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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/12/2025, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-18 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a recommendation module in operable communication with an AI engine to receive, a user module to enable, a verification module to verify, a user interface module in operable communication with a display module to enable, a display module, of claims 1, 3-5, 8-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the claimed computing elements noted above represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3-5, 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: for matching a candidate to a financial sponsor/ enabling the generation of a candidate profile and a financial sponsor profile / match a suitable candidate profile to a suitable financial sponsor profile / enable the communication between a candidate and a financial sponsor / the candidate comprises an executive or senior executive user and the financial sponsor comprises at least one of a private equity firm, investor group, family office, or venture capital firm / verify, using candidate profile data stored, an identity of the candidate prior to enabling the communication module for the candidate / receive candidate-associated user inputs and financial sponsor-associated user inputs, the candidate-associated user inputs including at least one of a location, work history, one or more credentials, an education history, one or more preferences, a title , a plurality of contact information , and a social media account link, and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs including position data describing job requirements, compensation structures, and expectations/ enable input of the candidate-associated user inputs and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs / apply predetermined thresholds defined in the financial sponsor profile to the candidate profile and to identify the candidate and the financial sponsor as a suitable match and enable the communication module only in response to the candidate satisfying the predetermined thresholds and being verified. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “embodiments provided herein relate to systems and methods to enable senior executives and financial sponsors to connect with one another using a platforms which verifies user credentials prior to them creating publicly available profiles on the platform.” , “The system allows businesses to seek and communicate with executives who may be interested in joining the business as an executive member. To become a user, each user must be validated by the system in order to validate prior to them being able to communicate with the financial sponsors also using the system. Once the user’s profile is made public, financial sponsors are able to communicate with the user directly via the platform’s user interface. The system eliminates the need for an executive recruiter or similar “middleman”, commonly used to find qualified candidates for an executive role of a business.”, “The system enables both the executive (i.e., the primary user) and the financial sponsor (i.e., the secondary user) to search for suitable matches, communicate with each other, create hiring pipelines, post public media content (such as videos, photos, articles, etc.), and the like.”, “the system includes a recommendation module for recommending matches between users (i.e., qualified executives) and financial sponsors. The recommendation module may receive user inputs including: user preferences, user qualifications, location, personal information, work history, and the like. This allows the recommendation module to recommend suitable candidates with financial sponsors which have similar interests, needs, and preferences as one another.”, “candidates can submit an application and wait for the application to be approved by the business and/or financial sponsor. Once approved, they may then communicate with clients or other parties interested in their approved application. Financial sponsors may submit an application to provide financial support and also wait for their application to be approved. The financial sponsors may search for candidates based on their current needs in order to identify suitable candidates.”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: enabling the generation of a candidate profile and a financial sponsor profile / match a suitable candidate profile to a suitable financial sponsor profile / enable the communication between a candidate and a financial sponsor / verify, using candidate profile data stored, an identity of the candidate prior to enabling the communication module for the candidate / receive candidate-associated user inputs and financial sponsor-associated user inputs, the candidate-associated user inputs including at least one of a location, work history, one or more credentials, an education history, one or more preferences, a title , a plurality of contact information , and a social media account link, and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs including position data describing job requirements, compensation structures, and expectations/ enable input of the candidate-associated user inputs and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs / apply predetermined thresholds defined in the financial sponsor profile to the candidate profile and to identify the candidate and the financial sponsor as a suitable match and enable the communication module only in response to the candidate satisfying the predetermined thresholds and being verified. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a computing device in operable connection with a user network / application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program, the application program comprising: a user module, a matching module, a communication module , a verification module, a recommendation module, a user interface module / a database engine/ storing data in a database / an AI engine / a display module. These claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements. Storing data in a database represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Storing data in a database represents insignificant extra-solution activity ; it represents a well known and commonly used process within a digital computing environment, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 is directed to a system, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claim 7 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Independent claim 13 is directed to a method, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claim 13 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 3-5, 8-12, 14-18 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1 / 7 /13. The claims further recite the additional elements of a verification module , recommendation module, an AI engine, user module, user interface module, display module, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 ,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ,16, 17 , 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Sugrue (20220277395) in further view of Friedman (20230259988).
As per Claim 1, Sugrue teaches a system comprising:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; (the device/network represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract)
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for matching a candidate to a financial sponsor, the application program comprising; (the server/application program represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least para 87; para 16 – expert user [candidate], entrepreneur user [financial sponsor])
a user module enabling the generation of a candidate profile and a financial sponsor profile; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least para 22, 24, 21)
a matching module to match a suitable candidate profile to a suitable financial sponsor profile; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 26, 21)
a communication module to enable the communication between a candidate and a financial sponsor (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 57, 69, 21)
a verification module configured to verify, using candidate profile data stored in a database engine, an identity of the candidate prior to enabling the communication module for the candidate; (the module /database engine represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 87 – storing data in servers [database engine]; remaining limitations- at least para 24)
The claimed limitation of:
wherein the candidate comprises an executive or senior executive user and the financial sponsor comprises at least one of a private equity firm, investor group, family office, or venture capital firm represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight per MPEP §2111.05.
However, Friedman further teaches matching a financial sponsor with a user, part of a social investing process- at least para 110, and that “The foregoing is merely illustrative of the principles of this disclosure and various modifications can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of this disclosure. The above described examples are presented for purposes of illustration and not of limitation. The present disclosure also can take many forms other than those explicitly described herein. Accordingly, it is emphasized that this disclosure is not limited to the explicitly disclosed methods, systems, and apparatuses, but is intended to include variations to and modifications thereof, which are within the spirit of the following claims.” – at least para 335.
Friedman further teaches:
a recommendation module in operable communication with an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, the recommendation module configured to receive candidate-associated user inputs and financial sponsor-associated user inputs, the candidate-associated user inputs including at least one of a location, work history, one or more credentials, an education history, one or more preferences, a title, a plurality of contact information, and a social media account link, and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs including position data describing job requirements, compensation structures, and expectations; (The module/engine represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Friedman teaches a module in communication with an AI engine configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sugrue’s existing features, with Friedman’s features above, to allow for an automated platform-based donation matching and security using machine-learning models – Friedman, abstract and para 23. Furthermore, 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.
Sugrue in view of Friedman further teach:
a user interface module in operable communication with a display module to enable input of the candidate-associated user inputs and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs, wherein
the matching module is further configured to apply predetermined thresholds defined in the financial sponsor profile to the candidate profile and to identify the candidate and the financial sponsor as a suitable match and enable the communication module only in response to the candidate satisfying the predetermined thresholds and being verified by the verification module. (the modules represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue teaches the candidate being verified, as noted above; Friedman teaches the remaining limitations: Friedman teaches a module in communication with an AI engine configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
As per Claim 4, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
A recommendation module in operable communication with an AI engine to receive one or more user inputs and to automatically match the one or more user inputs to the suitable financial sponsor. (the module/AI engine represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Friedman, At least: para 28; para 115- computing elements)
As per Claims 5, 11, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
A user module to enable the generation of the candidate profile and the financial sponsor profile (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Sugrue, At least: para 22, 24, 21)
As per Claim 7, Sugrue teaches a system comprising:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; (the device/network represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract)
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for matching a candidate to a financial sponsor, the application program comprising; (the server/application program represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least para 87; para 16 – expert user [candidate], entrepreneur user [financial sponsor])
a user module enabling the generation of a candidate profile and a financial sponsor profile; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least para 22, 24, 21)
enable access to a communication interface to enable the communication between a candidate and a financial sponsor (the interface represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 57, 69, 21)
wherein the processor further executes instructions to verify, via a verification module, an identity of the candidate prior to enabling access to the communication interface; (the module represents a generic computing elements that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 87 – storing data in servers [database engine]; remaining limitations- at least para 24)
The claimed limitation of:
wherein the candidate comprises an executive or senior executive user and the financial sponsor comprises at least one of a private equity firm, investor group, family office, or venture capital firm represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight per MPEP §2111.05.
However, Friedman further teaches matching a financial sponsor with a user, part of a social investing process- at least para 110, and that “The foregoing is merely illustrative of the principles of this disclosure and various modifications can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of this disclosure. The above described examples are presented for purposes of illustration and not of limitation. The present disclosure also can take many forms other than those explicitly described herein. Accordingly, it is emphasized that this disclosure is not limited to the explicitly disclosed methods, systems, and apparatuses, but is intended to include variations to and modifications thereof, which are within the spirit of the following claims.” – at least para 335.
Friedman further teaches:
the candidate-associated user inputs including at least one of a location, work history, one or more credentials, an education history, one or more preferences, a title, a plurality of contact information, and a social media account link, and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs including position data describing job requirements, compensation structures, and expectations; (Friedman teaches a module configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sugrue’s existing features, with Friedman’s features above, to allow for an automated platform-based donation matching and security using machine-learning models – Friedman, abstract and para 23. Furthermore, 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.
Sugrue in view of Friedman further teach:
and wherein the processor further executes instructions to apply predetermined thresholds defined in the financial sponsor-associated user inputs so that access to the communication interface is enabled only when the candidate satisfies the predetermined thresholds. (the modules represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue teaches the candidate being verified, as noted above; Friedman teaches the remaining limitations: Friedman teaches a module configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
receive one or more candidate-associated user inputs; receive one or more financial sponsor-associated user inputs; (Friedman teaches a module in communication with an AI engine configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
match, via the matching module, the one or more candidate-associated user inputs with at least one of the one or more financial sponsor-associated user inputs to determine a suitable match between the candidate and the financial sponsor; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Sugrue, At least: para 26, 21. Friedman also teaches matching user inputs with a sponsor-associated user input – at least: para 44)
As per Claim 13, Sugrue teaches a method comprising:
Receiving one or more candidate-associated user inputs; Receiving one or more financial sponsor-associated user inputs; (fig 3-4 and associated/related text; at least para 24)
Matching, via a matching module, the one or more candidate-associated user inputs with at least one of the one or more financial sponsor-associated user inputs to determine a suitable match between a candidate and a financial sponsor (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 26, 21)
Enabling access to a communication interface to enable communications between the candidate and the financial sponsor, wherein the processor is operated by at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network to enable the transmission of information via an application server (the interface/device/user network/app server represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: At least: para 57, 69, 21, 87)
The claimed limitation of:
wherein the candidate comprises an executive or senior executive user and the financial sponsor comprises at least one of a private equity firm, investor group, family office, or venture capital firm represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight per MPEP §2111.05.
However, Friedman further teaches matching a financial sponsor with a user, part of a social investing process- at least para 110, and that “The foregoing is merely illustrative of the principles of this disclosure and various modifications can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of this disclosure. The above described examples are presented for purposes of illustration and not of limitation. The present disclosure also can take many forms other than those explicitly described herein. Accordingly, it is emphasized that this disclosure is not limited to the explicitly disclosed methods, systems, and apparatuses, but is intended to include variations to and modifications thereof, which are within the spirit of the following claims.” – at least para 335.
Friedman further teaches:
the candidate-associated user inputs including at least one of a location, work history, one or more credentials, an education history, one or more preferences, a title, a plurality of contact information, and a social media account link, and the financial sponsor-associated user inputs including position data describing job requirements, compensation structures, and expectations; (Friedman teaches a module in communication with an AI engine configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sugrue’s existing features, with Friedman’s features above, to allow for an automated platform-based donation matching and security using machine-learning models – Friedman, abstract and para 23. Furthermore, 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.
Sugrue in Friedman further teach:
Verifying, via a verification module, an identity of the candidate based on candidate profile data stored in a database engine the module /database engine represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue, At least: para 87 – storing data in servers [database engine]; remaining limitations- at least para 24)
Enabling access to the communication interface comprises enabling the communication interface only when the candidate satisfies predetermined thresholds defined in the financial sponsor-associated user inputs and has been verified by the verification module. (the modules represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue teaches the candidate being verified, as noted above; Friedman teaches the remaining limitations: Friedman teaches a module in communication with an AI engine configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
As per Claim 14, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
a verification module to verify the identity of the candidate; (the module represents a generic computing element that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue, At least: para 87 – storing data in servers [database engine]; remaining limitations- at least para 24)
As per Claim 8, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
a verification module to verify the identity of the candidate (the module represents a generic computing element that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue, at least para 24)
As per Claims 12, 18, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
A user interface module in operable communication with a display module to enable the user to input a plurality of user information including at least one of the following:…a title (the modules represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Sugrue, At least: para 22; para 21, 88 – computing element)
As per Claims 10, 16, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
Comprising a recommendation module in operable communication with an AI engine to receive one or more user inputs and to automatically match the one or more user inputs to the suitable financial sponsor. (The module/engine represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Friedman teaches a module in communication with an AI engine configured to receive user inputs including at least one of a location, and sponsor-associated inputs including position data describing expectations and to automatically match one user inputs to the suitable financial sponsor - at least para 28, 44, 299 – computing modules)
As per Claim 17, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach:
a user module enabling the generation of a candidate profile and the financial sponsor profile; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Sugrue, At least para 22, 24, 21)
Claims 3, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Sugrue (20220277395) in further view of Friedman (20230259988) in even further view of Martell (20120276868).
As per Claims 3, 9, 15, Sugrue in view of Friedman teach a candidate user, as noted above, and Martell teaches:
The verification module is further enabled to verify one or more credentials of the candidate.(the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least para 117, 126, 139, 403- computing processor)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sugrue’s existing features, combined with Friedman’s existing features, with Martell’s feature of the verification module is further enabled to verify one or more credentials of the candidate, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The Examiner has not considered the entirety of Applicant's claims, but rather has focused only on isolated aspects (e.g., matching or communication) that may, arguably, fit within a category of abstract subject matter under 35 U.S. C. § 101. The mere presence of what may be considered abstract does not bar Applicant's
claims from patentability. Analyzing claims in a piece-meal fashion is erroneous because it
sidesteps analyzing the claims "as a whole" as required. Diamond v. Diehr, 50 U.S. 175, 209
U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981). Although the claims include elements that involve information about people ( candidates and financial sponsors), the claimed invention is not directed to these concepts in the absence of a technological framework. Rather, claims 1, 7, and 13 recite specific, technical improvements to
how computer systems collect, verify, process, and gate access to network-based
communications. For example, the claims require: receiving structured candidate-associated user
inputs and financial sponsor-associated user inputs via a user interface module; verifying, via a
verification module, an identity and credentials of the candidate based on stored profile data;
applying predetermined thresholds defined in the financial sponsor profile via a matching
module and AI-based recommendation module; and enabling access to a communication
interface over a network only when the candidate is verified and satisfies the sponsor's
predetermined thresholds. These operations require substantial computing resources (persistent
storage, profile databases, machine-learning inference, rules-based threshold evaluation, and
controlled network communication) and are necessarily rooted in computer technology. The
Federal Circuit has found similar claims not directed to abstract ideas in cases such as McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the court held that rules-based automation of tasks tied to specific technical implementation is not abstract,
particularly where such automation goes beyond merely organizing existing information into a
new form or carrying out a fundamental economic practice. See also Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351;
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. Accordingly, claims 1, 7, and 13 are not directed to a judicial
exception under Step 2A, Prong One, because they recite a practical application that improves a
technological process, namely, computer-implemented identity-verified, threshold-gated
matching and communication, and cannot be performed outside of a computing environment.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite elements demonstrating that the claims, as a whole, integrate
the subject matter into a practical application amounting to significantly more than merely an
abstract idea. The subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 amounts to far more than mere
instructions to "match" or "communicate" via a generic computer. For example, the recited
operations of (i) verifying, via a dedicated verification module and stored profile data, the
identity and credentials of an executive-level candidate; (ii) collecting structured candidate associated
and financial sponsor-associated user inputs through a user interface module; (iii)
applying sponsor-defined predetermined thresholds using a matching module and an AI-based
recommendation module; and (iv) enabling access to a networked communication interface only
when those verification and threshold conditions are satisfied, cannot be performed in the human
mind and cannot be performed without a specifically configured computer system.
In particular, using an AI engine and matching module to evaluate candidate profiles against sponsor-defined predetermined thresholds, based on structured profile fields and stored historical
interaction data, and then automatically controlling whether a communication interface on a
networked computing system is enabled, does not fall within the alleged abstract idea of
organizing human activity or mental processes. These claim elements define a particular,
machine-implemented workflow that precludes the system or method from being performed
wholly in the human mind. Thus, claims 1, 7, and 13 are incorporated into a practical application
amounting to significantly more than merely an abstract idea or a method of organizing human
activity. Additionally, the above-recited limitations do not fall within any alleged abstract idea of
"matching people" or "facilitating introductions" in the abstract. Rather, claims 1, 7, and 13
clearly recite elements that require specialized software modules, persistent data storage, and
network communications to implement an identity-verified, threshold-gated matching and
communication system that addresses concrete technical problems in the context of high-risk
executive-financial sponsor interactions. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 7, and 13, as a
whole, are not directed to a judicial exception and include additional claim elements that amount
to significantly more than simply an abstract idea or method of organizing human activity.
Applicant's recitation of, at least, (i) verifying a candidate's identity and credentials via a
verification module using stored profile data, and (ii) enabling a communication interface over a
network only when sponsor-defined predetermined thresholds are satisfied as determined by a
matching module and AI-based recommendation module, amounts to a combination of elements
that is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than a claim upon an
ineligible concept itself Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 13 recite elements that, when the claims are
viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and include subject matter
that integrates the claims into a practical application. Additionally, claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed toward a technical improvement or a
solution to a technical problem because, at least, the computer-implemented system and method
are utilized by an application server and processor to enforce identity verification, structured data
collection, AI-assisted threshold evaluation, and conditional enabling of network-based
communication channels. This architecture improves the functioning of computer-implemented
matching systems by providing non-routine, server-side access control and fraud-resistant,
sponsor-controlled gating of communications, which are not present in conventional matching platforms. The specification describes how to implement the verification module,
recommendation module, matching module, user interface module, and communication module
so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an
improvement over existing systems. The subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 is also considered transformative because the
system allows non-routine, unconventional server-based identity verification and threshold-based
filtering of candidate-sponsor connections and communications. Similar to Bascom Global
Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (2016), where the inventive
concept resided in the ordered combination of conventional components to implement a nonconventional
filtering architecture, the present claims recite a non-conventional ordered
combination of known computing components (servers, processors, databases, and network
interfaces) to implement a specific, identity-verified, threshold-gated matching and
communication architecture at the server side.
Applicant also respectfully contends that the Examiner has not considered the claims in
light of the specification. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (2016). See also MPEP
§2106.04(a) ("it is critical that examiners ... evaluate both the specification and the claim") and
the rejection is in error. The Examiner must examine the claims as a whole, examine the
specification as a whole, and understand and identify the claimed advancement over the art. The
language of the claims is to be considered based on an evaluation of the specification. If the
focus of the claim is on a technological improvement (and not directed to an abstract idea, law of
nature, or natural phenomenon), the claim is patent-eligible subject matter, and there is no need
to evaluate step two of the Alice test. Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, the
Examiner has failed to properly consider how the practical application of claims 1, 7, and 13-
reciting, for example, verification of candidate identity and credentials using stored profile data;
AI-assisted evaluation of sponsor-defined predetermined thresholds; and conditional enabling of
a networked communication interface only upon satisfaction of those thresholds-improves the
functioning of the computer-implemented matching and communication system on which they
are executed and, therefore, recites patentable subject matter.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under§ 101 is in error, at least, because the
subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 is not directed to merely organizing human activity or steps
performed in the human mind; the subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 is integrated into a practical application; the subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 provides an improvement in
technology in the field of computer-implemented matching and communication systems; the
subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 is not well known, routine, or conventional; and the subject
matter of claims 1, 7, and 13 provides an improvement to the underlying computer system and
network-based communication architecture. Withdrawal of the rejection under §101 is
respectfully requested.
As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represents significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “ embodiments provided herein relate to systems and methods to enable senior executives and financial sponsors to connect with one another using a platforms which verifies user credentials prior to them creating publicly available profiles on the platform.” , “The system allows businesses to seek and communicate with executives who may be interested in joining the business as an executive member. To become a user, each user must be validated by the system in order to validate prior to them being able to communicate with the financial sponsors also using the system. Once the user’s profile is made public, financial sponsors are able to communicate with the user directly via the platform’s user interface. The system eliminates the need for an executive recruiter or similar “middleman”, commonly used to find qualified candidates for an executive role of a business.”, “The system enables both the executive (i.e., the primary user) and the financial sponsor (i.e., the secondary user) to search for suitable matches, communicate with each other, create hiring pipelines, post public media content (such as videos, photos, articles, etc.), and the like.”, “the system includes a recommendation module for recommending matches between users (i.e., qualified executives) and financial sponsors. The recommendation module may receive user inputs including: user preferences, user qualifications, location, personal information, work history, and the like. This allows the recommendation module to recommend suitable candidates with financial sponsors which have similar interests, needs, and preferences as one another.”, “candidates can submit an application and wait for the application to be approved by the business and/or financial sponsor. Once approved, they may then communicate with clients or other parties interested in their approved application. Financial sponsors may submit an application to provide financial support and also wait for their application to be approved. The financial sponsors may search for candidates based on their current needs in order to identify suitable candidates.” Verifying candidate user data and matching suitable candidates and financial sponsors based on criteria/rules represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. When considered as an ordered combination, the Federal Circuit concluded the claims provided "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Id. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more under step two of the Alice analysis. Contrary to Bascom, the instant claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. The present claims recite an abstract idea using additional elements that are generic computing components as discussed supra, or at best, improving an abstract idea - not an inventive concept. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem. The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra). There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Remaining arguments: Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
12/22/2025