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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 are merely recite intended results without setting forth how the results are achieved. Additionally, the recitation of “ computer implemented” and “ system” do not add any structural or operational limitations and therefore do not clarify the scope of the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 fails under step 1 because it does not recite a statutory category of invention and fails to define any process, machine, manufacture or composition of mater. Accordingly, Claim 3 is ineligible under 101.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., a process), and claim 2 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), therefore claims 1-2 fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step2A- prong 1
Claims 1-2 is directed to an abstract idea: under broadest reasonable interpretation , ( e.g. facilitating employment placement), the claims cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 2 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). Claim1 recites computer, and claim 2 recites system, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification: [0022] computer can include any and all suitable combinations of at least one general purpose computer, special-purpose computer, programmable data processing apparatus, processor, processor architecture, and so on. [0024] Embodiments of the system as described herein are not limited to applications involving conventional computer programs or programmable apparatuses that run them) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination ( as shown in Fig. 1) , it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (as shown in Fig. 1) , do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) computer, system do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) ( 1) as being anticipated by Westerheide (US 2022/0067665 A1)
As per claim 1, Westerheide teaches:
A computer implemented method for facilitating online employment placement. ( see at least: Fig.1 & Fig. 2A, abstract , determining a job match between a candidate and a job posted by a hiring entity [0055])
As per claim 2, Westerheide teaches:
A system for facilitating online employment placement ( see at least: Fig.1 & Fig. 2A, abstract , determining a job match between a candidate and a job posted by a hiring entity [0055])
As per claim 3, “The invention as described herein” fails to define any claim scope.
Westerheide teaches ( see at least: Fig.1 & Fig. 2A, abstract , determining a job match between a candidate and a job posted by a hiring entity [0055])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MANAL A. ALSAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3628