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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The present application, filed on 09/05/2024, claims priority to Provisional Application 63/580,455, filed on 09/05/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Claims 11-20 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, analogous to independent claim 11 recites: A method comprising: receiving validation data associated with a qualification of a job seeker; determining, based on the qualification, that the qualification is a static qualification; based on the determination that the qualification is a static qualification, storing the validation data, an indication that the qualification is validated; and based on receipt of a request to submit an application for a job by the job seeker, sending the indication that the qualification is validated to an employer system associated with the job. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss receiving validation data associated with a qualification of a job seeker; determining, based on the qualification, that the qualification is a static qualification and sending the validated qualification to an employer system associated with the job, which is a clear business relations and one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1, analogous to claims 11 recites for example, “receiving validation data associated with a qualification of a job seeker”; “determining, based on the qualification, that the qualification is a static qualification”; “based on the determination that the qualification is a static qualification, storing the validation data”, “based on receipt of a request to submit an application for a job by the job seeker, sending the indication that the qualification is validated to an employer system associated with the job”.) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, determining, verifying, sending and analyzing information mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claims 2 and 12) based on a determination that the qualification is a non-static qualification, storing the validation data with an expiration date; (claims 3 and 13) wherein the qualification includes a drug test, a criminal history report, a background check report, a renewable certification or membership, or any combination thereof; (claims 4 and 14) wherein the qualification includes employment history, residential history, educational history, an assessment or skills test, a professional certification, or any combination thereof; (claims 5 and 15) wherein the indication includes a badge positioned next to the qualification; (claims 6 and 16) based on receipt of permission from the user, storing the validation data; (claims 7 and 17) wherein the validation data includes a report that validates the qualification; (claims 8 and 18) based on a request from the job seeker, removing the indication; (claims 9 and 19) based on a request from the employer system associated with the job, sending a request for second validation data for a second qualification of the job seeker; (claims 10 and 20) based on receipt of the second validation data and based on a determination that the second qualification is a static qualification, storing the second validation data, a second indication that the second qualification is validated, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claims 1 and 11) verified trusted third party (VTTP) computing system; digital work wallet; (claim 11) background check data co-op platform (BCDCP) system. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-20 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercury et al. (US 2019/0087781 A1), hereinafter “Mercury”, over O’Malley (US 2019/0392355), hereinafter “O’Malley”.
Regarding Claim 1, Mercury teaches A method comprising: receiving, from a verified, trusted third party (VTTP) computing system, validation data associated with a qualification included in a digital work wallet of a job seeker; (Mercury, para 0081, teaches external data aggregators may include third-party data sources accessible to the content management network... Illustrative external data aggregators may include, for example, social networking web servers, public records data stores, learning management systems, educational institution servers, business servers, consumer sales data stores, medical record data stores, etc.; Mercury, Abstract teaches a digital credential repository for employees to identify a plurality of digital credentials; Mercury throughout teaches a digital badge portfolio, see at least para 0173 (Examiner interprets as digital work wallet));
determining, based on the qualification, that the qualification is a static qualification; (See at least Mercury, Figure 13 and para 0016, teaches determine digital credential expiration and/or recertification times; para 0134, teaches details may include the date on which a badge was issued to a user, and for certain badges, an expiration date associated with the badge);
based on the determination that the qualification is a static qualification, storing, in the digital work wallet based on the validation data, an indication that the qualification is validated; and (Storing data is taught throughout Mercury, See at least Mercury Figure 3 and para 0005, para 0095-0099, teaches storing data; Mercury, para 0204, storing of badges and associated badge data, managing badge endorsements, and the like, may be implemented via a centralized badge platform comprising one or more computer servers);
based on receipt of a request to ... for a job by the job seeker, sending the digital work wallet with the indication that the qualification is validated to an employer system associated with the job (Mercury, para 0206, recruiter clients (e.g., creating and importing job data and/or candidate data into the system, associating candidates with job listings or occupations, and vice versa, etc; Mercury, Figure 33 and para 0207-0210, teaches serving different types of clients (e.g. badge earners, issuers, employers, recruiters, etc.) requesting badge information and permissions).
Yet, Mercury does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor O’Malley teaches submit an application (See at least O’Malley, para 0133, teaches role of the “Applicant” is someone who has completed an application; para 0034, collecting one or more job applications from one or more job applicants for the particular job opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mercury with submit an application as taught by O’Malley with the motivation for both the job seekers, referred to herein as “Applicants”, and the “Job Poster” to have a far more efficient system with tools to automatically and succinctly create the most appropriate Job Postings, with additional tools that can create conditional qualifications and surveys for both the Job Poster and the job Applicant (O’Malley, para 0010). The Mercury invention now incorporating the O’Malley invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising, based on a determination that the qualification is a non-static qualification, storing the validation data with an expiration date (See at least Mercury, Figure 34, teaches an active badge list with expiration date; Mercury, Figure 13 and para 0016, teaches determine digital credential expiration and/or recertification times).
Regarding Claim 3, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the qualification includes a drug test, a criminal history report, a background check report, a renewable certification or membership, or any combination thereof (Mercury, para 0170, Data sources also may include educational record servers (e.g., to obtain the user's grades, transcripts, disciplinary issues), governmental servers (e.g., to obtain the user's criminal record, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 4, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the qualification includes employment history, residential history, educational history, an assessment or skills test, a professional certification, or any combination thereof (Mercury, para 0170, Data sources also may include educational record servers (e.g., to obtain the user's grades, transcripts, disciplinary issues; Mercury, para 0222, user data may include demographic data, employment and educational data, other qualifications, current employment details,),
Regarding Claim 5, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the indication includes a badge positioned next to the qualification in the digital work wallet (Mercury throughout teaches digital badges, see at least Figure 34 and para 0028, teaches certifying and registering badges within a badging platform, and verifying the associated skills of a badge).
Regarding Claim 6, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising, based on receipt of permission from the user, storing the validation data in the digital work wallet (Mercury, para 0172, if the user's personality data meets the criteria for one or more personality-related badges (Yes), then in step 2104 the badge issuer may issue the badges to the user and (upon acceptance from the user) transmit the badge data to the platform server for storage in the user's badge portfolio).
Regarding Claim 7, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the validation data includes a report that validates the qualification (See at least Mercury, para 0109, teaches generation and management of digital credentials, as well as the reporting of digital credential data).
Regarding Claim 8, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 7, further comprising, based on a request from the job seeker, removing the indication from the digital work wallet (See at least Mercury, para 0211, While viewing their badge portfolio, the user interface may provide badge earner with buttons/links to add or approve a new badge to the portfolio or remove badges).
Regarding Claim 9, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising, based on a request from the employer system associated with the job, sending, to the VTTP, a request for second validation data for a second qualification of the job seeker (Mercury, para 0192, teaches the job may require a second badge; See at least Mercury, Figure 33 and para 0207-0210, teaches serving different types of clients (e.g. employers, recruiters, etc.) requesting badge information).
Regarding Claim 10, Mercury, now incorporating O’Malley, teaches The method of claim 9, further comprising, based on receipt of the second validation data and based on a determination that the second qualification is a static qualification, storing, in the digital work wallet based on the second validation data, a second indication that the second qualification is validated (Mercury, para 0192, teaches the job may require a second badge; See at least Mercury, Figure 33 and para 0207-0210, teaches serving different types of clients (e.g. employers, recruiters, etc.) requesting badge information; Storing data is taught throughout Mercury, See at least Mercury Figure 3 and para 0005, para 0095-0099, teaches storing data; Mercury, para 0204, storing of badges and associated badge data).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Mercury teaches a background check data co-op platform (BCDCP) system configured to: receive the validation data (See at least Mercury, para 0020, FIGS. 17A and 17B are flow diagrams illustrating example processes by which evidence data may be retrieved and/or accessed from a platform server or other data repository.)
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 10 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Additional Prior Art Consulted
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes the following:
Elenbaas US 2009/0204471 - An online work management system provides a marketplace for multiple job owner and workers. The job owners provide a job description that defines task. The job description may be processed to generate task descriptions that may be published for workers' application.
NPL - Vanshika Jain; Suyash Khade; Hardik; Abhishek Kumar Yadav; Shraddha Bhagawat; Manish P. Kurhekar, “Background Verification of Employees using Blockchain”, Published in: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Distributed Systems Security (ICBDS)
Date of Conference: 16-18 September 2022, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9935898 - With the ever changing job market, finding a position in a corporation is exceedingly difficult. In order to get a job, people often tend to alter information on their curriculum vitae (CV). As a result, organizations use screening techniques that are incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and ineffective. We present a working prototype of a remedy that resolves this problem by saving and exchanging a job applicant's original documents across a consortium blockchain (Hyperledger). Using blockchain enhances the security, immutability and authenticity of data simultaneously reducing any scope of data alteration close to zero.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights