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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Dec. 1, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because several limitations in the claims relate to recruiting or hiring, which is an abstract idea. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Second, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant assert the claims reflect an improvement in computer-implemented assessment platforms because it enhances efficiency, reduces latency, and improves reliability. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the present claims enhance efficiency, reduce latency, and improve reliability.
Third, under Step 2B, Applicant asserts the claims reflect significantly more than the abstract idea because establishing communication and enabling transfer of financial instruments, as claimed, add meaning limitations. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the steps are recited too broadly and generally to be more than generic computer functions of sending and receiving data.
Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained. Please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 102 rejections, the 102 rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the new 103 rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 appears to be missing a space and should read (emphasized) “…establish a communication”…. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1 and 3-8 are directed to a process; and claims 9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…receive an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices;
render a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information;
process the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, or knowledge assessments;
generate a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information;
store the CTP in a database;
compare the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation;
establish a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols when the potential gap or deviation is identified; and
enable transfer of one or more financial instruments from the first computing device to the one or more second computing devices through secure networks using security protocols in response to at least partial completion of a job.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because these limitations essentially encompass steps in the recruiting or hiring process. That is, processing candidate information to generate a talent profile, performing a gap analysis, and transferring funds based on job completion, as claimed, encompasses assessing job applicants for hiring purposes and hiring them. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements (emphasized):
…receive an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices;
render a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information;
process the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, or knowledge assessments;
generate a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information;
store the CTP in a database;
compare the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation;
establish a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols when the potential gap or deviation is identified; and
enable transfer of one or more financial instruments from the first computing device to the one or more second computing devices through secure networks using security protocols in response to at least partial completion of a job.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of receiving an enrollment request, establishing a real-time communication, and transferring financial instruments through secure networks, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving and sending data (e.g., receiving and sending user input and sending wire transfers), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of rendering a candidate form on a display of a computing device, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical because the additional elements are recited at a sufficiently high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic graphical user interface) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Third, the additional elements of storing the CTP, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of storing data (e.g., storing analysis results), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 further recite: the various steps being performed by a server system; “a memory unit comprising machine-readable instructions; and a processor operably connected to the memory unit”; and a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions that”, respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, claims 3, 11, and 19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because performing a gap analysis is part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., identifying missing credentials or gaps in a candidate’s qualifications).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, claims 4, 12, and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because confirming gaps is part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., ensuring the analysis of the candidate’s qualifications is accurate).
Regarding claims 5-8 and 13-16, claims 5-8 and 13-18 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because designating candidates as eligible for employment and/or training and matching the candidates with employers and educational providers is part of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., recruiting qualified candidates and helping unqualified candidates become qualified).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrett et al, US Pub. No. 2016/0196534 in view of Abiola, US Pub. No. 2014/0156652, herein referred to as “Abiola”.
Regarding claim 1 Jarrett teaches:
receiving, by a server system, an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices (users create profile, ¶¶[0060]-[0061]; see also e.g., ¶[0045] and Fig. 1 discussing servers and users’ devices);
rendering, by the server system, a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information (generate and provide diagnostic assessments for completion by the job seekers to determine competence scores for skills using various question formats, e.g., ¶¶[0035], [0055], [0071]; see also ¶¶[0024], [0091] discussing user interface for providing job seekers with functionality to access diagnostic assessments)
processing, by the server system, the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, or knowledge assessments (uses diagnostic assessments of job seekers to determine competence scores for skills, e.g., ¶¶[0035],[0045], [0055], [0094]; see also ¶[0036] discussing examples of skills);
generating, by the server system, a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information (maps competence scores to users profiles, ¶¶[0068]; see also ¶[0130] and Fig. 17 discussing user scores in user profile);
storing, by the server system, the CTP in a database (stores user data in profile and electronic portfolio, ¶¶[0060], [0069]);
comparing, by the server system, the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation (compares the job seeker's competence and individual scores with threshold scores that indicate minimum scores a job seeker should achieve to be considered for employment opportunities in the industry, role, and/or particular employment opportunities, ¶[0097]);
establishing, by the server system, a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through when the potential gap or deviation is identified (offers interview after matching, ¶[0121] and Fig. 25).
However Jarret does not teach but Abiola does teach:
establishing, by the server system, a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols (performs video and audio interviewing, ¶¶[0176], [0263]);
and enabling, by the server system, transfer of one or more financial instruments from the first computing device to the one or more second computing devices through secure networks using security protocols in response to at least partial completion of a job (secure payments are made to winning candidates, ¶¶[0186]-[0190]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the training, tracking and placement system of Jarret with the interviews and payment of Abiola because Jarret explicitly suggests conducting interviews, ¶[0121], and hiring, e.g., ¶[0042]); see also MPEP 243.I.G.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jarrett further teaches:
analyzing, by the server system, the CTP to perform a gap analysis and identify the potential gap or deviation (performs gap analysis on job seekers, ¶¶[0082], [0100]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and Jarrett further teaches:
confirming, by the server system, the presence of the potential gap or deviation (repeats assessment and updates scores, ¶¶[0069], [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and Jarrett teaches:
determining, by the server system, that the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge (determines candidates skills are below a threshold, ¶¶[0126], [0141] and Fig. 26);
and designating, by the server system, the candidate as eligible to participate in the service exchange application for employment (invites job seeker to pre-interview, ¶¶[0128], [0144] and Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and Jarrett further teaches:
determining, by the server system, that the potential gap or deviation is related to core competencies (determines candidates skills are below a threshold, ¶¶[0114], [0141] and Fig. 26);
and designating, by the server system, the candidate as eligible to receive services, the service comprising training (determines training opportunities for candidates, ¶¶[0115], [0143]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and further teaches:
performing, by the server system, a matching operation to match the eligible candidate with business entities (matches job seekers and employers, e.g., ¶¶[0084], [0126], [0134]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches:
performing, by the server system, a service matching operation to match the eligible candidate with service providers (provides online training activities to the job seekers, e.g., ¶¶[0082], [0103], [0115]).
Regarding claim 9 Jarrett teaches:
a memory unit comprising machine-readable instructions; and a processor operably connected to the memory unit, the processor configured to execute the machine-readable instructions, that when executed by the processor, cause the server system to (memory and , e.g., ¶¶[0054], [0057]):
receive an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices (users create profile, ¶¶[0060]-[0061]; see also e.g., ¶[0045] and Fig. 1 discussing servers and users’ devices);
render a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information (generate and provide diagnostic assessments for completion by the job seekers to determine competence scores for skills using various question formats, e.g., ¶¶[0035], [0055], [0071]; see also ¶¶[0024], [0091] discussing user interface for providing job seekers with functionality to access diagnostic assessments);
process the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, or knowledge assessments (uses diagnostic assessments of job seekers to determine competence scores for skills, e.g., ¶¶[0035],[0045], [0055], [0094]; see also ¶[0036] discussing examples of skills);
generate a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information (maps competence scores to users profiles, ¶¶[0068]; see also ¶[0130] and Fig. 17 discussing user scores in user profile);
store the CTP in a database (stores user data in profile and electronic portfolio, ¶¶[0060], [0069]).
compare the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation (compares the job seeker's competence and individual scores with threshold scores that indicate minimum scores a job seeker should achieve to be considered for employment opportunities in the industry, role, and/or particular employment opportunities, ¶[0097]);
establish a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through when the potential gap or deviation is identified (offers interview after matching, ¶[0121] and Fig. 25).
However Jarret does not teach but Abiola does teach:
establish a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols (performs video and audio interviewing, ¶¶[0176], [0263]);
and enabling, by the server system, transfer of one or more financial instruments from the first computing device to the one or more second computing devices through secure networks using security protocols in response to at least partial completion of a job (secure payments are made to winning candidates, ¶¶[0186]-[0190]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the training, tracking and placement system of Jarret with the interviews and payment of Abiola because Jarret explicitly suggests conducting interviews, ¶[0121], and hiring, e.g., ¶[0042]); see also MPEP 243.I.G.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Jarrett further teaches:
analyze the CTP to perform a gap analysis and identify the potential gap or deviation (performs gap analysis on job seekers, ¶¶[0082], [0100]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Jarrett further teaches:
confirm the presence of the potential gap or deviation (repeats assessment and updates scores, ¶¶[0069], [0084]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Jarrett further teaches:
determine that the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge(determines candidates skills are below a threshold, ¶¶[0126], [0141] and Fig. 26);
and designate the candidate as eligible to participate in an employment platform (invites job seeker to pre-interview, ¶¶[0128], [0144] and Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Jarrett further teaches:
determine that potential gap or deviation is related to core competencies (determines candidates skills are below a threshold, ¶¶[0114], [0141] and Fig. 26);
and designating, by the server system, the candidate as eligible to receive services, the service comprising training (determines training opportunities for candidates, ¶¶[0115], [0143]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Jarrett further teaches:
perform a matching operation to match the eligible candidate with business entities (matches job seekers and employers, e.g., ¶¶[0084], [0126], [0134]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Jarrett further teaches:
perform a service matching operation to match operation to match the eligible candidate with service providers (provides online training activities to the job seekers, e.g., ¶¶[0082], [0103], [0115]).
Regarding claim 17 Jarrett teaches:
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a server system, cause the server system to perform a method comprising (memory and , e.g., ¶¶[0054], [0057]):
receiving an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices (users create profile, ¶¶[0060]-[0061]; see also e.g., ¶[0045] and Fig. 1 discussing servers and users’ devices);
rendering a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information (generate and provide diagnostic assessments for completion by the job seekers to determine competence scores for skills using various question formats, e.g., ¶¶[0035], [0055], [0071]; see also ¶¶[0024], [0091] discussing user interface for providing job seekers with functionality to access diagnostic assessments);
processing the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, or knowledge assessments (uses diagnostic assessments of job seekers to determine competence scores for skills, e.g., ¶¶[0035],[0045], [0055], [0094]; see also ¶[0036] discussing examples of skills);
generating a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information (maps competence scores to users profiles, ¶¶[0068]; see also ¶[0130] and Fig. 17 discussing user scores in user profile);
storing the CTP in a database (stores user data in profile and electronic portfolio, ¶¶[0060], [0069]).
compare the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation (compares the job seeker's competence and individual scores with threshold scores that indicate minimum scores a job seeker should achieve to be considered for employment opportunities in the industry, role, and/or particular employment opportunities, ¶[0097]);
establish a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through when the potential gap or deviation is identified (offers interview after matching, ¶[0121] and Fig. 25).
However Jarret does not teach but Abiola does teach:
establish a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols (performs video and audio interviewing, ¶¶[0176], [0263]);
and enabling, by the server system, transfer of one or more financial instruments from the first computing device to the one or more second computing devices through secure networks using security protocols in response to at least partial completion of a job (secure payments are made to winning candidates, ¶¶[0186]-[0190]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the training, tracking and placement system of Jarret with the interviews and payment of Abiola because Jarret explicitly suggests conducting interviews, ¶[0121], and hiring, e.g., ¶[0042]); see also MPEP 243.I.G.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Jarrett further teaches further teaches:
analyze the CTP to perform a gap analysis and identify the potential gap or deviation (performs gap analysis on job seekers, ¶¶[0082], [0100]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jarrett and Abiola teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Jarrett further teaches:
confirm the presence of the potential gap or deviation (repeats assessment and updates scores, ¶¶[0069], [0084]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626