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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 4/21/2026.
Claims 2, 9, and 16-21 have been amended.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,775,934 and Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,677.
The nonstatutory double patenting is being maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments (the original rejection can be found in the office action mailed on ).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a
result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 2, 3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie (WO 2015/051421 A1) in view of Dellovo (Patent No. US 8,195,657 B1).
In regards to Claims 2, 9 and 16, Leslie discloses:
A system/method for presenting employment opportunities and submitting applications, the system comprising: a database configured to store candidate information as well as employment preferences of a candidate; one or more processors configured to: ([0048]; [0057]; [0059]; [0071]; etc.)
retrieve, in real time during a session of the candidate on an employment app operating on a computing device, a first employment opportunity for the candidate based upon at least the employment preferences of the candidate; ([0059]; [ 0071], jobseeker profiles/data are stored in a database, the data can be extracted from documents such a s resumes (biographical information, see also [0013]), [0045], profile data incudes jobseeker preference data; [0075], “…includes a matching engine 320 for identifying a plurality job classifieds 670 from the job classifieds database 350 which relevant to the user based upon the job seeker profile.”)
detect, during the session, an employment command received from the candidate via the computing device in response to presenting the first employment opportunity to the candidate via the computing device; ([0046]; etc., jobseeker can provide multiple input commands related to a displayed job)
[performing actions on the job listing] in response to a determination that the employment command is a first predefined single swipe motion across a touchscreen of the computing device: ([0046]; [0057], inputs include “swipes” and devices include touch screens)
Leslie discloses the above system/method in which user can use different swiping interactions to perform different actions in regards to a job listing. Leslie also discloses the ability to apply directly to a job through the device/application ([0046]).
Leslie does not explicitly disclose that in response to the interaction an electronic application is automatically populated and submitted for consideration. However, Dellovo teaches:
in response to a determination that the employment command [is input via the display/device]:
determine that the candidate information includes requested information for populating an electronic application associate with the first employment opportunity; (column 8, lines 47-column 9, line 3, “The Apply To Job control…if the on-line job application has an on-line web form, selecting the Apply To Job option can use information from the Job Tracking And Management Core to auto-populate the web form….The Apply To Job control can also be configured to provide a one-click apply feature. For example, if the applicant has provided sufficient information to the system and the currently viewed job listing is in a known format. The process could by [sic] configured to effectuate application with only one user action, such as clicking on an automatic apply button.”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the job application for a specific job would include fields for entering data related to that job and its criteria (requested data), a one-click apply for auto-populating an application for a selected job description can be performed in sufficient information is provided by the applicant for that job, jobs are matched based on job criteria and matching candidate information (see also, column 8, lines 47-column 9, line 3, shows auto-population of an application using collected applicant data in response to applicant selecting and input; column 5, lines 17-34; column 9, line 50-column 10, line4; etc., the references discloses the matching of user resume data to job data to determine if the user characteristics match the job criteria; 15, lines 1-9; etc., shows jobs being scored based on matches between candidate and job criteria., this scores demonstrates how sufficient the match is; column 11, lines 22-41, identifies especially well-matched and ideal jobs [determining that the biographical information about the candidate sufficiently relates to requirements of the first employment opportunity]))
populate the electronic application for the first employment opportunity utilizing at least a portion of the candidate information; and
submit the electronic application so the candidate can be considered for the first employment opportunity; (column 8, lines 47-column 9, line 3, shows auto-population of an application using collected applicant data in response to applicant selecting and input, “The Apply To Job control…if the on-line job application has an on-line web form, selecting the Apply To Job option can use information from the Job Tracking And Management Core to auto-populate the web form….The Apply To Job control can also be configured to provide a one-click apply feature. For example, if the applicant has provided sufficient information to the system and the currently viewed job listing is in a known format. The process could by [sic] configured to effectuate application with only one user action, such as clicking on an automatic apply button”; column 5, lines 3-16, “…Job Application Tracking And Management Environment stores relevant personal information about the applicant and his or her job search. In particular, the Job Tracking And Management Core 110, for example, might take as input the applicant's resume and/or cover letter 120. The resume and cover letter can then be made available to aid in filing job applications for the applicant and/or in finding job listings suitable to the interests and abilities of the applicant.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Leslie so as to have included determine that the candidate information includes requested information for populating an electronic application associate with the first employment opportunity, populate the electronic application for the first employment opportunity utilizing at least a portion of the candidate information, and submit the electronic application so the candidate can be considered for the first employment opportunity, as taught by Dellovo in order to provide a more convenient and efficient application process by not requiring an applicant to perform unnecessary actions when no issues are identified (Dellovo, column 8, lines 47-column 9, “The Apply To Job control can also be configured to provide a one-click apply feature. For example, if the applicant has provided sufficient information to the system and the currently viewed job listing is in a known format. The process could by [sic] configured to effectuate application with only one user action, such as clicking on an automatic apply button.”).
In regards to Claims 3, 10, and 17, Leslie discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to populate the c candidate information into the database based on information submitted to the database a candidate resume ([0059]; [ 0071], jobseeker profiles/data are stored in a database, the data can be extracted from documents such as resumes (candidate/biographical information))
In regards to Claim 5, 12, and 19, Leslie discloses wherein the first predefined single swipe motion is a swipe motion across the touchscreen in a first direction, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to skip the first employment opportunity for the first employment opportunity in response to determining that the employment command is a second predefined single swipe motion, wherein the second predefined single swipe motion is a single swipe motion across the touchscreen in a second direction ([0046]; etc., jobseeker can provide multiple input commands related to a displayed job, including one direction to save it (to possibly apply for it) and a different direction to skip/disregard it)
Leslie does not explicitly disclose that a job is skipped without populating or submitting the electronic application. However, Dellovo teaches the ability to choose which opportunities to save and/or apply though candidate interactions with the device (column 2, lines 1-6 and 30-34; column 13, lines 35-48, users can decide which presented items are relevant and which are not). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the non-selected jobs would be skipped without populating or submitting the electronic application for the first employment opportunity for the candidate for those non-selected opportunities (including the first employment opportunity, if that opportunity is not selected for application). In both Leslie and Dellovo, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that candidates would not want to apply to jobs they deemed “irrelevant”. In the combination of Leslie and Dellovo, when applying the swiping actions of Leslie to Dellovo, the skipping/disregarding of a job by swiping in the second direction would preclude the job from being subject to the automatic application process of Dellovo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Leslie so as to have included skipping the first employment opportunity without populating or submitting the electronic application for the first employment opportunity, as taught by Dellovo in order to ensure that candidates applications are not automatically submitted to jobs they do not desirable to the candidate (Dellovo, column 2, lines 1-6 and 30-34; column 13, lines 35-48; Leslie, ([0046]; [0098]).
In regards to Claim 6, 13 ,and 20, Leslie discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to retrieve, in real time during the session of the candidate on the employment app operating on the computing device, a second employment opportunity for the candidate based at least in part upon whether the employment command was the first predefined single swipe motion or the second predefined single swipe motion ([0098]; [0099], after the user performs either swipe action, the next job opportunity is provided)
In regards to Claim 7, 14 ,and 21, Leslie discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to present to the candidate through the computing device upon determining:
an availability of a new employment opportunity that the one or more processors finds similar to a prior employment opportunity; and
a prior employment command for the prior employment opportunity was the first predefined single swipe motion ([0098]-[0103], users can swipe in different directions to determine which jobs in the job stack are relevant (shortlist that they may apply to) or irrelevant, after the user performs either swipe action, swipes/indications of relevance/irrelevance are used as feedback data to determine a new jobstack, the feedback is used to update the user profile and jobstack data which is used to match users to jobs, therefore the jobs in the new jobstack would be similar to the previous jobs to which a user previously swiped “relevant” (shortlist that they may apply to), when the new jobstack data is generated, it is provided to the user thorough the device)
Leslie does not explicitly disclose triggering an alert for presentation when new jobs are identified, however, Dellovo teaches that an alert is presented to the user when a new relevant job is identified (column 1, lines 22-41, “For example, take an applicant who had previously searched for jobs but was unable to find a job listing that was a perfect match. The system could continue searching for matching listings, and if at some future time the system found a job listing that was especially well-suited to the applicant and/or the applicant's profile, the system would notify the applicant that a good match had been found.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Leslie so as to have included triggering an alert for presentation when new jobs are identified, as taught by Dellovo in order to ensure that candidates are timely notified of new jobs that may be high quality matches, even when they are not actively looking on the system (Dellovo, column 1, lines 22-41).
In regards to Claims 8 and 15, Leslie discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to automatically present a second employment opportunity unless doing so would exceed a [pre-determined in Claim 15] threshold of employment opportunities presented to the candidate via the computing device . ([0098]; [0099], after the user performs either swipe action, the next job opportunity is provided; [0099], a second/next job is only provided when there are remaining jobs in the stack; [0093], “The job stack data 670 may include a predetermined number of job declassified, such as eight job classifieds.”, indicating a predetermined threshold of jobs to be presented, more are not provided until a new jobstack is generated)
Leslie does not explicitly disclose the second job being provided subsequent to automatically submitting the electronic application for the first employment opportunity
However, Leslie does disclose the second job being provided subsequent to a previous action performed in response to the swipe motion (user input) in an application for interacting with job opportunities (such as viewing, selecting, applying, etc.), as described above.
Dellovo teaches automatically submitting the electronic application for the first employment opportunity in response to a user input in an application for interacting with job opportunities (such as viewing, selecting, applying, etc.), as described above.
Dellovo demonstrates that the use of automatic submittal of an electronic application for an employment opportunity in response to a user inputting an action on an application for interacting with job opportunities was known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the automatic submittal of an electronic application for an employment opportunity in response to a user inputting an action of the secondary reference for the marking a job as relevant (or “shortlisting” it) in response to a user inputting an action of the primary reference.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie in view of Dellovo in further view of Powell et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0265258 A1).
In regards to Claims 4 and 11, Leslie/Dellovo discloses performing activities in response to detecting a first input motion, as described above. Dellovo also discloses the ability of an auto-populating apply tool to be used if a sufficient amount of information has been provided to the system (column 8, lines 47-column 9, line 3, “…if the applicant has provided sufficient information to the system… process could by [sic] configured to effectuate application with only one user action.”)
Leslie/Dellovo does not explicitly disclose wherein, in response to determining that information about the candidate is insufficient to fully populate the electronic application, the one or more processors are configured to prompt the candidate for additional information to complete the electronic application.
However, Powell teaches an application populator determining whether the application is able to be populated utilizing only the candidate information and prompting for and receive additional information from a candidate to enable the application populator to populate the application in response to the application populator determining that the application is unable to be populated utilizing only the candidate information ([0021], “…populating an automated loan application form… using the identification information…querying the student user for any missing student loan application information; and submitting a completed student loan application)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Leslie/Dellovo so as to have included wherein, in response to determining the candidate information is insufficient to fully populate the electronic application, the one or more processors are configured to prompt the candidate for additional information to complete the electronic application, as taught by Powell in order to allow the benefit of allowing applications to be prepared automatically using known information while also ensuring that applications are complete before submitting (Powell, [0008]; [0009]; [0021]; [0064]; [0098]).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie in view of Dellovo in further view of Toomey et al. (Patent No. US 11,062,267 B1).
In regards to Claim 18, Leslie/Dellovo discloses performing activities in
upon determining the candidate information does not sufficiently relate to requirements of the first employment opportunity, present a warning to the candidate (Fig. 3; column 9, line 14-column 10, line 12; Clam 16, the strength of a match is determined between candidate and jobs (skills represents one example of candidate/biographical data, among others), the indicators, such as 40% or an incomplete circle provide the candidate with a visual representation that would act as a warning that the candidates data is insufficient for the position (candidate would see this before viewing the actual match data and be warned that it may not be a good match, see Fig. 4-Fig. 5C), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lower the lower scores/percentages/etc. the less sufficiently the candidate information would relate to requirements of an employment opportunity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Leslie/Dellovo so as to have included wherein, in response to determining the candidate information is insufficient to fully populate the electronic application, the one or more processors are configured to prompt the candidate for additional information to complete the electronic application, as taught by Toomey in order to provide a faster and more efficient way to view matched jobs, by allowing a user to see the strength of the match before deciding to spend time reviewing the job (Toomey, Fig. 3; column 9, line 14-column 10, line 12; Clam 16).
Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon
Ahmed et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0260064 A1). Discloses a method/system in which swipe actions are used for performing job search actions and a one-click apply function (see at least [0129]; [0138]).
Hunter et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0209903 A1). Discloses prompting a user for additional data when auto-populating is incomplete (see at least [0061]).
Kerr et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0238591 A1). Discloses auto-population of an application using information from a user’s resume (see at least [0044]).
Meier (Pub. No. US 2017/0270485 A1). Discloses indicators that provide a degree of match between the resume and a job (that could act as a warning that a match is poor) (see at least [0010]; [0085]; Clam 19; Claim 8).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant argues that neither Dellovo (referencing only the cited portions of Dellovo and not he reference as a whole) nor the motivations provided in the rejections demonstrate how one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the teachings of Dellovo with Leslie. As demonstrated by the claim rejections, the combination would merely include providing the multi-action in response to the input of Leslie for applying to jobs. For example, as described in the above rejections, Leslie allows for applying to jobs including performing actions in response to swipe inputs. Dellovo also allows for applying to jobs, including using a single input to automatically perform multiple application actions. One of ordinary skill (“person of ordinary skill in the art”, POSITA) would understand how to include the automatic performance of multiple job application actions using a single input (Dellovo) to a system in which inputs (including “swipes”) are used to perform job application actions (Leslie) to arrive at "in response to a determination that the employment command is a first predefined single swipe motion”. The fact that Dellovo does not explicitly specify “swiping” actions does not prevent POSITA from being able to apply the multi-action to an input. The specific type of input does not affect how to perform multiple actions in response to a user input. Leslie and Dellovo demonstrate all of the necessary components and skill to perform this combination and POSITA would be able to do so, even if the systems used different types of user inputs, since the activities performed after the use input would be performed in a similar manner regardless of how the input was made1 (Swipe, click, button, etc.). Additionally, Applicant has not provided any arguments demonstrating why POSITA would not be able to combine the references. Applicant is also referred to the motivations provided for Claims 8 and 15 for related rationales.
This was addressed in the Advisory Action mailed on 4/9/2026:
One of ordinary skill would understand how to apply this performance of actions based on a single input to the swipe motions of Leslie that are used to perform actions on an application. One of ordinary skill would understand how to apply the actions to inputs, even if the inputs are not the same (such as a selection button or swipe motion). One of ordinary skill would understand HOW to combine actions in response to inputs, regardless of the types of inputs.
Applicant’s remarks regarding Dellovo state that Dellovo requires a “separate, deliberate “apply” action to trigger application process” even after conditions are met and does not “eliminate the separate “apply” function” as Applicant’s claims do (“collapsing what Dellovo describes as a multi-step "navigate to job listing -- click Apply To Job button -- auto-populate form -- submit" workflow into a single gesture performed during the browsing experience itself”). Applicant argues that “There is no teaching in Dellovo that a sufficiency check would be performed in response to a browsing gesture such as a swipe, nor any suggestion that a single browsing gesture would trigger automatic application submission without an intervening deliberate "apply" action by the user.
Contrary to Applicant’s description, Dellovo does require that only a “separate, deliberate “apply” action to trigger application process” can be used to apply to a job listing, nor does it limit the use of the said separate, deliberate “apply” action. Dellovo provides a specific example of using a “one-click” function in lieu of this extra user action. Dellovo states in the last paragraph of column 8:
“The Apply To Job control can also be configured to provide a one-click apply feature. For example, if the applicant has provided sufficient information to the system and the currently viewed job listing is in a known format. The process could [be] configured to effectuate application with only one user action, such as clicking on an automatic apply button.
In this paragraph, the “Apply To Job” control includes a one-click apply, that effectuates the application with only one user action. The effectuated job application including all of the listed actions performed by one-click, including verifying sufficient data, auto-populating, and submitting the application.
This was addressed in the Advisory Action mailed on 4/9/2026:
For example, Applicant argues that Dellovo would require a second, separate apply selection. However, as described in the cited portion (for example, see column 8, last paragraph), the “automatic apply button” is the “Apply To Job control” when used for “one-click apply feature” applications. The “automatic apply button” (representing the “Apply To Job control”) is selected to auto-populate, verify sufficient data, and send the application/resume. The system does not provide an “Apply To Job control” that populates the applications, etc. and then provide an “automatic apply button” to send the application. Rather the “Apply To Job control” and “automatic apply button” are the same item. The “automatic apply button” represents the “Apply To Job control” in examples where the “Apply To Job control” is used as a “one-click apply feature” to perform all actions. One of ordinary skill would understand how to apply this performance of actions based on a single input to the swipe motions of Leslie that are used to perform actions on an application. One of ordinary skill would understand how to apply the actions to inputs, even if the inputs are not the same (such as a selection button or swipe motion). One of ordinary skill would understand HOW to combine actions in response to inputs, regardless of the types of inputs.
Applicant’s remarks regarding “conclusory statements” is covered by the above remarks.
Applicant argues that Dellovo cannot produce the claim limitations because “if the sufficiency check of Dellovo fails and no "one-click" apply feature is configured (e.g., provided to the user). In turn, the user in Dellovo is not able to initiate any "employment command" or intent to apply to a job opportunity when there is a data deficiency in their application.
First, Applicant limits the material in Dellovo to this situation. Even if this example is in Dellovo, it ignores material in Dellovo wherein the "one-click" apply feature is configured. Therefore, it is unclear why this would cause the reference to not read on the claims or be unable to perform the other embodiments. Applicant does not address the material that does read on the claims. Even if Dellovo does have embodiments where a one-click apply is not configured, that does not negate the embodiment sin which it configures or render them inapplicable.
Second, Applicant’s remarks are not clear because the same logic could be applied to Applicant’s claims. For example, Applicant’s claims perform a check to verify that the requested information for populating an application is included (comparable to the sufficiency check in Dellovo). It could be argued that if Applicant’s claims do not have the required data (requested information, failed “sufficiency check”), it would fail and not perform the auto-populating (like in Applicant’s argument for Dellovo). Additionally, like in Applicant’s argument, if Applicant’s claimed invention were not configured for a single input, then it would not work. Applicant’s claims would be subject to the same arguments that Applicant makes for Dellovo and further demonstrates the similarities between the Dellovo invention and the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments regarding how Dellovo “could fail” under certain circumstances, does not clearly demonstrate that the reference is patentably distinct from the claimed invention, nor does it demonstrate how/why Dellovo is not capable of enabling the dynamic the framework, as it merely uses selective examples of how Dellovo may not work and does not address how/why the material/examples used for the rejection would fail to read on the claims.
In response to Applicant’s remarks regarding Powel and Toomey:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
1 Discussions regarding the type of input used (Swipe, etc.) not explicitly affecting how actions are performed after the input and the ability to combine prior art regardless of the type of input used has also been previously provided throughout the prosecution of the parent applications. Applicant can review these file histories for reference. This issue has been addressed multiple times in previous office correspondence.
Discussion of Motivation to Combine
Applicant argues that “he proposed combination of Leslie and Dellovo would alter the principle of operation of Leslie, would require substantial redesign, and further lacks any teaching suggestion or design incentive within the cited references”.
Applicant’s remarks focus on the tasks recited in Leslie (generating a short list, etc.) and concludes that these are the only activities that Leslie can perform. Even if the reference does not explicitly or implicitly state that other actions (such as applying to a job, etc.) can be performed does not inherently preclude other tasks for being combined with Leslie. Applicant’s remarks are based on Leslie stating specific actions being performed and being silent to others. This does not demonstrate that the activities of Dellovo could not be combined with the inputs and activities of Leslie (see above discussion of input types in relation to activities performed). Applicant has not demonstrated how/why this operation would significantly alter the principle of operation of Leslie, would require substantial redesign in a manner that would destroy Leslie and/or render Leslie inoperable, nor has applicant demonstrated that any alleged altering or redesign could not be performed by POSITA without destroying or rendering Leslie (or Dellovo) inoperable. Simply because Leslie does not state that such activities are possible does not inherently preclude those action from being added to Leslie and Applicant has not demonstrated that they cannot be.
Applicant argues that the office provides no rationale for combining Dellovo and Leslie. Rationales were provided in the rejections and Applicant has not addressed these or provided any remarks identifying or demonstrating any specific deficiencies in the rationales to demonstrate that they are “merely conclusory”.
Applicant has also failed to clearly explain why a different interface depicted in Leslie would be relevant. This interface is not relevant to Applicant’s claims or how the prior art is applied to the claims. It is also not clear how the interface is relevant to the alleged altering the principle of operation or requiring substantial redesign of Leslie in a significant manner that would preclude combination. As in the above discussion regarding data types, it appears that Applicant is arguing that Leslie is limited to only displaying the recited data (short listed job classification) and that any other interface material would not be possible. However, it is not clear , in any of the references, that Leslie (including the interface) could not be modified in any manner. Applicant does not demonstrate how/why “the proposed combination of Leslie and Dellovo would alter the principle of operation of Leslie and would require substantial redesign to replace the low- friction swiping of Leslie for creating a shortlist of saved jobs in a first user interface to instead allow a user to submit an employment command configured to trigger the claimed limitations ", because Leslie also includes the ability to apply to jobs, and is it not clear why adding the additional job application steps to the apply or swiping functions of would significantly alter or have any significant effect on the “low-friction swiping” of Leslie (or the interface).
Applicant has not demonstrated that the combination of Dellovo and Leslie would cause the unpredictable result of users accidentally submitting job applications and cause a high -risk submission mechanism. Applicant has asserted this but provided no clear evidence to demonstrate that it would necessarily occur.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 May 16, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights