DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed November 16, 2021, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f), § 365(a) or (b), or § 386(a) based upon an application filed in Korea (KR) App. No. 10-2023-0133320 on October 6, 2023. The receipt of the certified copy of this foreign application on February 20, 2026, is acknowledged. The priority claim to the foreign priority document in question was timely made in the application data sheet filed October 3, 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to a non-final Office action on 01/11/2026 amending claims 1-16, and adding new claims 17-20. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 and § 102 rejections. Examiner has, however established new § 101 and § 103 rejections for claims 1-20 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 and § 103 rejections were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, instant rejection of claims 1-20 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101:
Applicant argues in pages 1-4 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Claim 1, as amended, is not directed to an abstract idea but directed to a technologically computer-implemented career verification system comprising hardware devices, including a server having a processor and a user terminal. The present invention is not concerned with simply organizing human activity but rather with controlling how the server generates, structures, and transmits verified career information and how the user terminal renders the verified career information.
. . .
The USPTO has recognized that claims can be patent-eligible where they recite specific GUI-related techniques that improve how users interact with a system, rather than merely organizing information for human review. For instance, Example 37 in USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility guidance, eligibility is supported where the claim recites a specific technique for arranging graphical elements on a GUI based on tracked usage.
Likewise here, claim 1 recites a specific technique for generating and structuring GUI data to ensure that verified current-employment information is displayed separately from verified previous-employment information, thereby improving the reliability and usability of the computer-implemented career verification system.
Further, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it requires transmitting verified career information to the user terminal or a third party in a predetermined standard format including a card-style GUI. This is analogous to USPTO Example 42, which explains that additional elements can constitute a specific improvement over prior systems by enabling remote users to share information in a standardized format. In Example 42, the claimed system provides medical records (often stored in different formats) in a standardized format that can be used by multiple hospitals, which the USPTO treats as a practical application. Similarly, claim 1 requires transmitting verified career information in a predetermined standard format (including a card-style GUI format), enabling consistent rendering and sharing the career information. In short, the claim does not merely “display career data”, but it requires a defined server-side generation and transmission of structured GUIs that separate current versus previous employment records and support controlled sharing, thereby integrating the alleged abstract idea into a concrete technical application.
Under Step 2B, further, the ordered combination of the claimed limitations amounts to significantly more than generic computer use. The claims recite a non-conventional arrangement (i.e., authentication, certification data, separate GUIs for current and previous employments) that improves convenience and reliability of computer-processed career verification. These combined features were not well-understood, routine, and conventional in a client-server environment.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant claimed limitations are recited in high level of abstraction lacking details and specifics as to how a technological solution to a technological problem is achieved. For example, instead of improving a computer as a tool, the claim language is merely using a computer as a tool in solving a business problem. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and there is nothing recited in the claims that integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical purpose. Further, Example 37 is directed to rearranging icons in the graphical user interface in such a manner that the most used icons are moved into a position closest to a home icon. There is nothing similar to this recited in the instant claims. Still further, Example 42 is directed to formatting documents with multiple different formats to a specific format so that the receiving device can read those documents. Yet again, nothing similar to this is recited in the instant claims.
Prior Art under § 103: The closest prior art reference – White (US 2023/0015446 A1) – located by Examiner teaches:
a memory storing instructions, and a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receiving, by the server from a user terminal, a career verification request for a user;
determining, by the processor, whether the user has completed identity authentication;
receiving, through the communication unit, certification data including career information about the user; and
identifying, by the processor, career information for the user based on the certification data.
White, however, does not teach – alone or in combination with other references – the following claim limitations found in independent claims 1, 9, and 10:
when the identified career information includes at least one career information record corresponding to at least one previous employer or at least one current employer of the user, generating, by the processor, career verification information including the at least one career information record;
generating, by the processor, user interface data corresponding to the career verification information, the user interface data including a plurality of graphical user interfaces respectively corresponding to the at least one previous employer and the at least one current employer, and being configured to cause the user terminal to display the plurality of graphical user interfaces such that a graphical user interface corresponding to the at least one current employer is displayed separately from at least one graphical user interface corresponding to the at least one previous employer, thereby enabling distinction between current employment information and previous employment information; and
transmitting, by the communication unit to the user terminal, the user interface data so that the user terminal displays the plurality of graphical user interfaces on a screen of the user terminal, wherein, in response to a user interaction with one of the plurality of graphical user interfaces, the server transmits the career verification information to the user terminal or a third party in a predetermined standard format including a card-style graphical user interface.
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 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, 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. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-8 and 10-20 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claim 9 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-20, however, recite an abstract idea of providing career verification information. The creation of providing career verification information, as recited in the independent claims 1, 9, and 10, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interaction including business relations) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 9, and 10, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“determining whether the user has completed identity authentication” (claims 1 and 9);
“identifying career information for the user based on the certification data” (claims 1 and 9);
“generating career verification information including the at least one career information record when the identified career information includes at least one career information record corresponding to at least one previous employer or at least one current employer of the user” (claims 1 and 9);
“generating user interface data corresponding to the career verification information, the user interface data including a plurality of graphical user interfaces respectively corresponding to the at least one previous employer and the at least one current employer, and being configured to cause displaying the plurality of graphical user interfaces such that a graphical user interface corresponding to the at least one current employer is displayed separately from at least one graphical user interface corresponding to the at least one previous employer, thereby enabling distinction between current employment information and previous employment information” (claims 1 and 9); and
“displaying a plurality of graphical user interfaces included in the user interface data, the plurality of graphical user interfaces respectively corresponding to at least one previous employer and at least one current employer of the user, wherein a graphical user interface corresponding to the at least one current employer is displayed separately from at least one graphical user interface corresponding to the at least one previous employer, thereby enabling distinction between current employment information and previous employment information, and wherein, in response to a user interaction with one of the plurality of graphical user interfaces, receiving the career verification information in a predetermined standard format including a card-style graphical user interface or transmitting a sharing request to cause transmitting the career verification information to a third party in the predetermined standard format” (claim 10).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1, 9, and 10, recite additional elements:
“a server” (claims 1, 9, and 10);
“a user terminal” (claims 1, 9, and 10);
“a processor” (claim 1);
“a communication unit” (claims 1 and 9);
“a memory storing instructions” (claim 9);
“a processor configured to execute the instructions” (claim 9); and
“a screen of the user terminal” (claim 10).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“receiving a career verification request for a user” (claims 1 and 9);
“receiving certification data including career information about the user” (claims 1 and 9);
“transmitting the user interface data so that the user terminal displays the plurality of graphical user interfaces on a screen of the user terminal, wherein, in response to a user interaction with one of the plurality of graphical user interfaces, transmitting the career verification information to the user terminal or a third party in a predetermined standard format including a card-style graphical user interface” (claims 1 and 9);
“transmitting a career verification request for a user” (claim 10); and
“receiving user interface data corresponding to career verification information for the user, wherein the career verification information is generated based on one certification data including career information for the user” (claim 10).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 10, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[37] The server 100 may execute a requested function or additional function and transmit a result to the user terminal 200. The user terminal 200 may provide a requested function or service by processing the received result either as is or with additional processing.
[38] The server 100 may include a processor 110, a communication unit 120, and a memory 130. The processor 110 may control the overall operation of the communication unit 120 and the memory 130. According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, the communication unit 120 may communicate with the electronic device 100 over a network in a wired or wireless manner. The memory 130 functions as a storage medium and may store multiple applications running on the server 100, as well as data and commands required for the operation of the server 100. In one embodiment, the memory 130 may be provided in the form of any of various hardware storage devices such as a read-only memory (ROM), a random-access memory (RAM), a flash drive, a hard drive, etc., or may be provided in the form of web storage.
[39] According to various embodiments, the processor 110 may provide a functionality or user interface that allows the user terminal 200 to download an application offering various functions via the server 100 or an external server (e.g., an online platform, an external application download server, etc.). In one embodiment, the application may include an application specified according to the attributes of the server 100 or an application received from the server 100. For example, the application may include a preloaded application or a third-party application available for download from the server 100.
[49] In another embodiment, the processor 110 may provide a functionality or user interface so that career verification information is displayed as part of profile information for a user account on a messaging application on the user terminal 200. For example, the processor 110 may provide a functionality or user interface that allows other user terminals to identify career verification information (e.g., current employer information and previous employer information) and educational background information of the user account on the messenger application. The user terminal 200 may configure the scope of career information, educational background information, certification information, and other data to be disclosed to other user terminals.
[50] According to various embodiments, the user terminal 200 may include at least one of the following: a smartphone, a tablet personal computer (tablet PC), a mobile phone, a video phone, an e-book reader, a desktop personal computer (desktop PC), a laptop personal computer (laptop PC), a netbook computer, a workstation, a server, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable multimedia player (PMP), an MP3 player, a mobile medical device, a camera, and a wearable device.
[51] Referring to FIG. 1, the user terminal 200 may include a processor 210, a communication unit 220, an input unit 230, an output unit 240, and a memory 250, according to various embodiments. In one embodiment, at least one of the components of the user terminal 200 may be omitted or another component may be additionally provided.
[52] The processor 210 may control a number of hardware or software components connected to the processor 210 by running an operating system or application, and may perform various data processing and computations. The processor 210 may execute an application by controlling the overall operation of the communication unit 220, the input unit 230, the output unit 240, and the memory 250.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “transmitting” and “receiving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “transmitting” and “receiving” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, “transmit” and “receive” information over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized “transmitting” and “receiving” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 10, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-8 and 17-20 depend on independent claim 1; and dependent claims 11-16 depend on independent claim 10. The elements in dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the certification data includes at least one of the user's employment information, income information, and company information” (claim 2: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the career verification information comprises at least one of: name information, work experience information, employment status information, and job position information of the user” (claim 3: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“identifying updates to the career information for the user; and providing, through the communication unit to the user terminal, updated user interface data corresponding to the updated career information for the user so that one of the plurality of graphical user interfaces corresponding to the updated career information is displayed on the user terminal” (claim 4: where “identifying” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “providing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“generating associated verification information for the user based on the career information for the user; and providing, through the communication unit to the user terminal, the generated associated verification information” (claim 5: where “generating” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “providing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the generating of the associated verification information for the user comprises: receiving, by the server from the user terminal, a request to generate the associated verification information for the user; categorizing the career information for the user according to preset categories; and generating the associated verification information for the user based on the categorized career information” (claim 6: where “receiving” step is insignificant extra solution activity; and where “categorizing” and “generating” steps are further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the generating of the associated verification information for the user comprises: identifying additional requirement information for generating the associated verification information; transmitting, through the communication unit to the user terminal, the identified additional requirement information; and in response to receiving the identified additional requirement information from the user terminal, generating the associated verification information for the user” (claim 7: where “identifying” and “generating” steps are further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “transmitting” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the additional requirement information comprises information that certifies at least one of educational background information, license information, and facility access permit information for the user” (claim 8: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"the certification data includes at least one of the user's employment information, income information, and company information” (claim 11: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the career verification information comprises at least one of: name information, work experience information, employment status information, and job position information of the user” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“identifying updates to the career information for the user; receiving, from the server, updated user interface data corresponding to the updated career information; and displaying, on the screen of the user terminal, one of the plurality of graphical user interfaces included in the updated user interface data corresponding to the updated career information such that the updated career information is displayed separately for at least one previous employer and at least one current employer” (claim 13: where “identifying” and “displaying” steps are further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and where “receiving” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“transmitting, by the user terminal to the server, a request to generate associated verification information for the user from the server; receiving, from the server, the associated verification information; and displaying, on the screen of the user terminal, one of the plurality of graphical user interfaces corresponding to the received associated verification information” (claim 14: where “transmitting” and “receiving” steps are insignificant extra solution activity; and where “displaying” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the receiving of the associated verification information from the server comprises: receiving additional requirement information for generating the associated verification information from the server; and transmitting, by the user terminal to the server, the additional requirement information” (claim 15: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the additional requirement information comprises at least one of educational background information, license information, and facility access permit information for the user” (claim 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the server transmits the career verification information to the third party via a QR code generated by the server, and when the QR code is scanned by another user terminal, the career verification information is displayed” (claim 17: where “transmitting” step is insignificant extra solution activity; and where “displaying” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the card-style graphical user interface includes: a current-employment card including the at least one current employer, a user name, an employment status indicator, an employment period, or a position title; and a previous-employment region including a stack of selectable cards corresponding to the at least one previous employer, the stack being displayed below the current-employment card” (claim 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the predetermined standard format further comprises a card-based sharing interface displayed on the user terminal, the card-based sharing interface including: a career card interface including at least one career card currently held by the user; an academic card interface including at least one academic card currently held by the user; and a license card interface including at least one license card currently held by the user” (claim 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“the server, in response to a user selection in the card-based sharing interface, transmits the selected career verification information to the third party” (claim 20: insignificant extra solution activity).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 10 and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knas (US 11,308,448 B1) discloses: “At step 202, the analytics server may generate a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input fields configured to receive data associated with employment of a participant. The analytics server may generate a graphical user interface in order to provide employment record services to variety of clients (e.g., employees, employers, and educational services). In an embodiment, the graphical user interface may be a website hosted by the analytics server, which is available to different clients. The purpose of said website may be to collect employment information, provide a platform to securely upload employment data, and/or possibly retrieve employment data from the website. The graphical user interface may act as an intermediary between different parties involved within a participant's career and may be a central and “one stop” place for adding, updating, and/or retrieving employment data. While the graphical user interface is described herein as a central management tool, neither the analytics server nor the graphical user interface deviates from the spirit of the distributed nature of the blockchain technology.”
Shahulhameed (US 2017/0024700 A1) discloses: “A method for displaying proof of employment data verifies the employment data. A computer system displays a control in a graphical user interface for a display system. The control is configured to receive user input specifying an identifier for proof of employment data. The computer system receives the user input specifying the identifier through the control. The computer system retrieves the proof of the employment data based on the identifier. The computer system displays the proof of the employment data in the graphical user interface.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights