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 .
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 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. The claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories..
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of the other independent claims for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 6 and 11:
granting access privilege to a tier-1 multimedia employment distribution (information), the access privilege granted to roles in tier-1 employment; and controlling the tier-1 employment client (information).
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite providing data/information access based on privilege rights and user roles. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the underlined claim limitations recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea as they can be accomplished by including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion based on providing data/information access based on privilege rights and user roles.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1, 6 and 11 include the following additional elements:
A multimedia employment distribution hub system comprising:
a multimedia employment distribution hub including: a group of hub appliances including processors and memory configured to store and execute a group of hub applications to: the distribution hub, client systems, server systems, and core systems; and the client systems, the server systems, and the core systems.
tier-1 employment core system comprising: a group of tier-1 employment core appliances including processors and memory configured to store and execute a group of tier-1 employment core applications to: receive multimedia employment content of multiple candidates directly from multiple candidate tier-1 employment server systems, which receive multimedia employment content directly from multiple candidate tier-1 employment client systems; receive multimedia employment content directly from multiple tier-1 employment server systems, which receive multimedia employment content directly from multiple tier-1 employment client systems; the group of tier-1 employment core appliances comprising: a group of relationship core appliances including processors and memory configured to store and execute a group of relationship core application software components to integrate the multimedia employment content from at least one of: the multiple tier-1 employment server systems.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and grouping employment content data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for the dependent claims, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for accessing, storing, receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims comprise the following additional elements: a group of hub appliances including processors and memory configured to store and execute a group of hub applications to: the distribution hub, client systems, server systems, and core systems; and the client systems, the server systems, and the core systems, tier-n employment core appliances including processors and memory. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-15 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amended features are not taught nor made obvious by the prior art of record, therefore the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
The subject matter eligibility has been evaluated under 35 USC 101, however the amendment does not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant did not provide any substantive arguments to respond to other that stating that the claims were amended to not include transitory signals, and contain “concrete patentably distinct technical features” however Examiner asserts that is not the standard for 101 eligibility under the law. Furthermore, all of the technical features (additional elements) are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Thus, the rejection is sustain in this Final Office Action.
Conclusion
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.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629