DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first office action upon examination of application number 18/752023. Claims 1-23 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-23 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.
(Step 1) Claims 1-11 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 12-22 are directed to a system comprising processing circuitry; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 23 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to rank personnel’s suitability for assignments, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
generating a personnel model using records from a plurality of distinct databases, the records describing:
a plurality of individuals; and
for each individual, one or more attributes that are associated with the individual and relate to a suitability of the individual to a military operational assignment;
determining, for each of the individuals, the suitability of the individual to the military operational assignment based on a plurality of suitability criteria and the one or more attributes associated with the individual;
ranking the individuals in suitability order; and
outputting a natural language explanation of how an attribute influenced the ranking of an individual.
The identified limitations in the claims describing ranking personnel’s suitability for assignments (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior. Dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 20, 21, and 22 recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea; therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the processing circuitry and memory circuitry, the memory circuitry storing instructions executable by the processing circuitry in claim 12, and the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program in claim 23, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a computer/processor. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Spec. [0070]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 12-14, 16, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0065769 (Gupta).
As per claim 1, Gupta teaches: a method, implemented by a computing system, the method comprising: generating a personnel model using records from a plurality of distinct databases, the records describing: a plurality of individuals; and for each individual, one or more attributes that are associated with the individual and relate to a suitability of the individual to a military operational assignment; ([Abstract] …determining a compatibility score between candidates in the candidate list, ordering the candidate list based on the compatibility scores of candidates [0004] … comparing previous positions, skills, and educational background of the candidates [0043] … parse the candidates resume to understand his/her top skills, experience (e.g. years of experience, previous companies etc.) and educational background. [0046] … parses the job-description (JD) and extracts the meaningful entities and keywords from the job description (b); discloses a job/operational-assignment. The recitation of a ‘military’ assignment does not provide any functional limitations to the claim)
determining, for each of the individuals, the suitability of the individual to the military operational assignment based on a plurality of suitability criteria and the one or more attributes associated with the individual; ([0044] … compute a degree of match between a candidate profile and a position-detail profile [0045] The compatibility score may be a single number or a percentage summary (e.g. 69% match) or text/word representing the qualitative degree of match (e.g. great, good, neutral, stretch, poor) for the position based on the overall compatibility report details. [0048] In an embodiment, the compatibility score measures the match between a candidate's resume and the possible subsequent position. The compatibility score is calculated for different sections (e.g. skills, certifications, positions, education, location, years of experience, and salary), and are combined for an overall score)
ranking the individuals in suitability order; and ([Abstract] …determining a compatibility score between candidates in the candidate list, ordering the candidate list based on the compatibility scores of candidates [0071] The candidate ordering module orders the candidate list based on the compatibility scores of candidates in the candidate lists to obtain an ordered candidate list that is ordered based on compatibility scores.)
outputting a natural language explanation of how an attribute influenced the ranking of an individual ([0045] … the compatibility score could include explanations on the various parts that contributed to the score, such as skills, schools, previous positions, years of experience etc. [0048] … identification of top missing skills can be used to improve [0044] …the compatibility report may inform the recruiter that the candidate profile satisfies 4 skills out of the top 10 skills mentioned for a position at USPTO and notify the recruiter about the remaining 6 skills that are missing.)
As per claim 2, Gupta teaches: wherein the natural language explanation comprises an indication that the attribute positively or negatively influenced the ranking of the candidate due to the candidate either being associated or unassociated with the candidate attribute ([0045] … the compatibility score could include explanations on the various parts that contributed to the score, such as skills, schools, previous positions, years of experience etc. [0048] … identification of top missing skills can be used to improve [0044] …the compatibility report may inform …. skills that are missing.)
As per claim 3, Gupta teaches: wherein determining the suitability for each of the individuals is responsive to receiving user input that identifies the suitability criteria ([0038] …the entity information includes at least one of (a) position details, (b) job openings, (c) skills required for the job, … the entity information of the users is extracted from at least one of (a) one or more job websites, (b) information that is entered by the recruiter in the recruiter system [0043] …recruiters may provide information about the background details manually).
As per claim 5, Gupta teaches: outputting a further natural language explanation of one or more actions available to the individual that would improve the ranking upon completion of the one or more actions ([0045] … the compatibility score could include explanations on the various parts that contributed to the score, such as skills, schools, previous positions, years of experience etc. [0048] … identification of top missing skills can be used to improve [0044] …the compatibility report may inform …. skills that are missing. [Fig. 4A] Improve your chances of landing this position with these 3 steps).
As per claim 10, Gupta teaches: identifying one or more unsuitable individuals that do not meet the suitability criteria and, in response, omitting the unsuitable individuals from the ranking ([Abstract] … a candidate list, determining a compatibility score between candidates in the candidate list, ordering the candidate list based on the compatibility scores of candidates. [0070] The boolean query construction module constructs a boolean query on a boolean query interface based on positive keywords, negative keywords, and the filters separated by boolean operators, wherein the negative keywords are used to exclude candidates associated with the negative keywords from appearing in the candidate list).
As per claims 12 and 23, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 1, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 13, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 2, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 14, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 3, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 16, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 5, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 21, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 10, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0065769 (Gupta); in view of US 2018/0060786 (Venkataraman).
As per claim 4, Gupta teaches: wherein determining the suitability for each of the individuals ([0044] … compute a degree of match between a candidate profile and a position-detail profile [0045] The compatibility score may be a single number or a percentage summary (e.g. 69% match) or text/word representing the qualitative degree of match (e.g. great, good, neutral, stretch, poor) for the position based on the overall compatibility report details).
Although not explicitly taught by Gupta, Venkataraman teaches: wherein determining the suitability for each of the individuals is responsive to a change in personnel already assigned to the military operational assignment ([0058] In example 4, dynamic re-allocation of the high priority ticket based on the set of dynamic parameters 218 is explained. Suppose Agent A is working on a high importance ticket X of ticket-type 1. However, based on the set of dynamic parameters 218, it is observed that Agent A is no longer suitable for this ticket X. Thus, now task is to re-allocate the ticket X to another good agent who is capable of handling the ticket X. In this situation, the system 102 identifies, based on agent-score and the set of dynamic parameters 218, that Agent B is suitable … Thus, the system 102 allocates the ticket X to the Agent B. [0057] In example 3, suppose a high importance ticket X arrives with a ticket-type 3. Based on the agent-scores, Agent E and Agent A are the best agents for handling the ticket X. However, it is observed that Agent E is already working on some other high priority ticket P and Agent A is already working on some low priority ticket L. In this situation, the system 102 re-assigns the low priority ticket L to next available agent i.e., Agent C. [0072] … re-allocates the current active ticket, based on comparison of a status of the current active ticket with a predefined threshold 222 and an importance level of the current active ticket, to another next best agent after the next best agent based on the ranking. Thus, the next best agent is released from the current active ticket).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Venkataraman to the system of Gupta would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of an agent to complete an assignment.
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 4, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0065769 (Gupta); in view of US 2023/0112486 (Srivastava).
As per claim 6, Gupta teaches: operational assignment based on the suitability criteria and the attributes associated with the individuals ([0044] … compute a degree of match between a candidate profile and a position-detail profile [0045] The compatibility score may be a single number or a percentage summary (e.g. 69% match) or text/word representing the qualitative degree of match (e.g. great, good, neutral, stretch, poor) for the position based on the overall compatibility report details).
Although not explicitly taught by Gupta, Srivastava teaches: determining a team of the individuals that are collectively best suited to the military operational assignment based on the suitability criteria and the attributes associated with the individuals of the team ([0026] … identifying and creating a proposed team comprised of members from potential personnel at the given institution matched for forming a team [0023] … recommends a team of experts from various faculties and departments of the organization (e.g., a university) that would best fit the needs of an RFP [0048] Extracting requirements from RFPs, e.g., the fields of activity, expected outcome, budget, deadlines. RFP info can be gathered by accessing RFPs by URL or other documents. Information can be collated from multiple sources for RFPs. RFP information fields are identified, and text, graphs, etc. are fetched. [0049] Extracting skills from researcher profile(s), e.g., in skill areas, experience level, and past collaborators. Researcher information is fetched by accessing their profiles from URL or other documents. Information can be collated from multiple profiles. Information fields in researcher profiles are identified and relevant information provided to the system. [0050] Matching requirements with skills [0052] … estimating team's statistics, … estimating the team's success chance and outputting a list of prioritized teams.).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gupta with the aforementioned teachings of Srivastava with the motivation of identifying a successful team (Srivastava [0050]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Srivastava to the system of Gupta would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of a group of individuals suitable for an assignment.
As per claim 7, although not explicitly taught by Gupta, Srivastava teaches: outputting an indication of whether the individual is on the team of the individuals best suited to the military operational assignment ([0041] … OUTPUTS—lists of proposed teams, each team with two or more members. [0026] … notifying the proposed team members of their identification to a proposed team for the individual teaming opportunity. [0052] … outputting a list of prioritized teams [0053] … People in the prioritized list of potential teams are notified about the RFP and asked if they have both interest and time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Srivastava to the system of Gupta would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of a group of individuals suitable for an assignment.
As per claim 17, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 6, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 18, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 7, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0065769 (Gupta); in view of US 2019/0114593 (Champaneria).
As per claim 8, although not explicitly taught by Gupta, Champaneria teaches: receiving, from a user, a natural language question that asks for the natural language explanation ([0018] … When the response of the candidate is a question, the method may perform at least one of automatically generating a response to the question (for example, through the use of an AI, or by determining if the question matches an entry in an auto-response database of the automated recruitment system and generating a response from the entry in the auto-response database) or sending a notification to an operator of the automated recruitment system indicating that the question cannot be automatically responded to. (In some exemplary embodiments, an auto-response database may access the candidate information and/or the job description information in addition to the auto-response database in order to generate a response specifically tailored to a particular job or a particular candidate.) [0141] … a conversational AI bot may be used in order to correct the candidate's misconceptions and provide arguments intended to change the candidate's mind if it appears the candidate is considering rejecting an offer for a particular position, or even if the candidate has already rejected an offer for a particular position but appears to have done so (or even potentially may have done so) based on a misconception or misunderstanding. [0122] … system may be configured to be bi-directional, such that it can respond to questions and requests for information posed by one or more of the candidates [0140] … the candidate is to ask a question about the offer, or to request more information about the offer or anything related to the offer [0244] … asked why the candidate was not acceptable. [0174] …provides a reason 761 after one is requested 76)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gupta with the aforementioned teachings of Champaneria with the motivation of automatically generating responses to questions (Champaneria [0018]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Champaneria to the system of Gupta would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow candidates to submit questions.
As per claim 9, Gupta teaches: a list of individuals suitable for the assignment … outputting at least part of the ranking ([Abstract] …determining a compatibility score between candidates in the candidate list, ordering the candidate list based on the compatibility scores of candidates [0071] The candidate ordering module orders the candidate list based on the compatibility scores of candidates in the candidate lists to obtain an ordered candidate list that is ordered based on compatibility scores.)
Although not explicitly taught by Gupta, Champaneria teaches: receiving, from a user, a natural language question asking for a list of individuals suitable for the assignment, wherein determining the suitability of at least one of the individuals is responsive to receiving the natural language question; and outputting at least part of the ranking in response to the natural language question ([0175] … a hiring manager may reject a submitted candidate and provide the reason of “this candidate does not have enough inside sales experience,” or “I am looking for someone with AWS cloud migration experience,” or “candidates need to have 5 years of controls engineering using Rockwell,” when this information was not mentioned in the job description. This feedback information may be incorporated as new skill requirements when the matching and sourcing step is run again. [0254] … “Do you want me to find additional candidates or would you like to complete the interview of the 3 candidates first?” The hiring manager may then be able to specify whether more candidates should be retrieved).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gupta with the aforementioned teachings of Champaneria with the motivation of identifying qualified candidates (Champaneria [0006]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Champaneria to the system of Gupta would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of candidates.
As per claim 11, although not explicitly taught by Gupta, Champaneria teaches: the suitability criteria comprises a plurality of user-selected attributes; ([0030] … providing the at least one question to the user, receiving at least one answer from the user [0211] …manager may provide one or more notes about the position [0213] … one or more questions may be asked to the hiring manager, and the job description may be generated based on the answers provided by the hiring manager)
the method further comprises determining a non-user-selected attribute based on the plurality of user-selected attributes; ranking the individuals comprises ranking a first individual associated with the non-user-selected attribute higher than a second individual not associated with the non-user-selected attribute ([0030] An exemplary embodiment of the system may specifically provide a computer-implemented method for automated “dialectic” generation of a job description, or dialogue/question-and-answer based generation of the job description. This may include the steps of providing an automated job description system including a natural language processing engine, a processor, a memory, and a network connection; generating at least one question to be provided to a user, providing the at least one question to the user, receiving at least one answer from the user, and parsing the at least one answer into one or more specified job requirements; data mining, via the network connection, employment data for one or more extrinsic job requirements; generating a preliminary job description based on the one or more specified job requirements and the one or more extrinsic job requirements [0094] …The résumés of searched candidates may be scored based on their match to one or more elements extracted from the job description, which may include one or more key points, concepts, or requirements that are outlined in the job description. [0229]).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gupta with the aforementioned teachings of Champaneria with the motivation of generating job description criteria (Champaneria [0030]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Champaneria to the system of Gupta would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of additional job requirements.
As per claim 19, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 8, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 20, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 9, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 22, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 11, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0270738 (Mason) - analyzes an ops sheet of a military operation and profile data related to a user(s), and automatically determines user(s) who are optimal for the operation ([Abstract]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625