DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Generating a predicted interest level in an available job position (e.g., claim 1);
Filtering job positions based on predicted interest levels (e.g., claims 1, 5, 6, and 9);
Modifying a video game/recruitment profile (e.g., claims 8, 11, and 15-17)
Identifying/generating a task type for game play (e.g., claims 13, 15, 18, and 19)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a game and job recruiting, wherein the game rules and recruiting align with a method of organizing human activity that include following rules or instructions. Additionally, many of the listed abstract ideas, for example, generating interest, filtering job positions, modifying a game/profile, and identifying tasks can be done mentally, for example by reading a resuming and sorting potential candidates based on observed user skills and interest.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Accessing/receiving/monitoring data (e.g., recruitment profiles, job positions; see at least claims 1, 2, 8, 13-15, and 20; insignificant extra-solution activity);
Presenting (i.e., displaying) content/prompt/playing card collection information (e.g., claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 19; insignificant extra-solution activity);
Types of recruitment data (e.g., job title, location, compensation; see at least claim 7, linking to particular technological environment or field of use).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-20 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, claims 1, 8, and 15 generically reference “a computer device” without additional details. Computer devices are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0246544 to Agarwal is cited for disclosing the conventional use of computing devices in video game systems/methods (e.g., see at least column paragraphs 18 and 21, “users today play many different types of video game on wide variety of conventional computing devices”). Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0330734 to Sung (Fig. 6 shown below for convenience, but entire reference is relevant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0322466 to Millet.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Sung discloses method for promoting available job positions to players of a video game (e.g., see at least paragraph 18 that states “a candidate assessment system assess a job candidate’s suitability for a job by applying a variety of analysis metrics to a variety of gameplay aspects recorded while the candidate plays a game”; see also Fig. 6), the method comprising, by a computing device (e.g., see Fig. 1; see also discussion of computing hardware in paragraph 45): accessing a recruitment profile of a player of the video game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 22 and 53 for accessing player information/attributes; see also paragraph 97 for discussion of player attributes that include, “a player’s gamer profile, a player’s current job, a player’s job history, and a player’s profile information”), wherein the recruitment profile is based at least in part on interactions of the player with the video game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 22 and 53 for discussion of generating a profile based on gameplay); accessing a plurality of available job positions (e.g., see at least Fig. 6, steps 610-616; see also paragraphs 47 and 48 for discussion job position attributes; see also paragraph 62 for discussion of job database 116); for each available job position of the plurality of available job positions: generating, based on (i) the recruitment profile, and (ii) respective information associated with the available job position, a respective predicted interest level the player would have in the available job position (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of generating a “list of candidates can be presented according to an individual job of interest to the user”); filtering the plurality of available job positions to exclude available job positions with respective predicted interest levels that do not satisfy a threshold value (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 that “determines how well a player matches a job prospect”, which also implies the inverse how well a player doesn’t match a job prospect; see also paragraph 72 that discusses a system that can “filter through the job prospects”)); and causing content associated with at least one available job position of the plurality of available job positions to be matched to the player (e.g., see at least paragraph 66 that “matches a player with a job prospect”; see also paragraph 84 that discusses display job and fit score to the user);
[claim 2] wherein the recruitment profile is further based on characteristic information associated with the player (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 that discusses player characteristic information, including accuracy, task repetition, playing time, etc.);
[claim 3] wherein the characteristic information is obtained by way of: at least one first prompt presented to the player when engaging with a recruitment center affiliated with the video game, at least one second prompt presented to the player when interacting with the video game (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 that discusses player characteristic information, including accuracy, task repetition, playing time, etc.), publicly-available information about the player, or some combination thereof (the Examiner interprets this “some combination thereof” to not require all three, but at least one of the following three options: player prompt in recruitment center, player prompt in a game, and public information);
[claim 4] wherein the interactions comprise: digital playing card collection and/or usage metrics associated with the player (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 that discusses the use of game metrics; the Examiner interprets the “and/or” as not requiring the digital play card collection), wherein each digital playing card corresponds to a respective job position;
[claim 7] wherein the content comprises: a job position title associated with the at least one available job position (e.g., see at least paragraph 62, “Job database 116 generally contains job profiles comprising a job title, description, and associated skill attributes”), a geographical location of the at least one available job position, compensation information associated with the at least one available job position, relocation package information associated with the at least one available job position, contact information of at least one entity and/or person with whom to interface, or some combination thereof (the Examiner interprets this “some combination thereof” to not require all three, but at least one of the options, which includes job title).
With regard to claim 1, Sung fails to expressly disclose causing content associated with at least one available job position to be presented to the player via a user interface. Sung does not clearly disclose how the potential employer engages the game player and how job positions are presented to the player.
In the same field of endeavor, Millet teaches the use of an app to cause content associated with at least one available job position to be presented to the player via a user interface via prompts (e.g., see at least paragraph 63, “the players may then review the matched open positions and decide whether or not they wish to apply for the various matched jobs”; see also Fig. 23 “Jobs” that states “Get email alerts for relevant job opportunities based on your profile.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Sung with present of available job positions via a user interface as taught by Millet in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, presenting available job information to a user via a user interface allows for quick and efficient dissemination of employment opportunities.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Millet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0053272 to Mundy.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Sung discloses in the background that machine learning models may be used in the recruitment field (e.g., see at least paragraph 7). However, Sung fails to disclose using two ML models to generate an output.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Mundy teaches the use of first and second machine learning models. Further, Mundy compares the ML outputs (e.g., see at least paragraph 59 for discussion of two or more different machine learning algorithms).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Sung with dual ML models as taught by Mundy in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using two or more ML models provides “for higher accuracy” (see Munday at paragraph 59).
Claims 8, 11, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0169248 to Darcy.
With regard to claim 8, Sung discloses method for managing recruitment profiles for players of a video game (e.g., see at least paragraph 18 for discussion of a candidate assessment system based on an analysis of gameplay metrics), the method comprising, by a computing device (e.g., see Fig. 1; see also discussion of computing hardware in paragraph 45): receiving, from a player, a request to access to the video game (e.g., see at least paragraph 66 that discusses a player requesting games), wherein the request includes characteristic information associated with the player (e.g., see at least paragraphs 22 and 53 for accessing player information/attributes; see also paragraph 97 for discussion of player attributes that include, “a player’s gamer profile, a player’s current job, a player’s job history, and a player’s profile information”); generating a recruitment profile based on the characteristic information (e.g., see at least paragraph 97 for discussion of player profile), wherein the recruitment profile includes at least one gamer profile data that correlates to at least one characteristic of the player; modifying an instantiation of the video game based on the recruitment profile (e.g., see at least Fig. 6, steps 634 and 636 for discussion of modifying game metrics); and permitting the player to access the instantiation of the video game (e.g., see at least paragraph 58 that discusses a user playing a game).
[claim 11] further comprising: monitoring interactions of the player with the instantiation of the video game; modifying the recruitment profile, based on the interactions, to produce an updated recruitment profile; and modifying the instantiation of the video game based on the updated recruitment profile (e.g., see at least Fig. 6, steps 634 and 636 for discussion of modifying game metrics); and
[claim 12] wherein: the interactions comprise digital playing card collection and/or usage metrics associated with the player (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 that discusses the use of game metrics; the Examiner interprets the “and/or” as not requiring the digital play card collection), and each digital playing card corresponds to a respective job position.
With regard to claim 8, Sung fails to disclose the use a game with digital playing cards.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Darcy teaches a game with digital playing cards (e.g., see paragraph 38 that discusses a digital card 120 that can represent a character of a game, including character attributes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Sung with digital playing cards as taught by Darcy in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using digital playing cards with character attributes in a video game is relatable to classic cards games (e.g., PokemonTM or other role-playing games), but in a modern computing environment.
Claims 15-20 are made obvious based on the combination of Sung in view of Darcy as set forth above for claim 8, which is similar in claim scope. With regard to claim 15, Sung discloses dynamically adjusting game metrics based on game play (e.g., see at least Fig. 6, steps 634 and 636). With regard to claims 16 and 17, Darcy teaches game character attributes, as part of digital playing cards, that help the game player complete missions (e.g., see at least paragraph 38, including the character’s strength, life expectancy, etc.). With regard to claims 18 and 19, Sung discloses identifying player interest and skills (e.g., see at least paragraphs 22 and 53 for accessing player information/attributes; see also paragraph 97 for discussion of player attributes that include, “a player’s gamer profile, a player’s current job, a player’s job history, and a player’s profile information”). With regard to claim 20, Sung discloses an employer receiving information (e.g., see at least paragraph 23 where a job database stores job information).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Darcy as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0053272 to Mundy.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Sung discloses in the background that machine learning models may be used in the recruitment field (e.g., see at least paragraph 7). However, Sung fails to disclose using two ML models to generate an output.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Mundy teaches the use of first and second machine learning models. Further, Mundy compares the ML outputs (e.g., see at least paragraph 59 for discussion of two or more different machine learning algorithms).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Sung with dual ML models as taught by Mundy in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, using two or more ML models provides “for higher accuracy” (see Munday at paragraph 59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Of course, allowance of the features recites in claims 13 and 14 is also dependent on overcoming the claim eligibility rejection under section 101. The recited features claim 13 are not found in the prior art. Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0419266 to Yeleuov discusses a system for determining fitness of individuals for an employment position (e.g., see at least Fig. 1)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0230037 to Prado discusses candidate screening using machine learning and gameplay (e.g., see at least paragraph 18)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0001309 to Villa discusses obtaining user skills based on game play (e.g., see at least Fig. 3)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198293 to Nagendran discusses evaluating in a virtual environment to predict real world performance (e.g., see at least Fig. 10)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0280807 to Aho discusses an interactive recruitment game (e.g., see at least Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715