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 application 18/793,000 filed 8/2/2024. Claims 1-15 are hereby entered. No claims are allowed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Computing apparatus configured to” (Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 13 and associated dependent claims)
“Recruiter apparatus” (Claim 2, 11, and associated dependent claims)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 11, 12, and 13 (and dependent claims 2-8 and 14-15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Paragraphs 262, 340, 348, 356, and 357 of the specification describe the computing apparatus as a server that determines disclosure based on business information provided. However, the necessary algorithm as to how the server processes the information to make a determination is not disclosed. The paragraphs do discuss a recruiter that inputs target group permissions which is then transmitted and used to filter information to users. Therefore, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the determination is interpreted as filtering information based on disclosure levels of users.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “Computing apparatus configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although the structure of the computing apparatus is discussed in specification paragraph 0262 as an on-premises server, there is no clear link as to how the server performs the functions in the claims. For example, the determination stating, “determine, based on the disclosure information, business information allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant among the business information registered in the database” does not disclose how the computing apparatus performs the determination. Therefore, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the determination is interpreted as filtering information based on disclosure levels of users.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 apparatus”, “a second applicant apparatus”, “a third applicant apparatus”, “a recruiter apparatus”, “a computing apparatus”, “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 apparatus”. Claim 3 recites the additional element “second applicant apparatus”. Claim 4 recites the additional element “third applicant apparatus”. 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 apparatus that is operated by a first applicant; and a computing apparatus that is configured to: communicate with the first applicant apparatus; 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.”
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:
and disclosure information indicating a disclosure range of the business information; determine, based on the disclosure information, business information allowed to be disclosed to the first applicant among the business information registered in the database; provide the determined business information to the first applicant apparatus; [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.”]
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 a 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.”, (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 apparatus that is operated by the recruiter, wherein the recruiter apparatus is configured to transmit the business information and the disclosure information to the computing apparatus. [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 apparatus 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 computing apparatus 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 apparatus. [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 apparatus 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 computing apparatus 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 when the computing apparatus has received an input of a target group for which disclosure of the business information is prohibited, the computing apparatus is 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 computing apparatus is configured to receive a request for searching for information on a plurality of registrants registered in the database from the recruiter apparatus and to provide a search result based on the request which has been received to the recruiter apparatus, [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 apparatus 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 computing apparatus, and wherein the computing apparatus is configured to transmit information for urging application to the applicant apparatus 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 computing apparatus is 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 computing apparatus is 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 apparatus that communicates with a computing apparatus that matches an applicant with a recruiter who recruits a vendor for a business and is operated by the recruiter, the recruiter apparatus 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 the computing apparatus, 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 computing apparatus is configured to: receive an input of recruitment form information, the computing apparatus is 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 computing apparatus 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 a 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 apparatus 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 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, business information 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 apparatus; [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.”]
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 an 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 apparatus that is operated by a first applicant; a computing apparatus comprising a recruiter apparatus that is operated by the recruiter; and configured to: communicate with the first applicant apparatus; 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.”]
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, business information 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 apparatus. [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 apparatus that is operated by a first applicant; a second applicant apparatus that is operated by a second applicant different from the first applicant; a third applicant apparatus that is operated by a third applicant different from the first applicant and the second applicant; and a computing apparatus that is configured to: communicate with the first applicant apparatus; 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.”]
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 information, business information 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 apparatus; determine, based on the disclosure information, business information 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 apparatus; 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.”]
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 computing apparatus 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
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 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights