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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error because claim 1 used the term “it’s” when the term “its” is appropriate, i.e., claim 1 should be amended as (emphasized) “…and transforming the analyzed data into a single standardized platform regardless of its native platform…” 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims it is determined that: claim 1 is directed to a process. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea because the steps of filtering incoming third party data, transformation the data to standardize it, and storing the data encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These steps encompass commercial or legal interactions because the steps essentially entail collecting and cleaning data for the purposes of market research. As shown in the Specification as filed, the steps of collecting and transforming the data encompass collecting the data and assessing and modifying the data for quality and consistency to predict salaries for jobs. These steps essentially encompass performing market research on salaries and as such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall with “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, claim 1 recites “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a single standardized platform and a native platform. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitehead et al, US Pub. No. 2020/0065772, herein referred to as “Whitehead”.
Regarding claim 1, Whitehead teaches:
filtering incoming third party data so that it is analyzed for content and form (collects data about candidates from companies from multiple data partners and publicly available sources, as well as collects data directly from websites through, for example, web scraping technology, ¶ [0071]; see also Fig. 1 summarizing process);
and transforming the analyzed data into a single standardized platform regardless of it's native platform (normalizes and standardizes collected data, ¶ [0074]);
and storing the analyzed and transformed data in both a native and a transformed state (stores the collected data, ¶[0071] and stores the standardized data, ¶[0074]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hung, Chih-Chieh, and Ee-Peng Lim. "On Aggregating Salaries of Occupations From Job Post and Review Data." IEEE Access 9 (2021): 43422-43433 teaches a similar manner of estimating salaries
Diamond, US Pub. No. 2015/0170304 teaches a similar manner of predicting earnings
Kenthapadi, Krishnaram, Ahsan Chudhary, and Stuart Ambler. "LinkedIn Salary: A system for secure collection and presentation of structured compensation insights to job seekers." 2017 IEEE Symposium on Privacy-Aware Computing (PAC). IEEE, 2017 teaches a similar method of estimating salaries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626