DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on April 15, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11 and 20: “whether one or more keys in the second plurality of key-value pairs” should read “whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs”;
Claims 1, 11, and 20: “predicator” should read “predictor.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-19 are directed to a machine. Claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 20.
Independent Claim 11 recites the following abstract ideas: “distilling data , the distilling including excluding irrelevant data from talent profiles and replacing values with relevant abstracted values , and generating and presenting updated talent profiles, to: obtain a first talent profile, wherein the first talent profile comprises an identifier of a person, and a plurality of key-value pairs characterizing aspects of the person; determine whether one or more keys in the second plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role; generate a second talent profile by: for each of the one or more keys that is determined irrelevant to the job role, excluding the corresponding key-value pair from the first talent profile; and for each of the one or more keys that is determined relevant to the job role, determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value , and replacing the value in the corresponding key-value pair with an abstracted value in the first talent profile; and present the second talent profile to the profile reviewer, wherein to determine whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role and determine an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value : obtain full talent profiles associated with training candidates in a training dataset; divide the training candidates into a first group and a second group, wherein the first group comprises candidates with at least one applicable job role, and the second group comprises candidates without any applicable job role; for each candidate in the training set, input key-value pairs from the full talent profile of the candidate and corresponding target values indicating whether the candidate has an applicable role ; for each of keys in the key-value pairs, compute predicator values indicating how well an actual value predicts the job role and how well the abstracted value predicts the job role; responsive to determining that the actual value or the abstracted value is a good predictor for the job role, assign the key as relevant; and responsive to determining that neither the actual value nor the abstract value is a good predictor for the job role, assign the key as irrelevant.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions (i.e., distilling data, the distilling including excluding irrelevant data from talent profiles and replacing values with relevant abstracted values, and generating and presenting updated talent profiles, to: obtain a first talent profile, wherein the first talent profile comprises an identifier of a person, and a plurality of key-value pairs characterizing aspects of the person; determine whether one or more keys in the second plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role; generate a second talent profile by: for each of the one or more keys that is determined irrelevant to the job role, excluding the corresponding key-value pair from the first talent profile; and for each of the one or more keys that is determined relevant to the job role, determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value, and replacing the value in the corresponding key-value pair with an abstracted value in the first talent profile; and present the second talent profile to the profile reviewer, wherein to determine whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role and determine an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value: obtain full talent profiles associated with training candidates in a training dataset; divide the training candidates into a first group and a second group, wherein the first group comprises candidates with at least one applicable job role, and the second group comprises candidates without any applicable job role; for each candidate in the training set, input key-value pairs from the full talent profile of the candidate and corresponding target values indicating whether the candidate has an applicable role; for each of keys in the key-value pairs, compute predicator values indicating how well an actual value predicts the job role and how well the abstracted value predicts the job role; responsive to determining that the actual value or the abstracted value is a good predictor for the job role, assign the key as relevant; and responsive to determining that neither the actual value nor the abstract value is a good predictor for the job role, assign the key as irrelevant), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a computer system comprising a memory and one or more processors, a data file, and a specifically trained neural network module). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind, or via pen and paper (i.e., distilling data, the distilling including excluding irrelevant data from talent profiles and replacing values with relevant abstracted values, and generating and presenting updated talent profiles, to: obtain a first talent profile, wherein the first talent profile comprises an identifier of a person, and a plurality of key-value pairs characterizing aspects of the person; determine whether one or more keys in the second plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role; generate a second talent profile by: for each of the one or more keys that is determined irrelevant to the job role, excluding the corresponding key-value pair from the first talent profile; and for each of the one or more keys that is determined relevant to the job role, determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value, and replacing the value in the corresponding key-value pair with an abstracted value in the first talent profile; and present the second talent profile to the profile reviewer, wherein to determine whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role and determine an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value: obtain full talent profiles associated with training candidates in a training dataset; divide the training candidates into a first group and a second group, wherein the first group comprises candidates with at least one applicable job role, and the second group comprises candidates without any applicable job role; for each candidate in the training set, input key-value pairs from the full talent profile of the candidate and corresponding target values indicating whether the candidate has an applicable role; for each of keys in the key-value pairs, compute predicator values indicating how well an actual value predicts the job role and how well the abstracted value predicts the job role; responsive to determining that the actual value or the abstracted value is a good predictor for the job role, assign the key as relevant; and responsive to determining that neither the actual value nor the abstract value is a good predictor for the job role, assign the key as irrelevant), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer system comprising a memory and one or more processors, a data file, and a specifically trained neural network module (in addition to the non-transitory CRM of Claim 20). The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers receiving, processing, determining, and transmitting information, a generic data file, and high level recitation of training and executing a neural network using training data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a computer system comprising a memory and one or more processors (in addition to the non-transitory CRM of Claim 20)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 13-15 recite a “neural network module.” This additional element is recited in a generic manner, as a tool used to implement the abstract idea, and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor is it sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2, 6-10, 12, and 16-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, and if the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Benedict et al. (US-10776758) teaches obtaining a first talent profile, wherein the first talent profile comprises an identifier of a person, and a plurality of values characterizing aspects of the person, and generating a second talent profile by excluding values determined irrelevant to the job role from the first talent profile. Shen (US-10467339) teaches presenting the second talent profile to a profile reviewer. However, none of the prior art teaches that the first talent profile comprises a plurality of key-value pairs characterizing aspects of the person; determining whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role; generating a second talent profile by: for each of the one or more keys that is determined irrelevant to the job role, excluding the corresponding key-value pair from the first talent profile; for each of the one or more keys that is determined relevant to the job role, determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value, and replacing the value in the corresponding key-value pair with the abstracted value in the first talent profile.
The closest NPL, Sarah Dobson “Feds Try to Blank Out Bias,” teaches obtaining a first talent profile, wherein the first talent profile comprises an identifier of a person, and a plurality of values characterizing aspects of the person, generating a second talent profile by excluding values determined irrelevant to the job role from the first talent profile, and presenting the second talent profile to a profile reviewer. However, it does not teach that the first talent profile comprises a plurality of key-value pairs characterizing aspects of the person; determining whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role; generating a second talent profile by: for each of the one or more keys that is determined irrelevant to the job role, excluding the corresponding key-value pair from the first talent profile; for each of the one or more keys that is determined relevant to the job role, determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value, and replacing the value in the corresponding key-value pair with the abstracted value in the first talent profile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding Double Patenting Rejection: Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-20: Independent claims have been amended to overcome the Section 101 rejection.
The representative claim 1 recites a specific method that improves the computer technologies in particular to data processing. Applicant recognizes that certain data files (e.g., talent profiles) may contain bias-inducing and irrelevant information to a reader. See specification at pages 2 and 14. There is a real-world need for computer technologies such as software applications that remove and/or substitute the bias-inducing and irrelevant information in a data file, thus reducing the conscious or unconscious biases and/or distractions to the reader. To this end, the representative claim 1 provides a specific solution including: a method for distilling a data file, the distilling including excluding irrelevant data from talent profiles and replacing values with relevant abstracted values using a specifically trained neural network module, and generating and presenting updated talent profiles. The method further provides obtaining a first talent profile, wherein the first talent profile comprises an identifier of a person, and a plurality of key-value pairs characterizing aspects of the person; determining whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role; generating a second talent profile by: for each of the one or more keys that is determined irrelevant to the job role, excluding the corresponding key-value pair from the first talent profile; and for each of the one or more keys that is determined relevant to the job role, determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value using the specifically trained neural network module, and replacing the value in the corresponding key-value pair with an abstracted value in the first talent profile; and present the second talent profile to the profile reviewer. The method further specifically provides that determining whether one or more keys in the plurality of key-value pairs are relevant to a job role and determining an abstracted value that is relevant to the job role and encompasses the value using the specifically trained neural network module further include obtaining full talent profiles associated with training candidates in a training dataset; dividing the training candidates into a first group and a second group, wherein the first group comprises candidates with at least one applicable job role, and the second group comprises candidates without any applicable job role; for each candidate in the training set, inputting key-value pairs from the full talent profile of the candidate and corresponding target values indicating whether the candidate has an applicable role into the neural network to train the neural network module into the specifically trained neural network module; for each of keys in the key-value pairs, executing the specifically trained neural network module to compute predicator values indicating how well an actual value predicts the job role and how well the abstracted value predicts the job role; responsive to determining that the actual value or the abstracted value is a good predictor for the job role, assigning the key as relevant; and responsive to determining that neither the actual value nor the abstract value is a good predictor for the job role, assigning the key as irrelevant.
In defining what constitute improvements in computer technology, Ex Parte Desjardins explained as follows: Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Id. at 1336. (Desjardins, page 8).
Applicant submits when reviewed in light of the precedential Desjardins, the representative claim 1 provides non-abstract improvements to computer technology in particular to software.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is “a real-world need for computer technologies such as software applications that remove and/or substitute the bias-inducing and irrelevant information in a data file, thus reducing the conscious or unconscious biases and/or distractions to the reader,” in combination with the present claims, this is a recitation of an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than a technical improvement.
Further, and also regarding Applicant’s argument that the claim “provides non-abstract improvements to computer technology in particular to software,” the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of computer technology, or the functioning of neural networks, or any other technology.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights