein the method further comprises constructing a person relationship visualization graph by:
recognizing a department and a post of the plurality of persons;
using a pre-constructed face recognition model to recognize face images of the plurality of persons;
performing face alignment and cutting on the recognized face images to obtain person images,
aggregating target persons of a same department;
taking the aggregated target persons as nodes and filling the person images into corresponding nodes;
constructing an organizational relationship between different nodes based on the post to obtain an original relationship graph; and
connecting the original relationship graphs of different departments based on a pre-set organizational structure to obtain the person relationship visualization graph.
The above limitations are reciting a process by which resume data is gathered, analyzed, presented, and organized for determining relationships of persons. This is considered to be claiming a certain method of organizing human activities by determining different relationships in an organization. The claimed invention is a process where a resume is used to create a visual (a graph) between different persons. This is a concept that is managing the relationship between people and is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements in the claims include “automated” pipeline and “automatically” generating (which is interpreted to by the equivalent to “using a computer”). Nothing is claimed that operates to improve technology or a technical field. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the additional elements of an electronic device (Claim 1, and 8), at least one processor (Claim 1, 8 and 15), a memory (Claim 1, and 8), A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium (Claim 15), Bi-LSTM+CRF neural network architecture (Claim 1, 8, and 15), JSON format (Claim 1, 8, and 15), JavaScript (Claim 1, 8, and 15), and user interface thread of the electronic device (Claim 1, 8, and 15), that implements the identified abstract idea. The additional elements in the claims include “automated” and “automatically” (which is interpreted to by the equivalent to “using a computer”). These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an electronic device (Claim 8), at least one processor (Claim 8 and 15), a memory (Claim 8), A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium (Claim 15), Bi-LSTM+CRF neural network architecture (Claim 1, 8, and 15), JSON format (Claim 1, 8, and 15), JavaScript (Claim 1, 8, and 15), and user interface thread of the electronic device (Claim 1, 8, and 15), to perform the noted 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 (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claim(s) 24 is similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above. Claim(s) 24 merely describe(s) the target attribute comprising an age of different persons, the entity tag corresponding to the target attribute being divided according to a pre-set division range to obtain a number of entity tags in each division range, which are written as parameters into a bar chart template and converted into a JSON format file, and where an age entity distribution bar chart is obtained by asynchronous loading through JavaScript. Therefore claim 24 is considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Advisory Action on 01/02/2026, Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 would be allowable if they were written or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection set forth in this office action. Dependent Claim 24 would also be allowed over prior art by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
An updated search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 18, that the amended claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer data processing capabilities, and is a concrete technological process that transforms the computer itself into a specialized machine for processing resume data which is an improvement to computer memory organization that enable time-aware traversal and querying of resume data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims merely recite the collection, visualization, and organization of resumes from a plurality of people and determining relationships among the collected data. The additional recitation of an electronic device, processor, memory, computer-readable storage medium, Bi-LSTM+CRF neural network architecture, JSON, JavaScript, and user interface thread of the electronic device are recited at a high level of generality and do not reflect a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the computer or computer memory itself. The purported improvements of time-aware traversal and querying of resume data are results-oriented statements of intended benefits, not evidence of a technological improvement. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible. Applicant further argues that the invention as claimed solves a technical problem of user interface thread blocking during data-intensive visualization rendering. However, the specification does not describe thread blocking during data-intensive visualization rendering of the alleged improvements. The examiner notes that conclusory statements or attorney argument, without support in the written description, cannot demonstrate integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 716.01(c) In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, absent supporting disclosure, the recited features amount to nothing more than applying multiple generic models to data, which is insufficient under Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to U.S. Patent No. 11,790,028. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. U.S. Patent No. 11,790,028 was not found to recite a mathematical concept, certain method of organizing human activity or mental process. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implantation. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea of generating visuals and relationships of a resume on generic computer components using conventional computer activities and are not drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology.
The Applicant further argues under Step 2A-Prong 2 that the claims integrate the alleged exception into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s list of elements on page 21-22. The elements taken alone and as an ordered combination are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The applicants list of elements are used in their normal capacity, and their collective function merely provide conventional computer implantation. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible.
The Applicant further argues that under Step 2B that the claims provide “significantly more” since the claims were allowable over prior art, and that it cannot be well-understood, routine, and conventional since there is no prior art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagree because the novelty of the claims is not a relevant consideration in determining eligibility, therefore, this argument is moot. The Examiner further notes that the rejection does not rely on an assertion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The applicant is reminded that the well-understood, routine, or conventional consideration applies to the integration of the additional elements, and not to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(d) states, "If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility." Since the rejection does not rely on this consideration to show that the claims are ineligible, and even assuming arguendo that the examiner had the burden of showing well-understood, routine, or conventional, the applicant's arguments are not persuasive because the consideration is based on the additional elements and it overlaps with the improvement consideration (MPEP 2106.05(a), mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that the combination of natural language processing, knowledge graph construction, data structuring, automated visualization code generation, and performance optimization creates an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The of natural language processing, knowledge graph construction, data structuring, automated visualization code generation, and performance optimization are rejected for being no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore, the examiner does not find any of the arguments surrounding the 101 eligibility persuasive, the 101 rejection stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights