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 in reply to application 19/038,282 filed 1/27/2025. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 15 were amended, claims 7, 14, and 20 were cancelled, and claims 21-23 were newly added in the reply filed 4/15/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21-22 were amended and claims 2, 9, 16, and 23 were cancelled in the reply filed 7/7/2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-22 are pending. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 7 regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-22: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the recited features are not merely an instruction to “apply” the abstract idea in a generic computer environment, but does not specifically describe why the additional elements should not be considered part of such a generic computer environment. The problem of “the inability of users to track (or obtain information regarding) employer interactions with content of their resume or job application” is not a technical problem, but an abstract problem. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). While Examiner concedes that the claimed invention provides users with updates regarding interactions with their uploaded finalized job applications based on potential employers clicking the link to their user profile within the generated resume of the finalized job application, this functionality does not make the claims patent eligible subject matter. Instead, Examiner maintains that this describes an abstract idea merely “applied” to a recited generic computer environment.
Applicant further argues that the integration of the novel claim elements of claim 23 makes the claims “not merely a conventional restatement of the alleged generic base job-application workflow.” "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Examiner maintains that the limitations from claim 23, however novel, do not make the claims patent eligible because they merely describe the abstract idea “applied” to a generic computer environment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 11 regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-22: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method, a processing system, and a method, respectively, for performing the following: receiving, from a user of a job listing service, a request to apply to a job posting using a user profile; in response to receiving the request to apply to the job posting using the user profile, generating a resume using information from the user profile by: extracting, from the user profile, professional information associated with the user; mapping, to a resume template, the extracted professional information; and populating the resume template based on the mapped professional information; creating, based on job posting data of the job posting and the information from the user profile, a job application for applying to the job posting; assembling a finalized job application comprising the job application and the generated resume; embedding, within the generated resume, a link comprising a uniform resource locator (URL) for accessing the user profile associated with the user of the job listing service, wherein the URL of the link further comprises an appended query string with key- value pairs configured to track one or more of a source of traffic, a medium through which the link was shared, or a time stamp for an interaction associated with the link; and applying, for the user, to the job posting by submitting the finalized job application. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine, a machine, and a method, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations receiving, from a user of a job listing service, a request to apply to a job posting using a user profile; in response to receiving the request to apply to the job posting using the user profile, generating a resume using information from the user profile by: extracting, from the user profile, professional information associated with the user; mapping, to a resume template, the extracted professional information; and populating the resume template based on the mapped professional information; creating, based on job posting data of the job posting and the information from the user profile, a job application for applying to the job posting; assembling a finalized job application comprising the job application and the generated resume; embedding, within the generated resume ... for accessing the user profile associated with the user of the job listing service, wherein ... configured to track one or more of a source of traffic, a medium through which ... was shared, or a time stamp for an interaction associated with ... and applying, for the user, to the job posting by submitting the finalized job application, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, a processing system (claim 8), one or more memories (claim 8), one or more processors (claim 8), a link comprising a uniform resource locator (URL) (claims 1, 8, and 15), and an appended query string with key-value pairs (claims 1, 8, and 15) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claims 1, 8, and 15 as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, a processing system (described in spec. para. [0005]), one or more memories (described in spec. para. [0106]), one or more processors (described in spec. para. [0025]), a link comprising a uniform resource locator (described in spec. para. [0094]), and an appended query string with key-value pairs (described in spec. para. [0084]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-22 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-22 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claims 4 and 11 recite the additional element a browser extension, claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the additional element hypertext markup language (HTML) format, and claim 21 recites the additional element an applicant tracking system (ATS), the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claims 4 and 11 recite the additional element a browser extension (described in spec. para. [0045]), claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the additional element hypertext markup language (HTML) format (described in spec. para. [0085]), and claim 21 recites the additional element an applicant tracking system (ATS) (described in spec. para. [0070]), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-22 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Lavin (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0316231) in view of Dellovo (U.S. Pat. No. 10,181,116). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Other relevant prior art includes Alexander (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0378092), Moll (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0275455), Schmidt (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0235179), Giroti (U.S. Pub. No. 20230394507), and Dane (U.S. Pat. No. 7,877,354). However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights