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
This is a final rejection in response to claims/remarks filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1, 4 and 5 are amended. Claim 6 is newly added. Claims 1-6 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The claims hold priority to National Stage Application under 35 USC 371 of PCT/JP2021/045881 filed on 12/13/2021.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-3, and 6: A compatibility evaluation apparatus that evaluates compatibility between a target person and an evaluation target, the compatibility evaluation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
Claim 4: A compatibility evaluation method executed by a compatibility evaluation apparatus that evaluates compatibility between a target person and an evaluation target, the compatibility evaluation method comprising:
Claim 5: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to perform a process comprising:
Claims 1-3 and 6 are directed to an apparatus with processors and memory devices which is an apparatus claims and falls under at least “machine or manufacture.” Claim 4 is directed to a computer-executed method which falls under “process.” Claim 5 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium which falls under at least “manufacture.” Therefore, all of the claims fall under at least one potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 4, and 5 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1 Preamble: A compatibility evaluation apparatus that evaluates compatibility between a target person and an evaluation target, the compatibility evaluation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
Claim 4 Preamble: A compatibility evaluation method executed by a compatibility evaluation apparatus that evaluates compatibility between a target person and an evaluation target, the compatibility evaluation method comprising:
Claim 5 Preamble: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to perform a process comprising:
Claim 1 Body (also representative of claims 4 and 5 body):
Input(ting) target person text information that is text information on the target person;
Calculate(ing) a target person feature amount that is a non- financial feature amount from the target person text information, and calculate(ing) an evaluation target feature amount that is a non-financial feature amount from evaluation target text information that is text information on the evaluation target, the evaluation target feature amount being obtained by evaluating the non-financial feature amount based on relevance to real-time information on the evaluation target;
calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount in which the real-time information on the evaluation target is reflected; and
outputting, to a display, calculation results as objective evaluation in which the real-time information on the evaluation target is reflected.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 4, and 5 recite an abstract idea within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present invention falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In the instant case, the claims in bold recite steps of “Input(ting) target person text information that is text information on the target person; Calculate(ing) a target person feature amount that is a non- financial feature amount from the target person text information, and calculate(ing) an evaluation target feature amount that is a non-financial feature amount from evaluation target text information that is text information on the evaluation target; And calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount.” These steps clearly fall within the aforementioned sub-grouping because they perform mere data collection, data processing, or output to evaluate a user’s compatibility with a target feature. Similar business practices include determining ranking candidates for employment, or running compatibility algorithms on social applications, which are other examples of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” It is made clear in the disclosure, specifically paragraph [0012] of the instant specification, “According to the disclosed technique, there is provided a technique that makes it possible to automatically evaluate compatibility between a target person (for example, a job-hunting student) and an evaluation target (for example, a company).” Therefore, the present claims merely recite the management of personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people, which is a “certain method of organizing human activity.”
Furthermore, the bolded claims also recite a mental process, which as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) includes, “(thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea... Accordingly, the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Each of the steps of the functional limitations fail to preclude the ability to be performed in the human mind because they are merely “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” wherein the data analysis are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Calculating a target person feature amount, calculating an evaluation target feature amount, and calculating the compatibility of these two amounts can be performed in the human mind with the help of a pen and paper. For example, determining the vectors of a particular feature for a human and performing a cosine similarity on the two vectors can be performed on a pen and paper.
Furthermore, the amended claim limitation merely require the evaluation target feature amount being obtained by evaluating the non-financial feature amount based on relevance to real-time information on the evaluation target; Within the Broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation, as long as the amount is based on “real-time” information, the limitation has been met. However, the definition of “real-time” in and of itself is broad, because it does not specify or specifically limit the duration of time that would be considered “real-time.” Therefore, a person, manually recalculating the scores based on relatively new information, would satisfy the limitation. Thus the claims still recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes.”
Therefore the claims recite an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite the following the additional elements:
-compatibility evaluation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to: in claim 1
-compatibility evaluation apparatus in claim 4
- A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to perform a process comprising: in claim 5
-a display in claims 1, 4, 5
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “Input(ting) target person text information that is text information on the target person; Calculate(ing) a target person feature amount that is a non- financial feature amount from the target person text information, and calculate(ing) an evaluation target feature amount that is a non-financial feature amount from evaluation target text information that is text information on the evaluation target; And calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount” is merely instructed to be performed on generic computing components such as a memory, processor, computer, a non-transitory storage medium, and a display. It is evident in at least paragraph [0043] of the specification that these computer components are intended to be any computer capable of performing the functions, therefore, no improvement to a computer or a technical field has been implemented in the claims, which is one of the consideration in MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the examiner notes that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process as stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) which states, “For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Therefore, the additional elements, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even when considering the claims as a whole. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite the following the additional elements:
-compatibility evaluation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to: in claim 1
-compatibility evaluation apparatus in claim 4
- A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to perform a process comprising: in claim 5
- a display in claims 1, 4, 5
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing devices such as a memory, processor, computer, a non-transitory storage medium, and a display to perform the abstract idea of “Input(ting) target person text information that is text information on the target person; Calculate(ing) a target person feature amount that is a non- financial feature amount from the target person text information, and calculate(ing) an evaluation target feature amount that is a non-financial feature amount from evaluation target text information that is text information on the evaluation target; And calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 3 and 6 are also given the full two part analysis, with the additional elements being considered individually and in an ordered combination as a whole, resulting in the following determinations.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by adding further limitations on how the data processing is performed, whilst still being directed to more of the same abstract idea under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions,” and whilst still being capable to be performed in the human mind with the help of a pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of “generate a feature amount as a social value feature amount from text information related to evaluation of social value, Calculate the target person feature amount based on relevance between the target person text information and the social value feature amount, and calculates the evaluation target feature amount based on relevance between the evaluation target text information and the social value feature amount” are still reciting methods of organizing human activity, especially now that the claims include a social value feature amount as part of the evaluation of compatibility. The steps are also recited broadly enough such that they recite a mental process. Furthermore, there are not further additional elements recited, and even when considering the previous additional elements in claim 1, they still are merely “apply it” level elements on the abstract idea. Therefore, even when considering the claims as a whole, nothing in the claims provides significantly more to the abstract idea, thus, the claims are patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by specifying that the target person is a job-hunting student, and the evaluation target is a company, and the text information is describing a reason for an application of the target person to enter the company. This is more of the same abstract idea because it further maps closely to the abstract idea of matching compatibility between job seekers and companies which is a “certain method of organizing human activity.” Nothing in the claims precludes the ability to perform the functional limitations in the human mind, therefore it is still a mental process. Furthermore, there are not further additional elements recited, and even when considering the previous additional elements in claim 1, they still are merely “apply it” level elements on the abstract idea. Therefore, even when considering the claims as a whole, nothing in the claims provides significantly more to the abstract idea, thus, the claims are patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claim 6 further defines the abstract idea by adding steps that act as further instructions to a user to perform the abstract idea, wherein the steps are recited broadly that they encompass the scope of instructions to a person to perform calculations that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. For examples, extracting social values, calculating feature amounts for each of the social values, and converting the calculation results to numerical values are all broad abstract idea steps. The additional elements are “output, to the display,” “so as to display a list of the numerical values on a user interface screen of the display”, and “in response to a selection by a user on the user interface screen, cause the display to display information of a social value index.” In this case, the additional elements are no more than displaying the results of the data processing on display and user interfaces in their ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks (outputting data). Furthermore, even though the additional elements consist of an interaction of the user and the user interface to display more data, it does not provide an improvement to user interface technology because it does not provide new functionalities (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Therefore, even when considering the additional elements individual or as a combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (US 20150006422 A1) hereinafter Carter, in view of Yoon et al. (US 11449673 B2) hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5:
Carter discloses a computer-based system for recommending job seekers and employers based on a calculation of compatibility includes compatibility values. Carter teaches:
Claim 1 Preamble: A compatibility evaluation apparatus that evaluates compatibility between a target person and an evaluation target, the compatibility evaluation apparatus comprising: a processor: and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to: (Carter [0071] FIG. 1 shows a computer-based employment matching system 1000 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system generally includes an employment matching server system 1400, which may be distributed on one or more physical servers, each having one or more processors, memory, an operating system, and input/output interface, and one or more network interfaces all known in the art, a plurality of end user devices 1200, 1300, and one or more third-party job server systems 1500 coupled to a public network 1100, such as the Internet and/or a cellular-based wireless network.)
Claim 4 Preamble: A compatibility evaluation method executed by a compatibility evaluation apparatus that evaluates compatibility between a target person and an evaluation target, the compatibility evaluation method comprising: (Carter [0079] Features in the embodiments described above include:...the methods of comparison between these used to generate predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement scores.)
Claim 5 Preamble: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to perform a process comprising: (Carter [0072] An example embodiment of the employment matching server system 1400 is shown in FIG. 2. The employment matching server system 1400 generally includes a computer application job matching engine 1420 designed to match end users who are job seekers (also referred to herein as candidates) with jobs at which the potential to have a successful employment is optimized and/or employers who are also users of the matching server system 1400 with similarly optimized candidates.)
Claim 1 Body (also representative of claims 4 and 5 body):
- Input(ting) target person text information that is text information on the target person; (Carter [0100] Candidate profile 700s may be created using a profile building process including uploading photos, inputting information and completing questionnaires such as general demographics, values and culture, personality and value, company value, and/or company satisfaction. [0090] The system uses predictive models 514 in order to analyze user profiles and organizations and type profiles 518 in predicting work satisfaction 520. [0091] An example embodiment of a conceptual predictive model includes personality factors A-F, [0092] Examples of personality factors identified in a user personality questionnaire 506 may include aggressiveness, agreeableness, athleticism, attachment/autonomy, collaboration, conscientiousness, emotional stability, empathy, extraversion, openness, positive affect, self-esteem, social orientation, and others. Examples of values factors in organization culture/values questionnaire 510 and/or user values questionnaire 508 may include autonomy/independent thinking, communicative leadership, company stability, daily perks, daily stability, environmental consciousness,) The inputs into Carter’s questionnaires are examples of inputting target information that is text information on the target person.
- Calculate(ing) a target person feature amount that is a non- financial feature amount from the target person text information, (Carter [0084] Electronic system that uses the product of user descriptions and company descriptions as the primary input features in models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement. [0105] FIG. 10 shows a candidate/employer specific dynamic compatibility indicator 10000 in accordance with the present invention. This indicator is similar in nature to the general dynamic compatibility indicator 900 shown in FIG. 9 but represents a comparison of a particular candidate and employer. In the example embodiment a candidate side 10002 and employer side 10006 are shown with candidate scores 10004 and employer scores 10008. Also shown are positive candidate and employer indicator 10010, negative candidate indicator 10012 and negative employer indicator 10014. Metric list 10016 is shown in the center and may be color coded to intuitively show high levels of compatibility or low levels of compatibility as described previously for other metric comparisons. In the example embodiment the candidate side 10002 is filled to slightly less than 60%, indicating that the candidate may be a better candidate for the employer than nearly 60% of similarly situated candidates... Green metrics in metric list 10016 include team orientation, stability and innovation, indicating that these metrics may be points of particular compatibility between the candidate and employer. Red metrics in metric list 10016 include attention to detail indicating this metric may be a point of contention between the candidate and employer. Yellow metrics in metric list 10016 include aggressiveness and outcome orientation, indicating that these metrics may be neutral between the candidate and employer.) The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of target person feature amount is any metric, factor, feature that measures anything about the target person(job seeker). The primary input features from user descriptions are examples of a “target person feature amount.” It is clear that these feature amounts are non-financial features such as “team orientation, stability” and “aggressiveness.”
- and calculate(ing) an evaluation target feature amount that is a non-financial feature amount from evaluation target text information that is text information on the evaluation target; (Carter [0083] Electronic system that generalizes compatibility scores from specific companies to compatibility with Company Type profiles [0084] Electronic system that uses the product of user descriptions and company descriptions as the primary input features in models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement [0085] Electronic system that uses the absolute difference multiplied by the sum of individual and company scores on matched individual values and company culture factors as a primary input feature into empirically validated statistical models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement [0086] Electronic system that uses the absolute difference multiplied by the sum of candidate and current worker scores on matched personality factors as a primary input feature into empirically validated statistical models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement. [0105] FIG. 10 shows a candidate/employer specific dynamic compatibility indicator 10000 in accordance with the present invention. This indicator is similar in nature to the general dynamic compatibility indicator 900 shown in FIG. 9 but represents a comparison of a particular candidate and employer. In the example embodiment a candidate side 10002 and employer side 10006 are shown with candidate scores 10004 and employer scores 10008. ) The BRI of “evaluation target feature amount” is any metric, measure or feature of anything regarding the evaluation target (employer score in [0105]).
- And calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount(Carter [0129] Information from database 18012 may become an input to a compatibility scorer 18018, the result of which may be used in job listings and scores database 18034 and used to create matches that are delivered to candidates or employers 18020. Scoring a match does not mandate delivering it as a match. The mechanism for scoring something, even if those define a high compatibility as a match, is not the same mechanism as selecting a match. Selection may be dependent upon numerous scores and numerous independent business rules. [0132] Compatibility scorer 18018 may use correlational models in order to calculate predictive scores. These models may be created using self-provided information of users of relationship predicting program 18008 including personality and values information, current work culture information and job satisfaction information to create scores for a number of predetermined factors and then using those factors to predict individual job satisfaction and performance across other employer. [0097] In the example embodiment a “Values” category 716, “Skills” category 718, and “Personality” category 720 are shown. A "Values" category 716 may include lists 722 a "Most compatible on:" list (ex: innovation, sustainability, perks) and a “Least compatible on:” list (ex: financial, performance, growth). A graphical depiction of values may show a most compatible value in large script and a compatibility percentage 724, 728 may be displayed in multiple locations.)
- outputting, to a display, calculation results as objective evaluation(Carter [0096] Also included at the top of the page for intuitive viewing is an enlarged compatibility score 714. The compatibility score may be rated on many different scales, in the example embodiment a percentage score is used with 100% being highly compatible and 0% being less compatible. Also included may be one of numerous descriptors. In the example embodiment the candidate is shown as having an 89% and a "very compatible" description. [0079] Features in the embodiments described above include: [0080] Matching engine that calculates measurements of personality and values being collected on individuals, measurements of culture and values being collected on companies, and the methods of comparison between these used to generate predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement scores.)
However, Carter fails to teach:
- the evaluation target feature amount being obtained by evaluating the non-financial feature amount based on relevance to real-time information on the evaluation target;
- that the calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount is based on evaluation target feature amount in which the real-time information on the evaluation target is reflected; and(Carter does teach calculating the compatibility but does not specify that the evaluation target feature amount is based on the real-time information.)
- that the outputting, to a display, calculation results as objective evaluation step is based on calculation results in which the real-time information on the evaluation target is reflected.
Alternatively, Yoon discloses an ESG-based company evaluation device which collects a plurality of news articles on the internet and perform a similarity analysis to determine an ESG valuation score based on the news articles regarding environment, society, and governance. Yoon teaches:
- the evaluation target feature amount being obtained by evaluating the non-financial feature amount based on relevance to real-time information on the evaluation target;(Yoon [Col. 12 Lines 25-41] An embodiment of the inventive concept provides a Environment, Social, Governance (ESG) company evaluation device for evaluating a company from the viewpoint of ESG to calculate a score including: a news collection unit configured to collect a plurality of news articles on Internet and classify them by date or company, and perform clustering on news articles whose similarity is higher than a reference value through a similarity analysis between the news articles; a news classification unit configured to classify each of the news articles related to an issue of environment, society, or governance; and an evaluation result deriving unit configured to calculate an ESG risk for a corresponding cluster in cluster units and calculate an ESG company evaluation score based on the calculated value.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of non-financial feature amount based on relevance to real-time information on the evaluation target is in view of present specification in at least paragraph [0048], “As a premise of the flowchart of Fig. 6, it is assumed that the text information regarding the compatibility evaluation target company is stored in the text DB 150. The text information is information obtained in real time regarding the compatibility evaluation target company, and the text DB 150 is updated as needed by the real-time text information. [0049] The text information may be any text information regarding the compatibility evaluation target company, such as press, news release, or SNS.” Given this context, the limitation is interpreted to encompass performing an evaluation of the company’s ESG score based on relevance/similarity scores derived from real-time information such as online news sources about the company.
- that the calculate(ing) the compatibility based on the target person feature amount and the evaluation target feature amount is based on evaluation target feature amount in which the real-time information on the evaluation target is reflected; and(Yoon [Col. 11 Lines 43-51] When an individual or company utilizing ESG company evaluation results requires a basis for evaluation scores for a particular company, the ESG company evaluation device 100 may include a function for providing a basis for the score. In other words, when the evaluation score for a company's articles is calculated, the evaluation score may provide information that it is greatly influenced by the frequency of certain words in the articles, and may search for and provide articles including the word.) Since the evaluation score provides context on the frequency of certain words, the limitation above has been satisfied because the real-time information is reflected.
- that the outputting, to a display, calculation results as objective evaluation step is based on calculation results in which the real-time information on the evaluation target is reflected. (Yoon [Col. 8 Lines 18-27] The evaluation result deriving unit 140 according to an embodiment may perform ESG company evaluation based on news articles collected by the news collection unit 120 and sorted by category by the news classification unit 130. That is, the evaluation result deriving unit 140 may perform scoring on each company based on the ESG related articles and may perform the company evaluation through the score. As described above, the evaluation result deriving unit 140 may include an evidence level calculation unit 141, an ESG probability calculation unit 142, and a score calculation unit 143. [Col. 9 Lines 58-63] The ESG probability calculation unit 142 may calculate the ESG probability of each cluster using Equation 4.(55) FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating a result of the ESG probability calculation unit 142 performing ESG probability calculation for each cluster according to an embodiment of the present invention.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Carter’s compatibility score calculation system by implementing Yoon’s ESG score calculation based on online news articles within the system. Since Carter already teaches evaluating a company and a job seekers compatibility broadly based on non-financial features such as sustainability, environmental consciousness, and social features, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated by Yoon’s suggestion to implements online and SNS activity into ERG score evaluation to generate a more reliable picture of the company’s social factors. (Yoon [Col. 1 Lines 18-34]] In general, it was common for companies to evaluate companies based on quantitative financial data, but recently, a methodology for evaluating companies and analyzing risks based on non-financial data has emerged. Any disadvantageous content to the company is not reflected on the financial data disclosed by the companies does not reflect, and reliability of financial reports provided by companies is also questionable. When we look at the reasons that companies need to analyze non-financial data, as people's SNS activities through the Internet become more active, in some cases, company reputation is shaken by certain rumors about a company or product and risks associated with corporate crime or health related rumors may increase the risk of the company. However, these events are difficult to analyze through financial data. As a result, companies may be analyzed through financial data as well as non-financial data, thereby enabling more accurate corporate evaluation.)
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Carter and Yoon teaches The compatibility evaluation apparatus according to claim 1,
Furthermore, Carter teaches wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to:
-generate a feature amount as a social value feature amount from text information related to evaluation of social value, and (Carter [0076] In an embodiment, the job matching engine 1420 is configured to generate more than one compatibility values, or predictive scores, between two or more correlated profiles, where each compatibility value, or predictive score, is associated with a different set of factors and/or different weighing of factors. [0092] Examples of values factors in organization culture/values questionnaire 510 and/or user values questionnaire 508 may include autonomy/independent thinking, communicative leadership, company stability, daily perks, daily stability, environmental consciousness [0072] To obtain potential matches, each job seeker must be represented by a plurality of normalized descriptors or “candidate profile” and each employer must be represented by a plurality of normalized descriptors or “employer profile.” A candidate profile includes data and factors which have been empirically shown to be relevant to finding and establishing successful employment job seekers. ) Values factors such as “environmental consciousness” satisfies the social value feature amount limitation, which is given the BRI of any measure of non-financial value, such as SDG (sustainable development goals) in [0040] of the specification.
-calculate the target person feature amount based on relevance between the target person text information and the social value feature amount, and (Carter [0072] A candidate profile includes data and factors which have been empirically shown to be relevant to finding and establishing successful employment job seekers. These data and factors include, but are not limited to, education, work experiences, past employers, values, interests, preferences, personality factors, and so on. An employer profile includes data and factors potentially relevant to finding a successful employee for that employer. These data include, but are not limited to, job descriptions, job requirements, culture measures, personality measures of current employees, market and business factors, and so on. Candidate profile data will be collected via online questionnaires completed by each individual in order to describe themselves. [0103] Metrics 810 in the example embodiment include innovation, stability, respect for people, outcome orientation, attention to details, team orientation, aggressiveness, and others. Each metric is associated with a bar including a numerical value representative of a relative value of importance. The numerical value may be determined in relation to similarly situated candidates or employers or may be determined on a different basis. [0107] The heat map 11006 includes tiles, where each tile represents the intersection of a personality or values factor (candidate score)) The determination of a numerical value in relation to similarly situated candidates is an example of calculating a target person feature amount based on target person text information and social value feature amount since it determines the value of a metric based on a similarity between the job-seekers profile data and the relevant metrics. See personality or values factor (candidate score).
-calculates the evaluation target feature amount based on relevance between the evaluation target text information and the social value feature amount. (Carter [0093] FIG. 6 shows an example embodiment of a scoring abstraction 600 in accordance with the present invention. In the example embodiment culture profiles may be generated utilizing escalating levels of generalization. This may allow the system to generate compatibility scores between candidates and employers for whom no direct data is available. In other words, the system allows for abstraction of employer qualities based on similarly situated employers. Relative values of general compatibility scores may be estimated in part on consistency of scores within a level of abstraction. In some embodiments this means calculating a standard deviation of any and/or all average scores and using a resulting confidence interval for an estimate of compatibility. [0102] Second is “This company’s profile” chart 804 which shows the importance of particular metrics for a particular company or employer that the candidate may be researching. In the example embodiment each of the metrics shown are the same while in other embodiments there may be additional non-overlapping metrics. In many embodiments levels of the metrics shown in chart 802 and 804 are derived from questionnaires another analysis of a candidate and employer profile. [0132] Compatibility scorer 18018 may use correlational models in order to calculate predictive scores. These models may be created using self-provided information of users of relationship predicting program 18008 including personality and values information, current work culture information and job satisfaction information to create scores for a number of predetermined factors and then using those factors to predict individual job satisfaction and performance across other employer.) See culture factor (employer score). Calculating the employer score or metrics based on the questionnaire satisfies the limitation above.
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Carter and Yoon teaches The compatibility evaluation apparatus according to claim 1,
Furthermore, Carter teaches
-wherein the target person is a job-hunting student, (Carter [0111] Employment searching for candidates may include the ability for candidates to search for jobs using multiple criteria including location, job attributes, skills, pay level, number of employees, industry, and many others. [0112] Candidates may fall into various categories based on their status in the system. A first candidate status may be incomplete job seeker. [0126] Candidates may use a resume builder/editor 16010 and/or upload a resume 16012, such as with a text or other file. A resume builder may contain sections including experience (such as title, company name and dates), skills, education (such as degree, school, majors, minors, dates),) Since the job-seeker can input their school, then the limitation is satisfied.
-the evaluation target is a company, and (Carter [0120] A second employer status may be registered hiring company. Employers with this status may have validated an account registration themselves (for instance, by clicking a verification link in an email from the system to the employer’s registration email address) or have been registered by the system through other means (such as by linking a profile from social media, using customer service, or others).)
-the target person text information is text information describing a reason for an application of the target person to enter a company.(Carter [0128] Second is a refined search which includes searching and scoring based on user defined search terms in combination with an automatic process based on an available job listing. Third is a custom search which includes searching and scoring based solely on user defined search terms. In many embodiments employers must be subscribers in order to use custom search capabilities. [0137] FIG. 20 shows an example embodiment of a refined employment search flow for a candidate 21000 in accordance with the present invention. Refined searches allow for search and scoring based on user defined search terms including criteria and weights in combination with the automatic process based on a job seekers profile information. Search queries may be displayed on custom search builder pages, custom search results pages, automated search results pages, refined search results pages, and basic search results pages. In the example embodiment the system receives a user defined search in step 21002 such as a search term and parameter category. [0092] Examples of values factors in organization culture/values questionnaire 510 and/or user values questionnaire 508 may include autonomy/independent thinking, communicative leadership, company stability, daily perks, daily stability, environmental consciousness, innovation, market position, motivational, opportunity for growth, orderliness, playfulness, prestige, respect for employees, serenity, socially responsible, team spirit, work complexity, work-life balance, and others.) In [0137] the job seeker defines the search and chooses several parameters, this search is an example of text information describing reason for the seeker to enter a company. For example, the reason a user might want to enter a company could because of “environmental consciousness,” “opportunity for growth” or any of the values factors listed in [0092].
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Carter and Yoon teaches The compatibility evaluation apparatus according to claim 1,
Furthermore, Carter teaches wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to:
- extract a plurality of social value indexes from social value information on the evaluation target; (Carter [0072] each employer must be represented by a plurality of normalized descriptors or "employer profile." A candidate profile includes data and factors which have been empirically shown to be relevant to finding and establishing successful employment job seekers. These data and factors include, but are not limited to, education, work experiences, past employers, values, interests, preferences, personality factors, and so on. An employer profile includes data and factors potentially relevant to finding a successful employee for that employer. These data include, but are not limited to, job descriptions, job requirements, culture measures, personality measures of current employees, market and business factors, and so on. Candidate profile data will be collected via online questionnaires completed by each individual in order to describe themselves. Employer profile data include data aggregated from relevant candidate users, questionnaires completed by current employees of the employer surveyed off-site, and third party data purchased from industry tracking services such as Hoover's.[0083] Electronic system that generalizes compatibility scores from specific companies to compatibility with Company Type profiles [0084] Electronic system that uses the product of user descriptions and company descriptions as the primary input features in models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement [0087] In many embodiments, numerous employers... will be profiled based on empirical data gathered from their current employees, and/or will be associated with a company type profile, and this information will be used to generate compatibility scores for candidates in order to evaluate jobs for potential employment.) The BRI of “social value index” in view of the specification is any indications (scores, descriptors, keywords, metrics) regarding non-financial features of a company. In the present specification, [0040] (Feature amount generation phase) The text DB 132 of the feature generation module 130 stores, for example, a plurality of sentences (text information) indicating goals of activities for increasing social value. Specifically, for example, 169 target sentences of the SDGs are stored. The targets or goals may be referred to as social value indexes. Since Carter teaches obtaining normalized descriptors of an employer (evaluation target) the limitation has been taught.
- calculate the target person feature amount for each of the plurality of social value indexes, and calculate the evaluation target feature amount for each of the plurality of social value indexes; (Carter [0102] FIG. 8 shows an example embodiment of compatibility visualizations 800 in accordance with the present invention. In the example embodiment three charts are shown. First is "How important for you" chart 802 which shows the importance of particular metrics to a candidate. Second is "This company's profile" chart 804 which shows the importance of particular metrics for a particular company or employer that the candidate may be researching. In the example embodiment each of the metrics shown are the same while in other embodiments there may be additional non-overlapping metrics. [0084] Electronic system that uses the product of user descriptions and company descriptions as the primary input features in models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement [0085] Electronic system that uses the absolute difference multiplied by the sum of individual and company scores on matched individual values and company culture factors as a primary input feature into empirically validated statistical models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement [0086] Electronic system that uses the absolute difference multiplied by the sum of candidate and current worker scores on matched personality factors as a primary input feature into empirically validated statistical models of predicted compatibility/satisfaction/engagement ) The importance for each particular metric is the target feature amount of each of the social value indexes. The importance of a particular metric to a candidate is the target person feature amount and the importance of the metric to a company or employer is the evaluation target feature amount.
- convert the calculation results to numerical values for the plurality of social value indexes, respectively; (Carter [0102] In many embodiments levels of the metrics shown in chart 802 and 804 are derived from questionnaires and other analysis of a candidate and employer profile. Third is "Overlap" chart 806 which shows a composite chart with a combination of chart 802 and 804. "Overlap" chart 806 is useful for both candidates and employers since it identifies strengths and weaknesses in compatibility during a preliminary stage in the employment searching process. If many negative correlations and few positive correlations are shown then the system may identify that the match may not be successful. Alternatively, if many positive correlations and few negative correlations are shown then the system may be able to identify that the match may be successful. In some embodiments compatibility may be ranked using a scale between 0 and 100%. The system may then label particular ranges considering all compatibility factors as "Highly Compatible", "Average Compatibility", "Below Average Compatibility", "Low Compatibility" and/or others as appropriate.) Also see Fig. 8 for how each of the social values are scored and converted to a numerical value between 0 to 100% for each social value index respectively.
- output, to the display, the numerical values converted from the calculation results for the plurality of social value indexes so as to display a list of the numerical values on a user interface screen of the display; and (Carter [0105] FIG. 10 shows a candidate/employer specific dynamic compatibility indicator 10000 in accordance with the present invention. This indicator is similar in nature to the general dynamic compatibility indicator 900 shown in FIG. 9 but represents a comparison of a particular candidate and employer. In the example embodiment a candidate side 10002 and employer side 10006 are shown with candidate scores 10004 and employer scores 10008. Also shown are positive candidate and employer indicator 10010, negative candidate indicator 10012 and negative employer indicator 10014. Metric list 10016 is shown in the center and may be color coded to intuitively show high levels of compatibility or low levels of compatibility as described previously for other metric comparisons. In the example embodiment the candidate side 10002 is filled to slightly less than 60%, indicating that the candidate may be a better candidate for the employer than nearly 60% of similarly situated candidates. The employer side 10006 is filled to slightly greater than 60%, indicating that the employer may be a better employer for the candidate than greater than 60% of similarly situated employers. Green metrics in metric list 10016 include team orientation, stability and innovation, indicating that these metrics may be points of particular compatibility between the candidate and employer. Red metrics in metric list 10016 include attention to detail indicating this metric may be a point of contention between the candidate and employer. Yellow metrics in metric list 10016 include aggressiveness and outcome orientation, indicating that these metrics may be neutral between the candidate and employer.) Figs 9 and 10 are examples of outputting the numerical values for display for each social value index.
- in response to a selection by a user on the user interface screen, cause the display to display information of a social value index corresponding to a selected numerical value by the user from the list. (Carter [0107] The heat map 11006 includes tiles, where each tile represents the intersection of a personality or values factor (candidate score) and a culture factor (employer score). A color represents whether the interaction predicts a positive or negative outcome, and the intensity of the color indicates the strength of this unitary prediction. In the example embodiment colors may range from red to orange, pink, yellow, green, aqua, and blue indicating poor intersections to good intersections respectively. In an example embodiment a candidate and/or employer may hover a cursor over or select a particular tile to receive more information about levels of compatibility of the personality or values factor and/or culture factor.) Selecting a tile in Carter allows the user to display more information for the particular social value index, which satisfies the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant has argued that the amended claims introduce additional elements that constitute a meaningful limitation by requiring the use of the technology to acquire real-time information. However, the claim only requires that the evaluation target feature amount being obtained by evaluating the non-financial feature amount based on relevance to real-time information on the evaluation target; Within the Broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation, as long as the amount is based on “real-time” information, the limitation has been met. However, the definition of “real-time” in and of itself is broad, because it does not specify or specifically limit the duration of time that would be considered “real-time.” In response to applicant's argument that the claims require the use of technology, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., acquire real-time information distributed on a daily basis- such as press articles, news releases, or social networking service (SNS) data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims must positively recite the technological structure performing the scraping of such online information to be considered as additional elements, otherwise, the amended limitations still fall within the abstract idea categorization. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the claims requires technological operations to collect, process, and analyze dynamic information streams is not persuasive.
Furthermore, the applicant further argues that the specific features of outputting and display calculation results ensures that the claimed subject matter is directed to a practical application. However, this argument is not persuasive because merely reciting displaying the results of the abstract idea analysis is not a practical application, as explicitly stated in MPEP 2106.05(h),
“Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments over 101 are persuasive and the rejection stands.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over prior art, starting on page 7 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant asserts that Carter does not teach or suggest using real-time information on the evaluation target, or that the information on the alleged evaluation target is based on relevance to real-time information. While the examiner agrees with these findings, the arguments are moot in view of the updated rejection, based on the combination of Carter and Yoon, in which Yoon is relied upon to teach the real-time information analysis. Since the obvious combination of Carter and Yoon teaches the entire scope of the claim, including each and every limitation in its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims remain rejected. This applies to claims 1-5, and to new claim 6, in which the combination has been shown to teach all of the amended features of claim 6 as well. The applicant acknowledges that no further remarks regarding dependent claims have been made by the applicant with the presumption that claims 1, 4, and 5 would be viewed as allowable. However, the examiner reiterates that claims 1, 4 and 5 are not allowable therefore, claims 2, 3 and 6 are not allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Thus claims 1-6 remain rejected as being obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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 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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 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, 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights