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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 7-9 and 15-17 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 15-17 are amended.
Claims 2-6, 10-14 and 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 15-17 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed July 28, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant assert the rejections should be withdrawn because the use of artificial intelligence or machine learning reflects an improvement. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the use of artificial intelligence or machine learning is recited too broadly and generally to be more than more instructions to apply the exception.
Second, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because routing candidates is only the field of use and not the claimed mechanism. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the claims, as amended, still recite the abstract idea of the aspects of the recruiting or hiring process (i.e., assessing job applicants for hiring purposes or training purposes and hiring them). Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete analysis of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn at least because the cited references do not teach performing mental health assessments as claimed. Please see below for the new 103 rejections of the claims as amended.
Additionally, please note, Applicant makes the following assertions which are not persuasive for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because Jarrett does not teach comparing the two claimed profiles. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because: Jarret teaches the claimed Candidate Talent Profile because Jarret explicitly teaches the job seekers’ scores are mapped to their profiles, ¶[0068]; and Jarrett teaches the Success Talent Profile because Jarrett teaches employers set the threshold scores for an employment opportunity, ¶¶[0142]-[0143], which is within the scope of the claimed profile under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Second, Applicant asserts the cited references do not classify the type of deviation. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., classification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). That is, the claims do not recite a classifying step. The claims only recite determining whether the potential gap is related to skills and knowledge or core competencies. The broadest reasonable interpretation of core competencies encompasses combinations of resources and skills. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation encompasses determining whether the potential gap is related to skills and knowledge or a combination of resources and skills. Jarrett teaches determining whether the potential gap is related to skills and knowledge or a combination of resources and skills because Jarrett teaches identifying gaps in individual skills, ¶¶[0141]-[0142] and identifying gaps in job seeker’s skill set (e.g., total competence score), ¶[0100].
Third, Applicant asserts Jarrett does not teach a communication channel with a maturation service. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because ¶¶[00103], [00107] of the Specifications as filed describes maturation services as encompassing education and training services and Jarrett teaches providing education and training. ¶¶[0103], [0104] and Figs. 6 and 7.
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):
…receiving an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices;
rendering a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information;
processing the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, and knowledge assessments;
generating a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information;
storing the CTP in a database;
executing one or more artificial intelligence (Al) or machine learning (ML) algorithms to compare the compare the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation;
analyzing the CTP to perform a gap analysis and identify the potential gap or deviation;
confirming a presence of the potential gap or deviation;
determining whether the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge or to core competencies;
in response to determining that the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge: designating the candidate as eligible to participate in the service exchange application for employment; and
establishing 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;
in response to determining that the potential gap or deviation is related to core competencies: designating the candidate as eligible to receive services, the service comprising training; and
establishing a communication between a maturation service device and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols; and
enabling 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, determining whether to designate a candidate as eligible for employment or training and transferring funds based on job completion, as claimed, encompasses assessing job applicants for hiring purposes or training 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):
…receiving an enrollment request for a candidate to participate in a service exchange application from one or more second computing devices;
rendering a candidate form on a display of a computing device, wherein the candidate form is configured to capture candidate information;
processing the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health and personality assessments, personal attribute assessments, competency assessments, and knowledge assessments;
generating a candidate talent profile (CTP) based on the processed candidate information;
storing the CTP in a database;
executing one or more artificial intelligence (Al) or machine learning (ML) algorithms to compare the compare the CTP with a pre-defined success talent profile (STP) to identify a potential gap or deviation;
analyzing the CTP to perform a gap analysis and identify the potential gap or deviation;
confirming a presence of the potential gap or deviation;
determining whether the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge or to core competencies;
in response to determining that the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge: designating the candidate as eligible to participate in the service exchange application for employment; and
establishing 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;
in response to determining that the potential gap or deviation is related to core competencies: designating the candidate as eligible to receive services, the service comprising training; and
establishing a communication between a maturation service device and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols; and
enabling 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 communications between the various claimed entities, 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 executing the AI or ML algorithms, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the use of machine learning is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Fourth, 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 7, 8, 15 and 16, claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 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, 7-9, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrett et al, US Pub. No. 2016/0196534, herein referred to as “Jarrett”, in view of Abiola, US Pub. No. 2014/0156652, herein referred to as “Abiola”, in view of Danson et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0046357, herein referred to as “Danson”.
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: personality assessments, personal attribute assessments (assesses job seekers’ personality traits and preferences, ¶¶[0076]-[0077]),
competency assessments, and 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 and noting competence encompasses education and experience);
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]);
executing, by the server system, one or more artificial intelligence (Al) or machine learning (ML) algorithms to 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]; see also ¶[0056] discussing using machine learning; and ¶¶[0142]-[0143] noting employers set threshold scores for a particular employment opportunity);
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]);
confirming, by the server system, a presence of the potential gap or deviation (repeats assessment and updates scores, ¶¶[0069], [0084]);
determining, by the server system, whether the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge or to core competencies (determines individual scores which fall below the thresholds, ¶¶[0140]-[0141] and identifies gap in job seekers’ skill set (e.g., total competence score), ¶[0100])
in response to determining that the potential gap or deviation is related to skills and knowledge (determines candidates skills are below a threshold, e.g., ¶¶[0126], [0140]-[0141] and Fig. 26);
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);
and establishing, by the server system, a communication between a first computing device associated with a business entity (offers interview after matching, ¶[0121] and Fig. 25);
in response to determining that the potential gap or deviation is related to core competencies (determines candidates skill sets are below a threshold, ¶¶[0100], [0114], [0141] and Fig. 26);
designating, by the server system, the candidate as eligible to receive services, the service comprising training (determines training opportunities for candidates, ¶¶[0115], [0143]);
and establishing, by the server system, a communication between a maturation service device and the one or more second computing devices through real-time communication protocols (recommends training activities, ¶[0099], and facilitates participation in the training, ¶¶[0103], [0104] and Figs. 6 and 7; see also ¶[0046] discussing network confections)
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 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Abiola and Jarret do no teach but Danson does teach:
processing, by the server system, the candidate information, comprising performing: mental health assessments (analyzes dimensions of candidate including distress and showing signs of mental health problems, ¶[0035]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the training, tracking and placement system with interviews and payment of Jarret and Abiola with the assessments because Danson suggests doing so to avoid hiring candidates who could cause problems in the workplace, ¶[0035]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
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 candidate designated as eligible to participate in the service exchange application for employment 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 candidate designated as eligible to receive services with service providers (provides online training activities to the job seekers, e.g., ¶¶[0082], [0103], [0115]).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and further recite “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” and a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions” which are taught by Jarret in e.g., ¶¶[0054], [0057]. Accordingly, claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, claims 15 and 16 recite similar limitations as claims 7 and 8 and accordingly are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Quitmeyer, US Pub. No. 2018/0308062 teaches a similar job matching process
Srinivasa et al, US Pub. No. 2023/0230011 teaches a similar skill gap analysis
Tiwari et al, US Pub. No. 2024/0330834 teaches a similar recommendation process for jobs and skills
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
Prosecution Insights