DETAILED ACTION
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 action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 10/21/2024.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 10 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; 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); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 10, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
Adding entity information based on a first company to a job matching service. . . (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to a matching service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Adding first position information based on a first job opening of the first company to a position library of the job matching service. . . wherein the position library comprises position information based on a plurality of job openings; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add this information to a matching service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Configuring the first position information with first attribute information, wherein the first attribute information comprises parameter information sufficient to characterize an applicant response as having required, acceptable, bonus, disqualifying, and/or unexplained response information; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could configure this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Adding applicant background information based on a new applicant to the job matching service. . . . (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add applicant background information to a matching service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Determining, by the job matching service, a first group of job openings based on the applicant background information, wherein the first group of job openings comprises a first group of position information stored in the position library and that is associated with the first group of job openings; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Displaying. . . a first survey question, wherein the first survey question is based on the first group of position information; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Receiving, by the job matching service, a first applicant response to the first survey question; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a response to a survey question; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Determining, by the job matching service, a second group of job openings based on the first applicant response, wherein the second group of job openings comprises a second group of position information stored in the position library and that is associated with the second group of job openings, and wherein the second group of job openings is a subset of the first group of job openings; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
Displaying. . . a second survey question, wherein the second survey question is based on the second group of position information; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
and Receiving, by the job matching service, a second applicant response to the second survey question. (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a second response; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes, since, but for the requirement to implement the steps above using a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgement. The above elements, as a whole, recite certain methods of organizing human activity, since they recite a business process for matching a job applicant to an entity seeking an employee, a certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A computer implemented method comprising: (Claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
using a tenant interface of the job matching service; (Claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
using an applicant interface of the job matching service; (Claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
on a screen of the applicant interface (Claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed facilitate performance of operations comprising: (Claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 11:
wherein the first survey question is based on a subset of the first group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the first group of job openings.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the survey questions used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 3 and 12:
wherein the second survey question is based on a subset of the second group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the second group of job openings.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the survey questions used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 4 and 13:
wherein the second group of job openings is a null set and wherein the second survey question comprises a message that no further questions are forthcoming.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could indicate that no further questions are coming if no jobs are found which match a user’s answers to a survey; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers.
Claims 5 and 14:
wherein the entity information comprises information about a work site of the first company where the first job opening is located.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the entity information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 6 and 15:
wherein the position library comprises a position public library comprising position information based on a plurality of job openings of a plurality of companies.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the position library used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 7 and 16:
wherein the first survey question is based on a subset of the first group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the first group of job openings.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the survey questions used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 8 and 17:
wherein the second survey question is based on a subset of the second group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the second group of job openings.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the survey questions used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 9 and 18:
wherein the second group of job openings is a null set and wherein the second survey question comprises a message that no further questions are forthcoming.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could indicate that no further questions are coming if no jobs are found which match a user’s answers to a survey; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial job matching services would perform this business process in performing job matching services for their customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ellis et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20110196802; hereinafter "Ellis").
As per claim 1, Ellis teaches:
A computer implemented method comprising:
Ellis teaches a computer implemented system and method for matching jobs and job candidates. (Ellis: abstract)
Adding entity information based on a first company to a job matching service using a tenant interface of the job matching service;
Ellis teaches that the system may receive job postings for companies via a user interface. (Ellis: paragraph [0047], Fig. 2)
Adding first position information based on a first job opening of the first company to a position library of the job matching service using the tenant interface, wherein the position library comprises position information based on a plurality of job openings;
Ellis teaches that the system may receive job postings for companies via a user interface. (Ellis: paragraph [0047], Fig. 2) Ellis further teaches that the posting may comprise position information and attribute information which comprises parameter information which allows the system to determine whether a user is qualified for the job. (Ellis: paragraphs [0047, 51], Fig. 2)
Configuring the first position information with first attribute information, wherein the first attribute information comprises parameter information sufficient to characterize an applicant response as having required, acceptable, bonus, disqualifying, and/or unexplained response information;
Ellis teaches that the system may receive job postings for companies via a user interface. (Ellis: paragraph [0047], Fig. 2) Ellis further teaches that the posting may comprise position information and attribute information which comprises parameter information which allows the system to determine whether a user is qualified for the job. (Ellis: paragraphs [0047, 51], Fig. 2)
Adding applicant background information based on a new applicant to the job matching service using an applicant interface of the job matching service;
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
Determining, by the job matching service, a first group of job openings based on the applicant background information, wherein the first group of job openings comprises a first group of position information stored in the position library and that is associated with the first group of job openings;
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
Displaying on a screen of the applicant interface a first survey question, wherein the first survey question is based on the first group of position information;
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
Receiving, by the job matching service, a first applicant response to the first survey question;
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
Determining, by the job matching service, a second group of job openings based on the first applicant response, wherein the second group of job openings comprises a second group of position information stored in the position library and that is associated with the second group of job openings, and wherein the second group of job openings is a subset of the first group of job openings;
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
Displaying on the screen of the applicant interface a second survey question, wherein the second survey question is based on the second group of position information;
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
and Receiving, by the job matching service, a second applicant response to the second survey question.
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
As per claim 2, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first survey question is based on a subset of the first group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the first group of job openings.
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
As per claim 3, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the second survey question is based on a subset of the second group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the second group of job openings.
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
As per claim 5, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the entity information comprises information about a work site of the first company where the first job opening is located.
Ellis teaches that the system may receive job postings for companies via a user interface. (Ellis: paragraph [0047], Fig. 2) Ellis further teaches that the posting may comprise position information and attribute information which comprises location information. (Ellis: paragraphs [0047, 51], Fig. 2)
As per claim 6, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the position library comprises a position public library comprising position information based on a plurality of job openings of a plurality of companies.
Ellis teaches that the system may receive job postings for companies via a user interface. (Ellis: paragraph [0047], Fig. 2) Ellis further teaches that the posting may comprise position information and attribute information which comprises location information. (Ellis: paragraphs [0047, 51], Fig. 2)
As per claim 7, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first survey question is based on a subset of the first group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the first group of job openings.
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
As per claim 8, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the second survey question is based on a subset of the second group of position information that is associated with the greatest number of job openings in the second group of job openings.
Ellis teaches that background information for a user may be received, wherein the information may be used to match the applicant with a job posting. (Ellis: paragraph [0040-43]) Ellis teaches that the user may be asked questions iteratively which narrow the jobs available to the user, wherein the questions may start with broader reaching requirements such as geographic location, and may further narrow by job type, salary, etc. (Ellis: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3B)
As per claim 10, Ellis teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed facilitate performance of operations comprising:
Ellis teaches a computer implemented system and method for matching jobs and job candidates. (Ellis: abstract) Ellis teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more processors which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Ellis: paragraph [0126-136], Fig. 16)
As per claims 11-12 and 14-17, Ellis teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-3 and 5-8, and claims 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3 and 5-8, respectively, as outlined above.
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.
Claims 4, 9, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Kim, Sang Hyub (Korean Patent Document No. KR 20210103727 A; hereinafter "Kim").
As per claim 4, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the second group of job openings is a null set and wherein the second survey question comprises a message that no further questions are forthcoming.
Kim, however, teaches that when an applicant's requirements for a job return no matching job results, an indication may be displayed that no results have been found (an indication that no more questions are forthcoming). (Kim: paragraphs [0117-118]) Kim teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Ellis for the benefit of improving the service quality of a matching service by optimizing matching services corresponding to job seekers. (Kim: paragraph [0021]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Ellis to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 9, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the second group of job openings is a null set and wherein the second survey question comprises a message that no further questions are forthcoming.
Kim, however, teaches that when an applicant's requirements for a job return no matching job results, an indication may be displayed that no results have been found (an indication that no more questions are forthcoming). (Kim: paragraphs [0117-118]) Kim teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Ellis for the benefit of improving the service quality of a matching service by optimizing matching services corresponding to job seekers. (Kim: paragraph [0021]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Ellis to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claims 13 and 18, Ellis in view of Kim teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 4 and 9, and claims13 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4 and 9, respectively, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628