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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, representative of claim 11, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites invention directed to identifying a candidate who meets the criteria of a hiring entity, scheduling an interview-meeting between the hiring entity and the identified candidate, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: processing and making a payment to the identified candidate to participated in an interview with the hiring entity, and processing the payment associated with the interview to the identified candidates, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Additionally, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: entering one or more search criteria for the position by way of the job board module (posting of a job opening); selecting a pay rate for an interview for the position by way of the automated payment module; recommending, at least one recommended candidate user of the plurality of candidate users based on one or more job skills residing in the job board module, wherein selected candidate have agreed to having an interview session with the hiring entity, is recommended, interview is initiated between the hiring entity and the recommended candidate, and time for the interview is tracked to determine payment to be made to the recommended user, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
. The independent claims further recite the additional functional element of using “Artificial Intelligence Module (AIIM)” for identifying an recommending a candidate base on one or more job skill associated with the job opening announcement and answers obtained fom the with the candidate registered with the system. Not only do these features fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see below), but it can also reasonably be seen as the conventional application of well-known machine learning concepts to build and train a model to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: “one or more processors” for executing computer-executable instructions, a (transitory) memory for storing computer-executable instructions (software) and profiding Artificial Intelligence and plurality of software modules; “communication interface” to enable users to communicate with the processor. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. a generic computer).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20 dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea of defining what functions will the plurality perform, defining that a default rate will be used to determine payment to the recommended candidate, requiring candidates to attest that their interview will not raise conflict of interest, changing the status of the interview when it is completed, and what criteria will be used to identify candidates. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are 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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La-Londe et al UK Publication GB-2556406 in view of Jack Kelly published article “It’s Time For Job Seekers To Get Paid For Interviewing” hereinafter referred to as Jack-Kelly and Isasi US Publication 2024/0112102.
Regarding claim 1 and representative claim 20, A computer-implemented method for performing interview hiring for a position involving a plurality of candidate users of a system (La-Londe, system and method of anticipating hiring needs and aggregating and analyzing diverse candidate data at a server and providing the aggregated and analyzed candidate data through a networked agent) [La-Londe, 0004], the system and method comprising:
at least one processor [La-Londi, 0037];
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor [La-Londe, 0037];
La-Londe does not teach pay-per-interview. However, Jack-Kelly teaches that in challenging job market, companies are having, given this fact pattern, companies start considering paying candidates for their time [Jack-Kelly, page 3].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify La-Londe by adopting teachings of Jack-Kelly to slash down number of interviews whenever practical and save recruitments costs and fill the job-vacancy efficiently.
La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly teaches system and method further comprising:
a computer-implemented method for performing pay-per-interview hiring [Jack-Kelly] for a position involving a plurality of candidate users of a pay-per-interview system, the system and method [La-Londe, 0004] further comprising:
a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor [La-Londe, 0037], for:
providing the pay-per-interview system comprising an artificial intelligence module (AIM), wherein the AIM is configured to match job skills to job search criteria for making a recommendation (La-Londe, the machine learned rondels may be applied to all job listings for which the hiring manager has requisitioned. Alternatively, the matching engine 208 may store the foregoing machine-learned observations in association with a hiring manager and the particular job listing.) [La-Londe, 098, 0149 – 0152];
La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly does not explicitly teach payment module. However, Isasi teaches system and method to facilitate the recruitment of candidates to meet the staffing requirements of unique services. Isasi teaches payment module for processing payments (Isasi, Once compensation amount is determined, a fee payment amount is calculated, which functions as the fee or commission owed to the staffing service website proprietor (step 396), such as a percentage of overall compensation. Any fee calculation strategy can be used to determine the fee amount.) [Isasi, 0073].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly by adopting teachings of Isasi to ensure that all bill are settled at the time of the completion of project.
La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method further comprising:
providing the pay-per-interview system comprising an artificial intelligence module (AIM) (La-Londe, the machine learned rondels may be applied to all job listings for which the hiring manager has requisitioned. Alternatively, the matching engine 208 may store the foregoing machine-learned observations in association with a hiring manager and the particular job listing.) [La-Londe, 098, 0149 – 0152], a job board module (
La-Londe, FIG. 9 illustrates a user interface 900 for viewing open positions, according to an implementation of the invention. Ul 900 may include a display portion 902 fbr displaying a listing of open positions. Such open positions may be all open positions handled by the hiring manager, open positions for an employer of the hiring manager, and/or other open positions to which the hiring manager may have access (including all positions hosted by the system). Selection of a given one of the open positions may cause a corresponding UI 1000 to be displayed.) [La-Londe, 0167, also see Isasi, 0008], an automated payment module, and a time track module (Isasi, Once compensation amount is determined, a fee payment amount is calculated, which functions as the fee or commission owed to the staffing service website proprietor (step 396), such as a percentage of overall compensation. Any fee calculation strategy can be used to determine the fee amount.) [Isasi, 0073], wherein the AIM is configured to match job skills to job search criteria for making a recommendation [La-Londe, 0147 – 0154, Fig. 4 and associated disclosure);
entering one or more search criteria for the position by way of the job board module (La-Londe, obtaining a job profile comprising a plurality of job parameters that specify a position to be filled. In some instances, the job profile job profile is based on a job template that includes at least some of the plurality of job parameters) [La-Londe, 0147];
selecting a pay rate for an interview for the position by way of the automated payment module (Isasi, Once compensation amount is determined, a fee payment amount is calculated, which functions as the fee or commission owed to the staffing service website proprietor (step 396), such as a percentage of overall compensation. Any fee calculation strategy can be used to determine the fee amount.) [Isasi, 0073, Fig. 13 shows candidate rate; also see La-Londe Table-4 on page 17], wherein the AIM is configured to match job skills to job search criteria for making a recommendation [La-Londe, 0147 – 0154, Fig. 4 and associated disclosure);
automatically recommending, by way of the AIM, at least one recommended candidate user of the plurality of candidate users based on one or more job skills residing in the job board module, wherein resulting from answers obtained from automated communications with the candidate users of the pay-per-interview system (La-Londe, causing a message to be transmitted to a mobile application executing at a user device of the hiring manager. The message may indicate that the first candidate has been matched to the job listing responsive to the determination that the first match score passes a threshold match score) [La-Londe, 0148 – 0152];
initiating the interview with a first recommended candidate user of the at least one recommended candidate user for a time period automatically tracked by the time track module (La-Londe, causing an interview to be scheduled between the hiring manager and the first candidate. For example, to cause an interview to be schedule, process 400 may transmit a message to the hiring manager and/or the first candidate that an interview should be scheduled. The hiring manager and/or the first candidate may arrange such interview, and process 400 may store such scheduling in a system-controlled calendar. Alliteratively or additionally, process 400 may access a calendar associated with the hiring manager and/or the first candidate and add an interview calendar item to the calendar.) [La-Londe, 0154]; and
automatically transmitting a payment, by way of the automated payment module, to the first recommended candidate user, wherein the payment comprises a product of the pay rate and the time period, whereby every dialog or conversation needs to be paid (Isasi, Once performance occurs, the escrow funds are transferred to the staffing platform entity (e.g., staffing website owner) (step 422).) [Jack-Kelly, 0078].
Regarding claim 2 and representative claim 12, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, wherein the pay-per-interview system further comprises a scheduling module configured to facilitate initiating the interview (La-Londe, causing an interview to be scheduled between the hiring manager and the first candidate. For example, to cause an interview to be schedule, process 400 may transmit a message to the hiring manager and/or the first candidate that an interview should be scheduled. The hiring manager and/or the first candidate may arrange such interview, and process 400 may store such scheduling in a system-controlled calendar. Alliteratively or additionally, process 400 may access a calendar associated with the hiring manager and/or the first candidate and add an interview calendar item to the calendar.) [La-Londe, 0154].
Regarding claim 3 and representative claim 13, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, further representing on a user interface, via the scheduling module, a calendar initiating the interview (To facilitate scheduling a meeting, scheduling and hiring manager 310 may generate a scheduling Ul that provides display options for navigating users with whom to meet, input tirnes to meet ("times" including a date and/or time of day), input location to meet, information indicating a topic for the meeting (e.g., an interview for a particular job listing, which may be identified), and/or other information for scheduling a meeting. …. Once a time has been agreed upon (whether an alternative time was proposed or not), scheduling and hiring engine 210 may schedule the meeting and, in some implementations, cause a calendar appointment to be made on the hiring manager's calendar, the recruiter's calendar, and/or the candidate's calendar.) [La-Londe, 0104 – 0108].
Regarding claim 4 and representative claim 14, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, further representing on a user interface, via the scheduling module, the interview (La-Londe, as responded to above) [La-Londe, 0104 – 0108].
Regarding claim 5 and representative claim 15, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, further automatically representing on the user interface, via the time track module, the time period juxtaposed the interview representation (Isasi, Once compensation amount is determined, a fee payment amount is calculated (e.g., hours-worked x hourly-rate), which functions as the fee or commission owed to the staffing service website proprietor (step 396), such as a percentage of overall compensation. Any fee calculation strategy can be used to determine the fee amount.) [Isasi, 0073, Fig. 13 shows candidate rate; also see La-Londe Table-4 on page 17].
Regarding claim 6 and representative claim 16, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, further automatically selecting, by way of the automated payment module, a default pay rate prior to the pay rate selection for the interview (Isasi, Once compensation amount is determined, a fee payment amount is calculated (e.g., hours-worked x hourly-rate (minimum hourly rate)), which functions as the fee or commission owed to the staffing service website proprietor (step 396), such as a percentage of overall compensation. Any fee calculation strategy can be used to determine the fee amount.) [Isasi, 0073, Fig. 13 shows candidate rate; also see La-Londe Table-4 on page 17].
Regarding claim 7 and representative claim 17, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, further automatically highlighting on the user interface, by way of the AIM, the one or more job skills associated with the recommendation (La-Londe, matching UI manager 208 may rank, sort, and provide the potential matches via a UI. ln some instances, each potential match may be displayed alongside their match score. In some instances, match variables contributing to the match score rnay be presented as well. In this rnanner, the user may be presented with information that indicates why a potential match was made and the match variables that contributed to such match.(e.g., I lieu or using colors, to draw user’s attention to a candidate, their skill levels are displayed using a score))) [La-Londe, 0101].
Regarding claim 9 and representative claim 19, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, further automatically marking the recommendation upon completion of the interview (Isasi, the candidate evaluation process draws to a close once a decision is made on each candidate profile in the search results hit list (step 352)) [Isasi, 0071].
Regarding claim 10 and representative claim 20, as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi teaches system and method, wherein the job criteria comprise a salary, and wherein the pay rate is automatically modified based on the salary (Isasi, Once performance occurs, the escrow funds are transferred to the staffing platform entity (e.g., staffing website owner) (step 422).) [Jack-Kelly, 0078].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La-Londe et al UK Publication GB-2556406 in view of Jack Kelly published article “It’s Time For Job Seekers To Get Paid For Interviewing” hereinafter referred to as Jack-Kelly, Isasi US Publication 2024/0112102 and Ardent Search Company published article “Ethics And The Search Process” hereinafter referred to as Ardent.
Regarding claim 8 and representative claim 18, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi does not teach prompting each candidate user for a pledge regarding a conflict preventing the candidate user from taking the position. However, Ardent teaches to ethically perform search process, conflict of interest should be avoided. Ardent further recites conflict of interests can happen in business and nonprofit organizations. A recruiter should disclose any conflict and resolve them upfront whenever possible. Conflicts can sometimes involve members of the search committee. Larger search firms may allow one recruiter to deny access to “their” candidates for other recruiters so only they can consider a specific candidate. Another valid option is a search firm can commit to not serving two clients simultaneously who are seeking the same type of candidate [Ardent, page 1].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly and Isasi by adopting teachings of Ardent to suggest only the candidates that do not have conflict of interest with the entity associated with the user.
as combined and under the same rationale as above, La-Londe in view of Jack-Kelly, Isasi and Ardent teaches system and method, wherein the pay-per-interview system automatically prompts each candidate user for a pledge regarding a conflict preventing the candidate user from taking the position [Ardent, page 1].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
September 20, 2025