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 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15, and 24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 disclose “without blocking a user interface thread of the electronic device”. The specification describes asynchronous loading in [0075], however, the specification lacks support for without blocking a user interface thread of the electronic device.
Dependent Claim 24 is rejected for its dependency on Claim 1.
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.
Claim 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 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations of “automatically generating a classification visualization script by writing the target attribute in each division range and the 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 JSON format, and performing asynchronous loading of the visualization file through JavaScript to render the entity distribution visualization graph without blocking a user interface thread of the electronic device”, however, the specification does not provide details for how the automatic generation of the script happens. Since the claim is not clear on how the automatic generation of the script is occurring, it is noted that the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation is that a user could create a script and format it using a general purpose computer. This renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent Claim 24 is rejected for its dependency on Claim 1.
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 […] configured to perform sequence labeling on the resume text 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 experience entity;
aggregating, […], all node data structures and labeled edge data structures to obtain the individual resume visualization graph data structure;
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 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, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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”), see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 06 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 1, that the amended claim is directed to a specific computer data structure, not an abstract idea and the claim as a whole is directed to a specific improvement to the way computer operate or to another technological improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, data structure comprising root nodes, undirected edges, directed edges, edge labels and temporal encoding 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. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible.
The Applicant further argues that the claimed data structure has specific, non-conventional topological features reciting a particular in-memory graph data structure with root node structure, dual-type semantic edges, and temporal encoding in edge directionality which is a specific computer memory organization technique that enables time-aware traversal without separate timestamp comparison operations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no technical architecture that would amount to a practical application/significantly more, only high level instructions. Radiating information, labeling relationships and displaying time is not an additional technological improvement but rather part of the abstract idea itself.
The Applicant further argues that the relationships recited in the claims are not social relationships between people, but are graph-theoretic relationships which exist in computer memory, traversed by a processor, and are operated upon by computer instructions, and have no analogue in human social activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are reciting the relationship between people using generic computer components. Nothing in the claim improves technology or a technical field.
The Applicant further argues that the Examiner suggests that human could perform the claimed method with “pen and paper” reciting a mental process. However, the rejection does not rely on a mental process, therefore this argument is moot.
The Applicant further argues that the Examiner must identify which enumerated category applies and why. The Examiner notes that the rejection asserts that the claims fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity category. The claims 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 abstract idea is also listed in bold on page 3-6 under the 101 Rejection header.
The Applicant further argues under Step 2A, Prong 2 that the data structure is itself a practical application since it provides a specific mechanism, not a mere result. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data structure, semantic distinction, and structure to visualization mapping is not an improvement to technology, but rather an improvement to an abstract idea, and an improvement to an abstract idea still recites an abstract idea. The additional elements 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 claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to display the relationships, but rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more.
The Applicant further argues under Step 2B, the non-conventional data structure provides “significantly more” since the claimed data structure is not merely a generic data structure and define a particular arrangement and operation of data structure in computer memory. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements presented above including a data structure to connect relationships of a target person amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Here, there is no improvement to the technological environment to which the claims are confined (including the data structure); put another way, the computer is implementing what is was programmed to implement. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible.
The Applicant further argues that the Examiner asserts that the additional elements are “recited at a high-level of generality”, which is demonstrably false when applied to the actual claim language, since it is a detailed, step by step specification of how a computer system transform unstructured text into a structed quarriable knowledge graph. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are used at an “apply it” level, and there is no improvement to the technological environment to which the claims are confined, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Applicant further argues that the Examiner’s Generic components finding requires evidentiary support. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no such requirement exists in the eligibility guidance. The Examiner has not taken the position that anything is well understood, routine, or conventional at step 2B because nothing has been found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong. Examiners do not have to prove that a claimed invention was well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field to find that the claims are not eligible. To do so would be injecting a prior art analysis into the eligibility inquiry. Something that is well understood, routine, and conventional is more than just known in the art, it means that something is more or less ubiquitous in a given field. There is no requirement that an examiner must prove with evidence that a claimed invention is so well known in a given field that it rises to the level of being well understood, routine, and conventional. The rejection of record does not find anything to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong so there is nothing to reassess at step 2B with respect to the issue of being well understood, routine, and conventional (the Berkheimer memo). The argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant further proves responses to Specific Examiner Arguments. Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to “managing” anything, and that they are directed to constructing a data structure in computer memory. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and refers to the rejection above, and the response provided above, in regards to Step 2A, Prong 1.
The Applicant further argues that the rejection assets “A Human Could Perform the Method with Pen and Paper”, however, this is not asserted in the rejection. Therefore, this argument is moot.
The Applicant further argues that the claims recite a specific data structure that improves computer memory organization. Asynchronous loading to obtain distribution visualization graphs, converting visualization scripts into visualization filed in a pre-set format and performing asynchronous loading do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). There is no improvement to the technological environment to which the claims are confined (including thread blocking); put another way, the computer is implementing what is was programmed to implement. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, memory organization, or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible.
The Applicant further argues that Claim 24 Further defines the automated visualization pipeline, and adds substantive limitations that further narrow and define the claimed method of a target attribute comprising age, entity tag corresponding to age is divided according to a pre-set division range, entity tags in each division range are written as parameters into a bar chart template, the template is converted into a JSON format file, and the age entity distribution bar chart is obtained by asynchronous loading through JavaScirpt. These limitations do not provide an improvement to the technological environment to which the claims are confined, but rather provide an improvement to the abstract idea, and as recited above merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible. Based on the updated rejection above, and the response presented here, the 101 rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights