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 .
This communication is in response to Applicants Arguments filed 07/15/2026 regarding application 18/793,000 filed 08/02/2024. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15 are amended and hereby entered. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 112(f) interpretation and 35 USC 112(a) and (b) are fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 are fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits there is no identification of claim features are believed to be abstract ideas and thus, no prima facie case of an abstract idea is established. However, the Nonfinal rejection dated 04/15/2026 recites, “The independent claims (1, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) recite methods and systems to manage and filtering information to match applicants with businesses. These claim elements are being interpreted as certain methods of organizing human activity (including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)”. Therefore, any claim limitations relating to managing and filtering information to matching applicants with businesses are considered part of the abstract idea. Further, same nonfinal rejection recites the additional elements as: “a first applicant apparatus”, “a second applicant apparatus”, “a third applicant apparatus”, “a recruiter apparatus”, “a computing apparatus”, “an interface”, and “a database”. Any claim limitations outside the additional elements are considered part of the abstract idea.
Further the applicant submits there is a solution to a technical problem that cannot be properly characterized as abstract. However, the applicant described problem and solution recites an abstract idea being performed by general purpose computing components. Using a server to limit data access based on user access levels to allow only specific applicants or enterprises to access job openings, recites a general-purpose computing component being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of following rules and instructions to manage personal behavior, relationships, or interactions with people, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do result in the improvement to the underlying computer; rather they use the computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the applicant cites use of a particular machine. However, see MPEP 2106.05(b) states, “It is important to note that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine”. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 103:
The applicant submits the prior art does not teach the newly amended claim features However, Bailey teaches registering user attributes in paragraph 27. Additionally, Gopinathapai titled, System and Method for Automatically Assigning Network and Application Permissions to a Network Device based on User Attributes, teaches the use of attribute information in determining what information is allowed to be disclosed in paragraph 5. Additionally, Gopinathapai teaches transmitting and withholding information in paragraphs 4, 60, and 51. Please see the 103 rejection in light of the new amendments below.
Further, the applicant submits Gopinathapai broadly teaches the claim limitations regarding disclosure levels. However, the claims broadly recite a determination step of what information is allowed to be disclosed, “based on disclosure information and based on applicant attribute information”. Gopinathapai’s use of permission levels, which are based on disclosure information and user attributes, meet the broad determination recited in the claims. Gopinathapai disclosure levels in combination with Bailey’s recruiting apparatus, teach all the limitations of the claims. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a certain methods of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claims (1, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) recite methods and systems to manage and filtering information to match applicants with businesses. These claim elements are being interpreted as certain methods of organizing human activity (including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Filtering information to manage interactions and relationships between people recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of managing interactions and relationships between people (i.e. filtering business and applicant information to manage relationships and interactions between parties) in a general computer environment. The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements “a first applicant computer”, “a second applicant computer”, “a third applicant computer”, “a recruiter computer”, “one or more server computers”, “an interface”, and “a database”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the Dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites the additional element “recruiter computer”. Claim 3 recites the additional element “second applicant computer”. Claim 4 recites the additional element “third applicant computer”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5-8 and 14-15 do not recite any new abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact the analysis under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US 20140337242 A1) in view of Gopinathapai (US 20230179603 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Bailey teaches:
A matching system that matches an applicant with a recruiter who recruits a vendor for a business, the matching system comprising: a first applicant computer that is operated by a first applicant; and one or more server computers that is configured to: communicate with the first applicant computer; access a database; [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
register, in the database, business information associated with a recruitment case for recruiting the vendor and [see at least Bailey: (Para 0016) “creating arid storing a structured job description based on a free form job description associated with the hiring employer and with the recruiter”, (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230. An exemplary recruitment database 140 will be described in greater detail in reference to FIG. 3.”
register, in the database, applicant attribute information for a plurality of applicants, including the first applicant [see at least Bailey: (Para 0027) “store a plurality of structured candidate experiences in the recruitment database”]
receive an input of recruitment form information; register the recruitment form information in the database in association with the business information, [see at least Bailey: (Para 0016) “creating arid storing a structured job description based on a free form job description associated with the hiring employer and with the recruiter;”, (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230. An exemplary recruitment database 140 will be described in greater detail in reference to FIG. 3.”, (Para 0078) “Candidate records 210 to 210n may each comprise free form candidate information 332 associated with one of employment candidates 162 to 162n. Free form candidate information 332 may, for example, be input by a candidate 162 on a candidate device 160. Free form candidate information 332 may also be input by a recruiter 182 on a recruiter device 180. Free form candidate information 332 may also be obtained via network 150 via known methods of data collection or data aggregation.”]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
register… disclosure information indicating a disclosure range of the business information; determine, based on the disclosure information and based on the applicant attribute information, whether the business information is allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant among the business information registered in the database; [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user”, (Abstract) “The method also includes determining a resource permission level for one or more resources based on the user group of the user”]
transmit the business information that is allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant computer; withhold transmission of business information that is not allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant; [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user”, (Para 0060) “Referring now to Block 510 of FIG. 5, the method may include determining a resource permission level for one or more resources based on the user group of the user. A resource may be an application or program in which a user may access via the user device 400. In various embodiments, the entity system 200 may have control over assigning resource permission levels for one or more resources. While discussed in reference to programs and applications, a resource can relate to anything that the system can control access or functionality over for one or more users (e.g., the operations discussed herein may be used to restrict websites based on user group)”, (Para 0051) “The memory 420 of the computing device system 400 may comprise a Short Message Service (SMS) application 423 configured to send, receive, and store data, information, communications, alerts, and the like via the wireless telephone network 152. In some embodiments, the resource permission level determination application 421 provided by the resource permission level determination device 300 allows the user 110 to access the resource permission level determination device”]
the recruitment form information being for identifying whether a business for which the vendor is recruited is a group business for which an order is acceptable when a plurality of applicants jointly apply or a business for which an order is acceptable in response to an application by a single applicant; register an application group comprising two or more applicants in the database; and receive an application by the application group for business information that is allowed to be disclosed to all applicants belonging to the application group [The limitations recites registration of both individual and group entity disclosure permissions; see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 1. Bailey further teaches:
further comprising: a recruiter computer that is operated by the recruiter, wherein the recruiter computer is configured to transmit the business information and the disclosure information to the one or more server computers. [see at least Bailey (Figure 1), (Para 0104) “At 780, structured job description 318 is displayed on an interface (not shown) of recruiter device 180 or hiring employer device 170. At 790, the recruiter 182 or hiring employer 172 may provide validation of the job description. In addition, recruiter 182 or hiring employer 172 may modify free form job description 312 or ranking information and recruiter applicant tracking system 110 may update job description record 310 accordingly.”]
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 1. Bailey further teaches:
further comprising: a second applicant computer that is operated by a second applicant that is different from the first applicant, [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
wherein the server computer is configured to: determine, based on the disclosure information, business information allowed to be disclosed to the second applicant among the business information registered in the database, and provide the business information allowed to be disclosed to the second applicant to the second applicant computer. [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 3. Bailey further teaches:
further comprising: a third applicant computer that is operated by a third applicant that is different from the first applicant and the second applicant, [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
wherein a plurality of disclosure levels is set in the disclosure information, and wherein the one or more server computers is configured to determine whether or not to allow disclosure respectively to the first applicant, the second applicant, and the third applicant in accordance with the disclosure level. [see at least Otsuki: (Para 0019) “The output unit may output the presentation information whose disclosure range is varied depending on a receiver of disclosure. It is thereby possible to provide appropriate information for each receiver of disclosure and thereby allow each receiver to effectively use the information”, (Para 00146) “] The disclosure control information 516 is information for controlling the disclosure range of the presentation information. The disclosure control information 516 contains the definition of the disclosure range in accordance with a receiver of disclosure. For example, the disclosure control information 516 contains a receiver of disclosure, contents of disclosure, and so on. The receiver of disclosure may be a person with disabilities, a company offering a job, an assist device dealer, a rehabilitation facility, and so on, for example, which contains the address information of the disability person terminal 40, the job-offering company terminal 61, the assist device dealer terminal 62, and the rehabilitation facility apparatus 63.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 4. While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
wherein the one or more server computers are configured to receive an input of a target group for which disclosure of the business information is prohibited, and the one or more server computers are configured to prohibit disclosure of the business information to an applicant who belongs to the target group in a case where the disclosure level is a level at which disclosure of the business information to the target group is allowed [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 4. Bailey further teaches:
wherein the first applicant belongs to a first enterprise and the second applicant belongs to a second enterprise different from the first enterprise. [The limitations describe intended results that do not carry patentable weight in the claims; see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 2. Bailey further teaches:
wherein the one or more server computers are configured to receive a request for searching for information on a plurality of registrants registered in the database from the recruiter computer and to provide a search result based on the request which has been received to the recruiter computer, [see at least Bailey: (Figures 2a-2b), (Para 0073) “Reference is now made to FIG. 2B in which a method 200 for facilitating recruitment using an applicant tracking system and by providing a top candidate to a recruiter based on a job request of a hiring employer is illustrated. In an exemplary embodiment, search processor 130 of recruiter applicant tracking system 110 of FIG. 1 performs method 200 for facilitating recruitment.”]
wherein the recruiter computer is configured to receive an operation of selecting a recommended applicant who is recommended to apply as an applicant from the search result by the recruiter and to transmit identification information on the recommended applicant who has been selected to the one or more server computers, and wherein the one or more server computers are configured to transmit information for urging application to a computer of the recommended applicant who has been selected. [see at least Bailey: (Para 0122) “At 1160, the recruiter application tracking system 110 may prompt recruiter 182 for submission of a best candidate to hiring employer 172. The best candidate may be suggested based on recruiter match results…A submission to hiring employer 182 may comprise, for example, free form candidate information such as a resume and cover letter. A submission may also comprise structured candidate experience 334.”]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 7. Bailey further teaches:
wherein the one or more server computers are configured to register a plurality of pieces of profile information on each of the plurality of registrants in the database, [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1), (Figure 2A), (Para 0009) “creating and storing at least one structured candidate experience based on free form information associated with a candidate, the candidate experience associated with a recruiter of a plurality of recruiters;”]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
and wherein the one or more server computers are configured to receive an input for setting a range to be disclosed as the search result among the plurality of pieces of profile information from each of the plurality of registrants. [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Bailey teaches:
A recruiter computer that communicates with one or more server computers that matches an applicant with a recruiter who recruits a vendor for a business and is operated by the recruiter, the recruiter computer comprising: [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
an interface that is configured to receive an operation of inputting business information [see at least Bailey: (Figure 12A-12B), (Para 0052) “FIG. 12A and FIG. 12B are a graphical user interface for entry of job description and receipt of match results in accordance with at least one embodiment”]
and a processor that is configured to transmit to one or more server computers, the business information and the disclosure information received by the interface, [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1), (Para 0057) “Reference is now made to FIG. 1, which illustrates a recruiter applicant tracking marketplace 100 in accordance with at least, one embodiment. The recruiter applicant tracking marketplace 100 includes candidate devices 160 to 160n, hiring employer devices 170 to 170n, and recruiter devices 180 to 180n. These devices collectively connect candidates 162 to 162n, hiring employers 172 to 172n, and recruiters 182 to 182n to a recruiter applicant tracking system 110 via a network 150. The recruiter applicant tracking system 110 comprises a knowledge database 120, a search processor 130, and a recruitment database 140”]
wherein the one or more server computers are configured to: register, in a database, applicant attribute information for a plurality of applicants including the first applicant; [see at least Bailey: (Para 0027) “store a plurality of structured candidate experiences in the recruitment database”]
receive an input of recruitment form information, the one or more server computers are configured to register the recruitment form information in the database in association with the business information, [see at least Bailey: (Para 0016) “creating arid storing a structured job description based on a free form job description associated with the hiring employer and with the recruiter;”, (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230. An exemplary recruitment database 140 will be described in greater detail in reference to FIG. 3.”, (Para 0078) “Candidate records 210 to 210n may each comprise free form candidate information 332 associated with one of employment candidates 162 to 162n. Free form candidate information 332 may, for example, be input by a candidate 162 on a candidate device 160. Free form candidate information 332 may also be input by a recruiter 182 on a recruiter device 180. Free form candidate information 332 may also be obtained via network 150 via known methods of data collection or data aggregation.”]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
and disclosure information indicating a disclosure range of the business information; [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”]
wherein the disclosure information includes information that commands the one or more server computers to allow disclosure of the business information to a first applicant and to prohibit disclosure of the business information to a second applicant that is different from the first applicant, [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”]
the recruitment form information being for identifying whether a business for which the vendor is recruited is a group business for which an order is acceptable when a plurality of applicants jointly apply or a business for which an order is acceptable in response to an application by a single applicant, register an application group comprising the plurality of applicants in the database, and receive an application by the application group for business information that is allowed to be disclosed to all applicants belonging to the application group. [The limitations recites registration of both individual and group entity disclosure permissions; see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Bailey teaches:
A method for matching an applicant with a recruiter who recruits a vendor for a business, the method comprising: communicating with a first applicant computer operated by a first applicant; [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
registering business information for recruiting the vendor… [see at least Bailey, (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230.”]
registering, in the database, applicant attribute information for a plurality of applicants including the first applicant; [see at least Bailey: (Para 0027) “store a plurality of structured candidate experiences in the recruitment database”]
registering recruitment form information in the database in association with the business information when an input of the recruitment form information is received, [see at least Bailey: (Para 0016) “creating arid storing a structured job description based on a free form job description associated with the hiring employer and with the recruiter;”, (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230. An exemplary recruitment database 140 will be described in greater detail in reference to FIG. 3.”, (Para 0078) “Candidate records 210 to 210n may each comprise free form candidate information 332 associated with one of employment candidates 162 to 162n. Free form candidate information 332 may, for example, be input by a candidate 162 on a candidate device 160. Free form candidate information 332 may also be input by a recruiter 182 on a recruiter device 180. Free form candidate information 332 may also be obtained via network 150 via known methods of data collection or data aggregation.”]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
…and disclosure information indicating a disclosure range of the business information in a database;… determining, based on the disclosure information and based on the applicant attribute information, whether the business information is allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant among the business information registered in the database to provide the business information allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant to the first applicant computer; [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”, (Abstract) “The method also includes determining a resource permission level for one or more resources based on the user group of the user”]]
the recruitment form information being for identifying whether a business for which the vendor is recruited is a group business for which an order is acceptable when a plurality of applicants jointly apply or a business for which an order is acceptable in response to an application by a single applicant; registering the application group comprising a plurality of applicants in the database; and receiving an application by the application group for business information that is allowed to be disclosed to all applicants belonging to the application group. [The limitations recites registration of both individual and group entity disclosure permissions; see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Bailey teaches:
A matching system that matches an applicant with a recruiter who recruits a vendor for a business, the matching system comprising: a first applicant computer that is operated by a first applicant; one or more servers comprising a recruiter computer that is operated by the recruiter; and configured to: communicate with the first applicant computer; access a database; register, in the database, business information for recruiting the vendor… [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1), (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230.”]
register, in the database, applicant attribute information for a plurality of applicants, including the first applicant [see at least Bailey: (Para 0027) “store a plurality of structured candidate experiences in the recruitment database”]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
…and disclosure information indicating a disclosure range of the business information; … determine, based on the disclosure information and based on the applicant attribute information, whether the business information is allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant among the business information registered in the database; and provide the determined business information to the first applicant computer. [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12 and 13, (substantially similar in scope and language), Bailey teaches:
A matching system that matches an applicant with a recruiter who recruits a vendor for a business, the matching system comprising: a first applicant computer that is operated by a first applicant; a second applicant computer that is operated by a second applicant different from the first applicant; a third applicant computer that is operated by a third applicant different from the first applicant and the second applicant; and one or more server computers that are configured to: communicate with the first applicant computer; access a database; [see at least Bailey: (Figure 1)]
register, in the database, business information for recruiting the vendor [see at least Bailey: (Para 0016) “creating arid storing a structured job description based on a free form job description associated with the hiring employer and with the recruiter;”, (Para 0072) “Recruitment database 140 stores at least one candidate record 210, at least one hiring employer record 220, and at least one recruiter record 230. An exemplary recruitment database 140 will be described in greater detail in reference to FIG. 3.”, (Para 0078) “Candidate records 210 to 210n may each comprise free form candidate information 332 associated with one of employment candidates 162 to 162n. Free form candidate information 332 may, for example, be input by a candidate 162 on a candidate device 160. Free form candidate information 332 may also be input by a recruiter 182 on a recruiter device 180. Free form candidate information 332 may also be obtained via network 150 via known methods of data collection or data aggregation.”]
register, in the database, applicant attribute information for a plurality of applicants; [see at least Bailey: (Para 0027) “store a plurality of structured candidate experiences in the recruitment database”]
While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
and disclosure information indicating a disclosure range of the business information and a plurality of disclosure levels;… determine, based on the disclosure whether the business information is allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant among the business information registered in the database; provide the business information allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant to the first applicant computer; determine, based on the disclosure information and based on the applicant attribute information, whether the business information is allowed to be disclosed to the second applicant among the business information registered in the database; provide the business information allowed to be disclosed to the second applicant to the second applicant computer; and determine whether or not to allow disclosure respectively to the first applicant, the second applicant, and the third applicant in accordance with the disclosure level, wherein the first applicant belongs to a first group and the second applicant belongs to a second group different from the first group, and wherein the plurality of disclosure levels includes a first level corresponding to allowing disclosure of the business information to the first applicant and prohibiting disclosure of the business information to an applicant who does not belong to the first group, and includes a second level corresponding to allowing disclosure of the business information to an applicant who belongs to the first group or a community group having a community relation formed with the first group and prohibiting disclosure of the business information to an applicant who does not belong to either the first group or the community group. [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user”, (Abstract) “The method also includes determining a resource permission level for one or more resources based on the user group of the user”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 12. While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
wherein the plurality of disclosure levels includes a level corresponding to allowing disclosure of the business information to an applicant regardless of a group to which the applicant belongs. [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Bailey and Gopinathapai teach the limitations of claim 12. While Bailey teaches a matching system for an applicant, recruiter, and business, it does not explicitly teach but Gopinathapai does teach:
further comprising: an attribute data for identifying whether or not the community group is registered in the database, wherein the one or more server computers is configured to identify an applicant for whom disclosure of the business information is allowed based on the disclosure information and the attribute data. [see at least Gopinathapai: (Para 0005) “the user is assigned to a plurality of user groups with the user receiving at least one resource permission level for at least one resource based on each of the plurality of groups”, (Para 0006) “In some embodiments, the at least one processing device is further configured to receive a resource permission level change input for at least one of the one or more users in the user group. In such an embodiment, the resource permission level is updated for the at least one of the users in the user group related to the resource permission level change input.”, (Para 0004) “The at least one processing device is further configured to allow the user access to one or more resources on a user device associated with the user.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applicant, recruiter, and business matching system (Bailey) with user disclosure levels (Gopinathapai). One of ordinary skill would have recognized including disclosure levels would protect sensitive information, allowing access only to pertinent data based on users. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and one or ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Pertinent art not relied upon:
Hood (US 20200005220 A1) Method and System for Recruiting Candidates: Discusses matching recruiters and candidates
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST).
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 SPE can be reached on 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.
/B.L.T. /Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights