DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 12/1/25. Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 10 is/are amended, claim(s) 7 is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification as there are no amendments. Therefore, Claims 1-10 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. MYPI2024000758, filed on 2/2/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/1/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) 1-5, 6-10, and 9-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) 6-10 and 9-10 and maintains rejections 1-5.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 7-8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amendments do not designate structure by their functions. The amendments merely further describe software not the structure. Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/1/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103for claim(s) 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 1-10.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/1/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 11-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because regarding the LLLM and its components, applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101s as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Crow et al. (US 2005/0080657 A1) in view of Sheikh et al. (US 2023/0368284 A1) and Woodings et al. (US 2004/0267595 A1) for claim(s) 1, 4-5, 6, and 8.
Crow in view of Sheikh and Woodings as applied to claim(s) 1 and 6 above and further in view of Lin (WO 2020/253503 A1) for claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action include claim(s) 1 and 3. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “document extension module 106…for verifying file type or format of document”, “Large Language module 110 for processing and interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine-readable instructions” and “Scoring module 112 for scoring candidates based on candidates suitability for each job requirement through a real-time scoring”. Claim 3 further narrows the initial Scoring module via additional sub-modules (i.e., “work experience module for…” “project scoring module for…”, “qualification module for…” and “skill scoring module for” computing scores).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 state(s) the limitation “at least one Large Language Model module (110) for processing and interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine- readable instructions” and as noted above invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of the configured to. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the configured to. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 1.
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.
Generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350, 94 USPQ2d at 1171; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed)”. Additionally, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171.5,
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for 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. Representative claim(s) 1 recite(s) “at least one Large Language Model module (110) for processing and interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine- readable instructions.”
Examiner notes the bolded portion of the representative claims above does not satisfy the written description requirement. Initially, Examiner notes the bolded portion recites “interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine- readable instructions” which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. 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. As described above in the 112b rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s) of interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine- readable instructions. Examiner notes the closest portions of the original disclosure include [pg 5-6 respectively ln 20-35 and 1-10; pg 10 ln 1-20; pg 12 ln 10-25] which merely states modules. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, none of these portions disclose the above bolded claim language. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 1 and 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 6 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to automating job matching.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 6 and 8-10 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 1-5 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: at least one user interface for at least one administrator to upload at least one job description and a plurality of candidate resumes or at least one candidate resume and a plurality of job description into the system and for displaying returned results of candidates ranked according to suitability of each job requirement;
at least one database directory module for storing and managing structured and unstructured data including job descriptions and candidate resumes uploaded onto the system;
at least one document extension module coupled to the at least one database directory module for verifying file type or format of document by examining file extension of documents stored in the at least one database directory module; and
at least one processing module coupled to the at least one document extension module for processing candidate resumes and job descriptions uploaded into the system;
wherein the at least one processing module comprises:
at least one Large Language Model module for processing and interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine-readable instructions;
at least one vector database coupled to the at least one Large Language Model module for performing similarity searches with an embedding vector; and
at least one Scoring module coupled to the at least one vector database for scoring candidates based on candidates suitability for each job requirement through for a real-time scoring based on content of candidates resume;
further wherein the at least one LLM module processes and interprets the contents of the candidates resume through the machine-readable instructions by:
generating embeddings for each document of candidates resume and job description;
creating retrievers for each of candidates resume and job description from the embeddings;
merging retriever created for candidate resume and retriever created for job description as a single document;
creating filters for embedding and compressing the merged single document;
creating a master retriever for consistency and accuracy; and
creating a prompt template that utilizes information from the master retriever to iteratively create an ideal question from information obtained from original two documents one from candidates resume and the other from job description to ensure evaluation question is optimized.
Claim(s) 1: same analysis as claim(s) 6.
Claim 6 additionally: receiving at least one job description and a plurality of candidate resumes or at least one candidate resume and a plurality of job description uploaded by an administrator;
storing and managing structured and unstructured data including received job descriptions and candidate resumes;
verifying file type or format of document by examining file extension of documents stored;
processing candidate resumes and job descriptions; and
displaying returned results of candidates ranked according to suitability of each job requirement;
wherein the step of processing candidate resumes and job descriptions, that comprises:
processing and interpreting contents of candidates resume through machine- readable instructions;
scoring candidates based on candidates suitability for each job requirement for a real-time scoring based on content of candidates resume; and
comparing and pairing contents of candidates resumes against contents of each job description by utilizing information extracted and computed by the at least one Scoring module.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-10 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 6 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with automating job matching.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include machine-readable instructions, real-time (claim(s) 1, 6), user interface, database, modules, large language model, vector database (claim(s) 1), module (claim(s) 6), module (claim(s) 2-4), natural language processing, artificial intelligence (claim(s) 5).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624