DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite, “the memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to…” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the processor is actually executing the instructions.
For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the memory including instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to…”
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “another user profile.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no other profile recited in the claim.
For examination purposes, “another user profile” will be interpreted as –a user profile.—
Claims 7 and 14 recite, “wherein the graph neural network module weights a certification type and a location…”
The term “weights used in this context renders the claim indefinite. Did the applicant intend to claim “weighs?”
For examination purposes, “weights” will be interpreted as –weighs.—
Claim 11 recites, “The method of claim 10, further comprising receiving storing the certification within a data structure…” There seems to be a typographical error rendering the claim indefinite. Did the applicant intend to claim “storing” the certification within a data structure.
For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as ““The method of claim 10, further comprising storing the certification within a data structure…”
The remaining claims are rejected due to the dependency to the above listed claims.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recite(s) the limitations of: receive data corresponding to at least one of a bid request or a labor request; determine a trades group corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request; and generate a post displaying information corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request within a news feed corresponding to the trades group.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed invention allows for receiving bid requests or labor requests and determining a trades group corresponding the bid or labor request and displaying information within a news feed corresponding to the trades group which is a certain method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions and fundamental economic practices). The mere nominal recitation of a processor and a memory do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: receive data corresponding to at least one of a bid request or a labor request. The receiving steps/functions are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving data). Receiving data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity –see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The processor and memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to: determine a trades group corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request; and generate a post displaying information corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request within a news feed corresponding to the trades group are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining and generating steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor and memory). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (processor and memory). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 8 and 15 and hence claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 8 recites no computer components and claim 15 recites a system comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to perform the claimed functions that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 in the claims amount to 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.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the additional elements found to be insignificant extra-solution activities under step 2A prong two, are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the processor and memory are anything other than generic computer components and the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySafe court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere receiving data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuessel, JR (US 2017/0286890) in view of Magas et al. (US 2011/0191663).
Re-claim 1: Fuessel recites:
receive data corresponding to at least one of a bid request or a labor request (labor request submitted by the contractor-[0035]; worker request-[0036]);
determine a trades group corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request (skilled worker creates a profile by selecting trade, trade level, trade experience, etc. –[0027]; desired skilled worker(s)-[0037]);
Fuessel fails to disclose generating a post displaying information corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request within a news feed corresponding to the trades group. Magas however, teaches [0068] “A ‘job post’ is an online advertisement of an available job opening--suggesting a request for resumes from qualified candidates. Job posts can be found in online newspapers, magazines, trade group websites,…”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the method for arranging and managing employment contracts of Fuessel the ability to display information corresponding to the labor request on a trade group website as taught by Magas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 5. Fuessel discloses wherein the processor is further programmed to determine a relatedness metric corresponding to the at least one of the bid request or the labor request, wherein the relatedness metric comprises a similarity score between the at least one of the bid request or the labor request and another user profile. (the skilled worker, the contractor is presented with a plurality of worker rating questions; the plurality of worker rating questions being a set of standardized, weighted questions. The back-end system receives a response to each of the plurality of worker rating questions from the contractor account. The back-end system then aggregates the response of each of the plurality of worker rating questions into a worker rating for the specific worker account. The worker rating is then aggregated with ratings from the contractors of previous projects to form an overall worker rating. The overall worker rating is displayed on the profile page of the skilled worker and in the summary of the plurality of available worker accounts, such that future contractors may utilize the overall worker rating in determining whether or not to send the contract request to the skilled worker.-[0047]).
Claims 8 and 15 have similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 12 and 19 have similar limitations found in claim 5 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
6. Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuessel, JR (US 2017/0286890) in view of Magas et al. (US 2011/0191663) in further view of Culver et al. (US 8,788,590).
Re-claim 2. Fuessel fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to receive certification information pertaining to at least one user. Culver however, teaches “profile data 510 may also include a `profile` section that includes, among others: information related to the user's education (e.g., the educational level reached by the user); any professional associations to which the user currently belongs or has belonged; groups to which the user is a member, such as named groups (which are described below); a list of relevant work experience; any external or professional certifications…” -col 6 L 51-60.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the method for arranging and managing employment contracts of Fuessel the ability to receive certification information pertaining to at least one user as taught by Culver since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 3. Fuessel fails to disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to display the certification information. Culver however, shows searching and displaying professional accreditation/certification information-see Col. 44 lines 5-7, col. 46 lines 43-44 and Fig. 13C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuessel to include display certification information as taught by Culver in order to provide information about a job candidate such as required or desired professional certifications.
Re-claim 4. Fuessel fails to disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to store the certification within a data structure that maps the certification information to the at least one user. Culver however, teaches a profile database including professional accreditation. -see col. 45-46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuessel to include storing certification information associated with users as taught by Culver in order to provide employers the ability to search profiles stored in a database to find a job candidate having required professional certifications.
Claims 9-11, 16-18 have similar limitations found in claims 2-4 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
7. Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuessel in view of Magas in further view of Jakobsson et al. (WO 2022/266608 A1).
Re-claim 6. Fuessel fails to disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to use a graph neural network module to determine the relatedness metric. Jakobsson however, teaches “Multiple similarity scores can be generated from the one or more graph representations of a content element.”-[0271] using neural networks –[0265], [0268]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuessel to include determining similarity scores from a graph neural network model as taught by Jakobsson in order to use neural networks and graphs to use edges between nodes representing weights to asses relationships between nodes to determine a relatedness metric.
Claims 13, 20 have similar limitations found in claim 6 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights