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 is a non-final office action on application 18/846,584 filed on September 12, 2024, which is a 371 of PCT/US2022/016328 filed on February 14, 2022.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement received on January 23, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Per claim 1, the applicant is advised to amend the claim to clearly tie the step(s) performed by the AI system to the at least one processor on a computer, i.e., executing, by at least one processor on a computer … wherein the at least one processor when executing the AI system performs steps comprising: …, in order to avoid BRI of processor executing an OS an application that is AI system (i.e., instruction).
Per claim 18, the applicant is advised to amend the claim similarly as in claim 1 above to clearly tie the steps performed by the AI system to the at least a processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 18, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The claim, however, is also directed to a step performed by a user, i.e., (a) submitting by each respective prospective employer … Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite since the boundaries are unclear (see Ex Parte Lyell, 17 LISPQ2d 1548 (B.P.A.I. 1990) and In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-17 are directed to a to a method (i.e. process) while claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A computer implemented method of intelligent job offer negotiation, comprising:
executing, by at least one processor on a computer, a job offer negotiation algorithm implemented by an artificial intelligence (AI) system stored on a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium, that performs online job offer negotiation between a job-seeker and a plurality of prospective employers prior to job offer acceptance, wherein the AI system performing steps comprising:
upon a job-seeker's profile of the job-seeker having been successfully matched or rematched to respective job opening profiles of corresponding plurality of prospective employers, negotiating to reach a preferred job offer bid between the job-seeker and the plurality of prospective employers, wherein the negotiating of the preferred job offer bid, comprising the AI system invoking a feedback loop implementing the following steps:
(a) submitting by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers, a respective job offer bid B.sub.x to compete hiring of the job-seeker, wherein the respective job offer bid B.sub.x comprising a plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n;
(b) determining a corresponding respective composite score S from the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n comprised in each respective job offer bid B.sub.x submitted by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers;
(c) comparing all corresponding respective composite scores S.sub.1 . . . S.sub.x of each respective plurality of job offer bids B.sub.1 . . . B.sub.x submitted among the plurality of prospective employers to display a winning job offer bid B.sub.h with a highest composite score S.sub.h;
(d) in response to the displayed winning job offer bid B.sub.h, iteratively adjusting a corresponding value to one or more offer terms attributes to at least one non-winning job offer bid from remaining bidding prospective employers to continue competing hiring of the job-seeker;
(e) repeating steps (b) to (d) by the feedback loop to receive a final winning job offer bid B.sub.f, or until no further job offer bids are submitted; and
(f) receiving an acknowledgment signal from the job-seeker, confirming acceptance of a final winning job offer bid Bf from a winning bidding prospective employer.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process of job offer negotiation between a job-seeker and a plurality of prospective employers, particularly upon a job-seeker having been successfully matched or rematched to respective job opening profiles of corresponding plurality of prospective employers, negotiating to reach a preferred job offer bid between the job-seeker and the plurality of prospective employers. The claim further recites this negotiating steps to include submitting by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers, a respective job offer bid B.sub.x to compete hiring of the job-seeker, wherein the respective job offer bid B.sub.x comprising a plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n; (b) determining a corresponding respective composite score S from the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n comprised in each respective job offer bid B.sub.x submitted by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers; (c) comparing all corresponding respective composite scores S.sub.1 . . . S.sub.x of each respective plurality of job offer bids B.sub.1 . . . B.sub.x submitted among the plurality of prospective employers to display a winning job offer bid B.sub.h with a highest composite score S.sub.h; (d) in response to the displayed winning job offer bid B.sub.h, iteratively adjusting a corresponding value to one or more offer terms attributes to at least one non-winning job offer bid from remaining bidding prospective employers to continue competing hiring of the job-seeker; (e) repeating steps (b) to (d) by the feedback loop to receive a final winning job offer bid B.sub.f, or until no further job offer bids are submitted; and (f) receiving an acknowledgment signal from the job-seeker, confirming acceptance of a final winning job offer bid Bf from a winning bidding prospective employer.
As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., business relations and/or managing relationships or interactions among people.
Independent claim 18 is significantly similar to claim 1. As such, claims 18 also recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., computer-implemented, at least one processor of a computer, AI system (instructions) stored on a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium, and online, are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claim improves upon the computer or at least one processor or the computer or in combination.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer component(s) individually or in combination.
The dependent claims, i.e., claims 2-17, further expand on the abstract idea related to certain method of organizing human activities and mental activities utilizing mathematical concepts.
The additional element of “real time” in claims 6, 8, and 12 and database(s) in claim 15 are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claim(s) do not improve the computer or its components (processor, databases) individually or in combination and does not recite additional elements that amounts to an inventive concept.
Claims 15-17 recites training of the AI system. However, the training of the AI system is under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be a mathematical concepts and mental activities.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. (“Richardson”) in view of “Evaluation of Job Offers using the Evidential Reasoning Approach” (“Mahmud”) and “Negotiating a Job Offer” (“Smith”).
Per claims 1 and 18, Richardson discloses a computer implemented method of intelligent job offer, comprising:
executing, by at least one processor on a computer, a job offer
upon a job-seeker's profile of the job-seeker having been successfully matched or rematched to respective job opening profiles of corresponding plurality of prospective employers ([0029]; [0035]), invoking a feedback loop implementing the following steps:
(a) submitting by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers, a respective job offer bid B.sub.x to compete hiring of the job-seeker, wherein the respective job offer bid B.sub.x comprising a plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n ([0075], employers to bid for the services of prospective employees … interested employers can then submit bids; [0133];
(b) determining a corresponding respective composite score S from the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n comprised in each respective job offer bid B.sub.x submitted by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers ([0133], the scoring of the offer terms attributes is implied in the applicant could then select the bid they find most attractive);
(c) comparing all corresponding respective composite scores S.sub.1 . . . S.sub.x of each respective plurality of job offer bids B.sub.1 . . . B.sub.x submitted among the plurality of prospective employers to display a winning job offer bid B.sub.h with a highest composite score S.sub.h ([0133], the scoring of the offer terms attributes is implied in the applicant could then select the bid they find most attractive);
(f) receiving an acknowledgment signal from the job-seeker, confirming acceptance of a final winning job offer bid Bf from a winning bidding prospective employer ([0133], applicant selects the bid they find most attractive).
Richardson further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium which stores at least one code of a job offer negotiation algorithm, executed by at least a processor in a computer (see [0031]).
While Richardson implicitly teaches evaluation of job offers, i.e., by the prospective employee, Richardson does not particularly teach AI system that performs the particulars of the evaluation of job offers, including the steps of (b) determining a corresponding respective composite score S from the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n comprised in each respective job offer bid B.sub.x submitted by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers; (c) comparing all corresponding respective composite scores S.sub.1 . . . S.sub.x of each respective plurality of job offer bids B.sub.1 . . . B.sub.x submitted among the plurality of prospective employers to display a winning job offer bid B.sub.h with a highest composite score S.sub.h.
Mahmud, however, teaches AI system (artificial intelligence in particular the theory of evidence in I. Introduction section) that performs the particulars of the evaluation of job offers, including the steps of (b) determining a corresponding respective composite score S from the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n comprised in each respective job offer bid B.sub.x submitted by each respective prospective employer among the plurality of prospective employers ([0133], the scoring of the offer terms attributes is implied in the applicant could then select the bid they find most attractive); (c) comparing all corresponding respective composite scores S.sub.1 . . . S.sub.x of each respective plurality of job offer bids B.sub.1 . . . B.sub.x submitted among the plurality of prospective employers to display a winning job offer bid B.sub.h with a highest composite score S.sub.h (Fig. 4 – Fig. 8; II. Evidential Reasoning Approach; III. Results and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the technique of job evaluation as taught by Mahmud as evaluation technique in Richardson for the purpose of addressing the uncertainty of multi-criterion problem (see abstract).
While Richardson teaches a job-seeker's profile of the job-seeker having been successfully matched or rematched to respective job opening profiles of corresponding plurality of prospective employers as described above, Richardson/Mahmud does not particularly teach negotiating a preferred job offer bid between the job-seeker and the plurality of prospective employer upon the job-seeker’s profile of the job-seeking having been successfully matched or rematches to respective job opening profiles of corresponding plurality of prospective employer including (d) in response to the displayed winning job offer bid B.sub.h, iteratively adjusting a corresponding value to one or more offer terms attributes to at least one non-winning job offer bid from remaining bidding prospective employers to continue competing hiring of the job-seeker; (e) repeating steps (b) to (d) by the feedback loop to receive a final winning job offer bid B.sub.f, or until no further job offer bids are submitted.
Smith, however, teaches negotiating a preferred job offer between the job-seeker and the plurality of prospective employer upon the job-seeker’s profile of the job-seeking having been successfully matched or rematches to respective job opening profiles of corresponding plurality of prospective employer (d) in response to the displayed winning job offer bid B.sub.h, iteratively adjusting a corresponding value to one or more offer terms attributes to at least one non-winning job offer bid from remaining bidding prospective employers to continue competing hiring of the job-seeker; (e) repeating steps (b) to (d) by the feedback loop to receive a final winning job offer bid B.sub.f, or until no further job offer bids are submitted (see c1 p33, negotiate counteroffer … raise our opening salary by $2,000 to reflect market conditions … C offered as much as %5,000 higher than my increased offer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the technique of negotiation to Richardson/Mahmud system of employment as the combination provides opportunities for the job-seeker to gain better offer.
As per claim 2, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches wherein the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n, comprising one or more of: a salary or an hourly wage, offering of insurance benefits comprising one or more of: health, dental, vision, life, accidental death and disability, employer's contributions to the insurance benefits, sick leave days, maternity/paternity leave, holidays, vacation days, overtime pay, remote working flexibility, education assistance, relocation benefits, offering of retirement plans, employer's retirement contributions, profit sharing or bonus, stock options, phone plan assistance contributions, transportation, dependent care and flexible medical spending deductions (Mahmud: Fig. 3).
As per claim 3, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches assigning either a default terms weight or a custom terms weight w.sub.i . . . w.sub.n to each of the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n (Mahmud: I. Introduction, calculate the weight of these two attributes … II. Evidential Reasonal Approach: weight normalization; III. Result and Discussion, each attribute weight).
As per claim 4, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches wherein the determining of the corresponding respective composite score S comprising summing of all plurality of products of each of the assigned default or custom terms weight w.sub.i to each of n corresponding terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n specified in the respective job offer bid B, such that the respective composite score S=Σ.sub.i=1.sup.n(w.sub.i*A.sub.i), where n is a total number of the plurality offer terms attribute A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n specified in the respective job offer bid B (Mahmud: Fig. 5; Fig. 6, and their corresponding sections).
As per claim 5, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches wherein the assigned default terms weight w.sub.i . . . w.sub.n being a numerical value 1 (Mahmud: b) Weight Normalization).
As per claim 6, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches wherein one or more of the assigned custom terms weight w.sub.i . . . w.sub.n is configurable by either the AI system or by the job-seeker in real time after receiving the respective job offer bid B, such that the assigned custom terms weight being ranged from a numerical value 0 to a numerical value greater than 1 for each of the plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n in the job offer negotiation algorithm (Mahmud: b) Weight Normalization).
As per claim 7, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches determining a respective normalized composite score S.sub.norm by dividing the respective composite score S by a total number of offer terms attributes specified in the respective job offer bid (Mahmud: b) Weight Normalization).
As per claim 8, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith further teaches wherein the online job offer negotiation between the job-seeker and the plurality of prospective employers is performed in real time by the feedback loop of the AI system (Mahmud: I. Introduction, artificial intelligence).
As per claims 9 and 10, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith does not teach wherein the final winning job offer bid B.sub.f is based on the respective composite score S of the preferred job offer bid exceeding a job offer composite threshold score value S.sub.th wherein the job offer composite threshold score value S.sub.th is a benchmark value based on training the AI system through a statistical analysis of collective equivalent job offers in a similar labor market category. However, the description of how the winning job offer bid was based does not move to distinguish over prior art as the description does not affect the positively recited step of receiving an acknowledgement signal from the job-seeker, confirming acceptance of a final winning job offer bid.
As per claim 11, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith teaches wherein the adjusting of the corresponding value to the one or more plurality of offer terms attributes A.sub.i . . . A.sub.n to the at least one non-winning job offer bid from the remaining bidding prospective employers comprising enabling the feedback loop to increase within a defined range, anyone or a combination of: the salary or the hourly wage, overtime pay, profit sharing or bonus and stock options (Smith: c1 p33, negotiate counteroffer … raise our opening salary by $2,000 to reflect market conditions … C offered as much as %5,000 higher than my increased offer).
As per claim 12, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith does not specifically teach wherein personal information of the job-seeker is not shared with the corresponding plurality of prospective employers until the acceptance of the final winning job offer bid B.sub.f has been confirmed by the job-seeker or the job-seeker has agreed to participate in one of: a live real-time audio or video interview and a pre-recorded interview with the corresponding plurality of prospective employers. However, description of personal information, i.e., its intend, does not move to distinguish over the prior art as the description does not affect the positively recited steps in claim 1.
As per claim 14, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith does not specifically teach charging the winning bidding prospective employer a defined fee for a job offer negotiation service rendered by the AI system, wherein the winning bidding prospective employer is given a credit of the charged fee for a next hire when the job-seeker fails to meet job performance or is terminated within a defined number of days after hiring.
The examiner takes Official Notice that charging the winning bidder a defined fee for a service and crediting the bidder for next service if the objective of the bidding is not up to expectation is old and well known in the art prior to the effective filing of the claim.
Hence, as Richardson/Mahmud/Smith teaches a bidding system for job placement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing to include any known charging and crediting of charges for the service to Richardson/Mahmud/Smith since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Furthermore, the claimed expression of wherein the winning bidding prospective employer is given a credit of the charged fee for a next hire when the job-seeker fails to meet job performance or is terminated within a defined number of days after hiring does not move to distinguish over prior art as the description of the winning bidding prospective employer does not affect the positively recited steps in the claim. Furthermore, the wherein statement of the winning bidding prospective employer is given a credit of the charged fee for a next hire the is a conditional statement.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson/Mahmud/Smith as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,934,979 (“Singh”).
Per claims 13, Richardson/Mahmud/Smith does not particularly teach wherein the accepted final winning job offer bid B.sub.f is withdrawn from the job-seeker if the job-seeker fails a required drug test or a background check.
Singh, however, teaches, contingent offers of employment on passing a drug test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the contingent offers contingent on passing a drug test to the final winning job offer in Richardson/Mahmud/Smith in order to ensure safety and increase productivity.
Conclusion
The prior art individually and in combination do not teach claims 15-17.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200356865 a system with a weighted comparison module that receive data of at least one decision-making goal parameter, determine a plurality of decision-making factors, determine a weight for each of the plurality of decision-making factors, continuously receive data affecting decision-making, determine at least one relationship between an increase or a decrease of a value of the at least one decision-making goal parameter and the plurality of decision-making factors based on iteratively modifying the weights for each of the plurality of decision-making factors and analyzing the continuously-received data, and optimize the value of the at least one decision-making goal parameter by iteratively modifying the weights for each of the plurality of decision-making factors based on the at least one relationship. The system and method may be used in comparing and deciding between job offers;
US 20150149455 and US 20020002479 disclose evaluation of job offers;
US 20140058954 discloses employer bidding on potential employees and negotiate the best salary range for both job seekers and employers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698