DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and Claims filed 04/09/2025.
Claims 1-9 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 2 recites in part the following: “…the employment interview questions…” Respectfully, this limitation lacks an antecedent basis. The term “the” is a definite article. As such, this term must refer to a definite previous recitation of the noun which it modifies. However, no previous recitation of “employment interview questions” has been provided. Instead, the parent claim (claim 1) only previously mentions: “…questions associated with a plurality of character strengths…”. However, this appears to be different or a different set of questions than the now referenced “the eimployment interview questions”. It is not clear whether applicant is attempting to introduce a new set of a questions or whether the applicant is referencing the previously mentioned “questions associated with a plurality of character strengths”. Therefore, this limitation lacks an antecedent basis for the claimed step. Because this limitation lacks an antecedent basis, the claim limitation is indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the feature in question is interpreted as follows: “…prior to providing a response to [any employment interview question]: (A) visualize their top character strengths, …” Nonetheless, correction and clarification is required.
Dependent claim 3, recites in part the following: “…wherein the step of providing to the computing device of the trainee third interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment interview scenarios for the selected one of the plurality of different types of occupations.”; respectfully, this clause appears to be lacking a necessary linking verb (or copula) which connects the subject (i.e. “third interactive training sessions…”) to the phrase that defines, describes, or identifies its purpose (i.e. “for the selected one of the plurality of different types of occupations”); As the clause in question is unclear on its face, the claim is considered indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the missing claim feature is interpreted as the linking verb “is” as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
144
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claim 1:
processing received trainee responses to the questions associated with a plurality of character strengths to identify a number of the trainee's top character strengths;
(i) providing the trainee first interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in non-employment scenarios;
(ii) providing the trainee second interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment scenarios; and
(iii) upon completion of the second interactive training sessions, providing the trainee third interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment interview scenarios.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the groups Mental Processes (e.g. concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc…) and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the processing step – i.e. to identify a number of the trainee's top character strengths, as drafted, constitutes a mental process as such an assessment of a person’s character strengths is an action which may be performed in the human mind, and is akin to an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc… and thus falling into Mental Processes.
Furthermore, the providing steps – i.e. providing interactive training sessions which are described as merely being associated, and in no particular manner, with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in various life skills scenarios is nothing more than the application of psychology techniques to normal training scenarios as encountered by a parent when training their child or children or as encountered by psychologists when assisting clients who are in need of training and guidance, thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
There is no technical improvement being claimed here. There is no technical solution being provided and no technical problem being solved. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components facilitating the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. application of psychology techniques in normal training scenarios) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data collection, data transmittal, and data display). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A method for character strength-based employment interview training, the method comprising the steps of: a. executing a first software application by a network-accessible computer server, said software application transmitting to a computing device of the trainee, questions associated with a plurality of character strengths; b. the computer server receiving from the computing device of the trainee, responses to the questions associated with a plurality of character strengths; … d. executing a second software application by the network-accessible computer server that at least provides the steps of: (i) providing to the computing device of the trainee…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “transmitting to a computing device of the trainee, questions” nor “receiving from the computing device… responses” nor a method of storing information on in such a database, nor is it any special hardware when recited at this high-level of generality. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts within an online environment, link them to a field of use or, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data transmittal and collection – i.e. the claimed receipt of trainee responses) in regards to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. executing a first software application by a network-accessible computer server, etc…) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. application of psychology techniques to normal training scenarios as may be encountered by a parent and child), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (such as data transmittal and collection). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 2 recites the following: “…wherein the step of providing the third interactive training sessions comprises requesting the trainee prior to providing a response to one of the employment interview questions to (A) visualize their top character strengths, (B) imagine how their top character strengths are important to the employment position associated with the employment interview questions, and (C) provide a response to the one of the employment interview questions based on (A) and (B)..” However, these features are requests for a trainee to perform mental exercises (a) and (b) and then base their response on such mental exercise. However, Such requests are not technical in nature and are akin to managing personal behavior (including… teaching, and following rules or instructions) and therefore is an abstract idea falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, there is no technical solution to a technical problem being claimed here and whether the trainee actually performs the requested mental exercises is outside the control of the claimed method; and even if it had bearing on the method as claimed, Mental Processes such as these are also merely abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim as whole is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cordero et al. (U.S. 2004/0186743 A1; hereinafter, "Cordero") in view of Niemiec (R. M. Niemiec: Character Strengths Interventions: A Field Guide for Practitioners (ISBN 9781616764920) © 2018 Hogrefe Publishing) in view of Federal Register (Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations; regarding, e.g.: State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, State Supported Employment Services Program, etc…).
Claim 1:
Cordero, being directed towards a System, Method and Software for Individuals To Experience An Interview Simulation and To Develop Career and Interview Skills, as shown teaches the following:
A method for character strength-based employment interview training, the method comprising the steps of:
a. executing a first software application by a network-accessible computer server, said software application transmitting to a computing device of the trainee, questions associated with a plurality of character strengths1 (Cordero, see at least Figs. 4, 6, and [0029]-[0034], e.g.: “…Interview Training System: The interview system described herein lends itself to career development applications, in particular job interview training. The system can be used to provide practice job interviews. Several different types of interview training sessions can be made from the base interview system… [because] the training system has access to the job knowledge base, the system could allow the user to prepare for job interviews with [i.e. by transmitting] information about common questions based on the job desired along with the user's experience, education, skills, and goals. The system could also show the user recommended answers…”; per [0043]-[0045],: “…An example of language specific job knowledge text is a job skill question… Sometimes the system will query [transmit a question] the user as to the capabilities of a specific skill or trait [associated with a plurality of character strengths] and log the results of his or her answer. Depending on the job description, a skill may require a certain level of assurance that a user is of a certain skill level. The system will use that information to further ask questions about certain topics…”; Applicant’s question(s) associated with a plurality of character strengths reads on Cordero’s question regarding specific skill or trait as noted per the footnote per applicant’s own Specification at [00024])
b. the computer server receiving from the computing device of the trainee, responses to the questions associated with a plurality of character strengths2 (Cordero, see again citation noted supra, e.g. [0043]-[0045]: “…Sometimes the system will query the user as to the capabilities of a specific skill or trait [associated with a plurality of character strengths] and log the results [server receiving responses to the question] of his or her answer…”; i.e. the user’s answer is a response to the query [question] which has been asked; the system server receives the user’s answer from the computer device used by the user; Applicant’s question(s) associated with a plurality of character strengths reads on Cordero’s question regarding specific skill or trait as noted per the footnote per applicant’s own Specification at [00024]);
c. the first software application processing the received trainee responses to the questions associated with a plurality of character strengths […] (Cordero, see again citation noted supra, e.g. [0043]-[0045]: “…The system will not only provide analysis [processing], but also it will provide reports and any available resume, job application, transcript, audio, and video. Training applications can use the interview analysis to improve interview performance and the analysis can be presented in the form of feedback.…”)
Although Cordero teaches the above limitations, he may not explicitly teach that his analysis [processing] of his user’s answers [responses] to his interview questions regarding skills or traits [associated with a plurality of character strengths] are for the purpose of to identify a number of the user’s [trainee’s] top character traits [strengths]. However, regarding this feature, Cordero in view of Niemiec teaches the following:
[…processing the received trainee responses to the questions associated with a plurality of character strengths] to identify a number of the trainee's top character strengths Niemiec R. Character strengths interventions: A field guide for practitioners. Boston, MA: Hogrefe (2018). – e.g. pg. 4: “Snapshot 1.3. the VIA Survey” where the survey is disclosed as being a “free, psychometrically valid, online [network accessible] test measuring the [sic] 24 character strengths. Available at https://www.viacharacter.org...”; Niemiec’s character strength survey questions are used to identify the user’s top character strengths which are provided to the user in a report – e.g. Survey Report identifies top 5 character strengths from a set of 24 recognized character attributes.);
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Niemiec (directed explicitly towards administering an online survey ‘The VIA Survey’ including providing survey questions regarding a user’s character strengths, receiving the user’s responses, and processing the responses for the purpose of identifying and providing the user with the identified top 5 character strengths out of 24 character attributes per a psychological classification taxonomy known as the ‘VIA’ inventory of strengths system) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Cordero to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the VIA inventory of strengths survey and response analysis technique of Niemiec to the device/method of Cordero in order to perform an analysis [processing] of Cordero’s user’s answers [responses] to his interview questions regarding skills or traits [associated with a plurality of character strengths] for the purpose of to identify the top 5 character traits [a number of the trainee's top character strengths] of Cordero’s user because Niemiec’s technique is pertinent to the survey question system and interview training objectives of Cordero and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Although Cordero/Niemiec teach the above limitations, including d. executing a second software application by the network-accessible computer server… to provide to the computing device of the trainee (e.g. Cordero, see citations noted supra, including [0002] regarding: “…method and software for providing interactive employment interviews, automated employment screening, employment interview training, speech training, career training, and employment interview preparation, etc…”; per [0037] the system is a client/server configuration where server executes software to provide client with online interview training) they may not explicitly teach the following nuanced provisions resulting from execution of such second software. However, regarding the below recited features, Cordero/Niemiec in view of Federal Register Regulations regarding State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, State Supported Employment Services Program, etc…, teaches the following:
…that at least provides the steps of:
(i) providing […] first interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in non-employment scenarios (Federal Register / Vol. 81, No.161, August 19, 2016; e.g. FR 55630, 55683, 55694-55695 regarding State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; State Supported Employment Services Program, etc…, requires states to make available to individuals with disabilities a set of services which includes (e.g. per §361.5(c)42) “pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS)” as well as “transition services” (e.g. per Transition Services §361.5(g)55); Per §361.5(c)42, examples of required “pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS)” include: “…Examples of the five "required" activities and how they may be provided in either a group or individualized setting include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. General job exploration [non-employment scenarios] may be provided in a classroom or community setting [interactive training sessions] and include information regarding in-demand industry sectors and occupations, …administration of vocational interest inventories3, and identification of career pathways of interest [use of character strengths to identify career pathways] to the students… include discussion of the student's vocational interest inventory results [another use of character strengths in discussing potential vocations], in-demand occupations, career pathways, and local labor market information that applies to those particular interests [i.e. these are interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified character strengths in non-employment scenarios]…”; applicant’s “character strengths”, as noted per Applicant’s Specification at [00024] may generally include a person’s positive traits and qualities reflected in their “thoughts and feelings”, etc… and therefore “character strengths” reads on Federal Register’s term “interests” such as used in “vocational interest inventories”, because interests are merely a synonym for a person’s “thoughts and feelings”; furthermore, Examiner finds the Federal Register disclosure provides motivation to use a person’s top interests [top character strengths], as opposed to a person’s lesser or weaker interests, e.g. to maximize benefit for the individual in need of the provided assistance according to the funding, which is limited, made available through the aforementioned regulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided to a person the aforementioned interactive classroom or community job exploration training [first interactive training sessions] focused on the person’s top interests [top character strengths], as opposed to a person’s lesser or weaker interests, when helping such a person evaluate potential career pathways of interest, including discussion of the student's vocational interest inventory results [associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in non-employment scenarios], etc… because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
(ii) providing […] second interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment scenarios (Federal Register, see again citations noted supra, e.g. Per at least §361.5(c)42, examples of required “pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS)” include: “….2. Work-based learning experiences in a group setting [interactive training sessions] may include coordinating a school-based program of job training and informational interviews to research employers, work-site tours to learn about necessary job skills, job shadowing, or mentoring opportunities in the community. Work-based learning experiences on an individual basis could include work experiences to explore the student’s area of interest [interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified character strengths in employment scenarios] through paid and unpaid internships, apprenticeships…, short-term employment, fellowships, or on-the-job trainings located in the community. These services are those that would be most beneficial to an individual in the early stages of employment exploration during the transition process from school to post-school activities, including employment…”; applicant’s “character strengths”, as noted supra, e.g. per Applicant’s Specification at [00024] may generally include a person’s positive traits and qualities reflected in their “thoughts and feelings”, etc… and therefore “character strengths” reads on Federal Register’s term “interests” such as used in “vocational interest inventories”, because interests are merely a synonym for a person’s “thoughts and feelings”; furthermore, Examiner finds the Federal Register disclosure provides motivation to use a person’s top interests [top character strengths], as opposed to a person’s lesser or weaker interests, e.g. to maximize benefit for the individual in need of the provided assistance according to the funding, which is limited, made available through the aforementioned regulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided to a person the aforementioned interactive Work-based learning experiences in a group setting [interactive training sessions] focused on the person’s top interests [top character strengths], as opposed to a person’s lesser or weaker interests, when helping such a person to explore the their area of interest [interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment scenarios], etc… because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.); and
(iii) upon completion of the second interactive training sessions, providing […] third interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment interview scenarios (Federal Register, see again citations noted supra, e.g. Examples of “transition services” include (per at least §361.49) the following: “…Services may include, but are not limited to, group tours of universities and vocational training programs, employer or business site visits to learn about career opportunities, career fairs coordinated with workforce development and employers to facilitate mock interviews [interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified character strengths in employment interview scenarios] and resume writing, and other general services applicable to groups of students with disabilities and youth with disabilities…”; applicant’s “character strengths”, as noted supra, e.g. per Applicant’s Specification at [00024] may generally include a person’s positive traits and qualities reflected in their “thoughts and feelings”, etc… and therefore “character strengths” reads on Federal Register’s term “interests” such as used in “vocational interest inventories”, because interests are merely a synonym for a person’s “thoughts and feelings”; furthermore, Examiner finds the Federal Register disclosure provides motivation to use a person’s top interests [top character strengths], as opposed to a person’s lesser or weaker interests, to facilitate the disclosed mock interviews, e.g. for the purpose of maximizing benefit for the individual in need of the provided assistance according to the funding, which is limited, made available through the aforementioned regulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided to a person in need of such training, the aforementioned mock interview as suggested as being coordinated with workforce development and employers and focused on the person’s top interests [top character strengths], as opposed to the person’s lesser or weaker interests, when helping such a person to practice interviewing for employment in an area of their top interest, etc… because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques as suggested by US Federal Register (which suggests interactive sessions which may fulfill required “pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS)” as well as “transition services” per §361.5(c)42 and §361.5(g)55, for persons with disabilities, including life skills training and employment interview training, etc…) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Cordero/Niemiec (already directed towards a system/method by which to provide online interactive life skills and employment interview training based on a person’s identified skills and traits [character strengths]) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques suggested by Federal Register to the device/method of Cordero/Niemiec in order to implement the limitations in question because Federal Register provides motivation, e.g. in the form of Federally available funding for implementing specific training techniques related to pre-employment and employment-transition training for individuals with disabilities, which is applicable to the system method of Cordero/Niemiec which is concerned with providing online interactive employment interview training based on a person’s skills and traits [character strengths] and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 3
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: e. maintaining in an occupation database, information associated with interview questions for respective ones of a plurality of different types of occupations (Cordero, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 1 and [0027], e.g.: “…The job knowledge database contains information about job descriptions, human resources, and job specific information such as skill files, which contain questions,…”), wherein the step of executing a second software application further comprises the step of receiving information transmitted by a network-accessible computing device of a trainee, the information including a selection by a trainee of one of the plurality of different types of occupations maintained by the occupation database (Cordero, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 1 and [0029], e.g.: “…At the core of the match making system is the interview system (502), which may take form as an interview system server. The job candidate (501) will choose and go on a job interview for a well known job type or a specific open job position…”), and wherein the step of providing to the computing device of the trainee third interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment interview scenarios for the selected one of the plurality of different types of occupations (As already shown supra, the combination of Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register has already been shown to teach a step of providing to the computing device of the trainee third interactive training sessions associated with how the trainee may use the identified top character strengths in employment interview scenarios. Therefore, Cordero’s teaching regarding a candidate being able to choose to take training for a well-known job type or a specific open job position provides motivation to apply the already taught third interactive training session for the candidates selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious toa person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the training as claimed according to Cordero’s candidate’s selection of a particular job type because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claim 4
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: upon completion of the third interactive training sessions, the software application providing to the computing device of the trainee fourth interactive training sessions comprising at least one of virtual or pre-recorded interviewer providing interview questions to the trainee (Cordero, see at least [0004]-[0007], e.g.: “…The present invention allows individuals to perform virtual interviews that can be analyzed for qualifications and submitted to employers for screening purposes… [0007] Previous patents have focused on the ability to communicate in text and in speech with a computer, interactive learning, virtual characters…”; [0027]: “…Some input can be in the form of a control event, such as asking the interviewer to proceed to the next question, or having a virtual character express sadness during a salary negotiation. The input data consisting of video data can be a live video feed of the user speaking and reacting to the interviewer, exactly as in what would be expected of in a real job interview…”; see also [0031], etc…).
Claim 5
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 4, further comprising the step of: receiving by the software application responses provided by the computing device of the trainee, responses to the interview questions during the fourth interactive training sessions (Cordero, see at least [0004]-[0007], and [0027], e.g.: “…Some input can be in the form of a control event, such as asking the interviewer to proceed to the next question, or having a virtual character express sadness during a salary negotiation. The input data consisting of video data can be a live video feed of the user speaking and reacting to the interviewer, exactly as in what would be expected of in a real job interview…”; see also [0031], etc…); and providing to the computing device of the trainee at least one of an interview score, or feedback concerning improvement of the responses provided by the trainee to the interview questions (Cordero, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0014] and [0045]: “…Training applications can use the interview analysis to improve interview performance and the analysis can be presented in the form of feedback…”)
Claim 6
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 5, wherein the step of providing to the computing device of the trainee at least one of an interview score, or feedback is performed by the computer server (Cordero, see citations noted supra, including at least Figs. 6, 8, in view of at least [0014]: “….The system, method and software provides detailed screening, review, analysis, and feedback for all stages of the interview simulation and displays results using a customized computer interface on the computer terminal. The screening and analysis evaluates all input including pre-interview, interview, post-interview, explicit and implicit data. Screening and analysis also produces a series of recommendations based on the interview interaction. The recommendations can be provided to hiring managers for screening purposes, or directly to the user if used for training purposes…”; and per [0045]: “…The system will use this information in scoring applicants… Training applications can use the interview analysis to improve interview performance and the analysis can be presented in the form of feedback…”; the server of the system performs the analysis including scoring and feedback).
Claim 7
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 6, further comprising the computer server determining such at least one of the interview score, or feedback (Cordero, see citations noted supra, including at least Figs. 6, 8, in view of at least [0014]: “….The system, method and software provides detailed screening, review, analysis, and feedback for all stages of the interview simulation and displays results using a customized computer interface on the computer terminal. The screening and analysis evaluates all input including pre-interview, interview, post-interview, explicit and implicit data. Screening and analysis also produces a series of recommendations based on the interview interaction. The recommendations can be provided to hiring managers for screening purposes, or directly to the user if used for training purposes…”; and per [0045]: “…The system will use this information in scoring applicants.… Training applications can use the interview analysis to improve interview performance and the analysis can be presented in the form of feedback…”; Cordero’s server performs the analysis which includes scoring and feedback.)
Claim 8
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method is specifically adapted to provide the first and second software applications as part of a single software application (Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teach the features regarding the first and second software applications as already noted supra. Furthermore, Examiner notes that combination of parts such as integration is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) – Making integral is obvious. Therefore, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the references such as to provide the claimed features of the first and second software applications into a single software application because as noted per MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) – Making integral is obvious. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to do this to perhaps optimize software response times or in an effort to reduce energy consumption or even for any number of well-understood security reasons such that user security is maintained across all features, etc…)
Claim 9
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register as shown teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method is specifically adapted for use with trainees on autism spectrum (Federal Register 55652: “…We address the comments regarding
the determination of eligibility for individuals with autism and the significance of disability in the
Assessment for Determining Eligibility and Priority for Services(§ 361.42) section of this preamble…”; and per FR 55746: “...(30) Individual with a significant disability means an individual with a disability-… (iii) Who has one or more physical or mental disabilities resulting from amputation, arthritis, autism…”; Examiner therefore finds at least this disclosure provides motivation to provide the aforementioned training specifically for individuals with autism [trainees on the autism spectrum]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the system/method already suggested by Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register, which is directed towards providing online training for individuals with disabilities, specifically for individuals with autism as they would be deemed as eligible to receive the training offered through US Federal Regulations and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cordero in view of Niemiec in view of Federal Register further in view of Niemiec2 (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-matters-most/201303/what-is-your-best-possible-self; 2013).
Claim 2
Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register in view of Niemiec2 teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of providing the third interactive training sessions comprises requesting the trainee prior to providing a response to one of the employment interview questions to (A) visualize their top character strengths, (B) imagine how their top character strengths are important to the employment position associated with the employment interview questions, and (C) provide a response to the one of the employment interview questions based on (A) and (B) (Niemiec2, see at least [pg. 1]: “…I suggest you consider it in two basic steps: visualizing yourself at a future moment in time having accomplished your goals and considering the character strengths you'll need to deploy to make that vision a reality.
Here are some steps to help guide you:
Take a few minutes to select a future time period (e.g.: 6 months, 1 year, 5 years from now) and imagine that at that time you are expressing your best possible self strongly. Visualize your best possible self in a way that is very pleasing to you and that you are interested in. Imagine in vivid detail that you have worked hard and succeeded at accomplishing your life goals. You might think of this as reaching your full potential, hitting an important milestone. or realizing one of your life dreams. The point is not to think of unrealistic fantasies, but rather, things that are positive and attainable within reason.
After you have a fairly clear image, write about the details. Writing your best possible self down helps to create a logical structure for the future and can help you move from the realm of foggy ideas and fragmented thoughts to concrete, real possibilities.
Be sure to write about the character strengths that you observe in this image.
And, what character strengths will you need to deploy to make this best possible self a reality?...”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Niemiec2 (directed towards a mental visualization and imagination technique, making use of one’s perceived top character strengths, which is suggested to be used before writing down answers regarding future steps to take to turn ideas into reality) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register (directed towards system/methods of providing online training regarding life [reality] skills and career skills training including employment interviewing training) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Niemiec2 to the device/method of Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register in order to perform the limitation in question such that the third interactive training session as suggested to be provided by the system/method of Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register comprises requesting the user, e.g. an individual with disability, prior to providing a response to [any] employment interview questions to (A) visualize their top character strengths, and (B) imagine how their top character strengths are important to the employment position associated with the employment interview questions, and (C) provide a response to the one of the employment interview questions based on (A) and (B) because Niemiec2 is pertinent to the system/method suggested by Cordero/Niemiec/Federal Register and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as they discuss well-established tenets of ‘positive psychology’ such as the identification and application of one’s character strengths, where such strengths have be characterized in psychology literature as a set of 24 desirable traits that every individual expresses to differing degrees, etc…:
Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (2004);
Rust T, Diessner R, Reade L. Strengths only or strengths and relative weaknesses? A preliminary study. J Psychol Interdiscip Appl. (2009) 143:465–76. doi: 10.3200/jrl.143.5.465-476).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Per Applicant’s Specification at [00024]: “As used herein, "character strengths" means generally a person's positive traits and qualities reflected in their thoughts, feelings, personality, and actions, and can include capacities for thinking, feeling, and behaving, which can be expressed in degrees.”
2 Per Applicant’s Specification at [00024]: “As used herein, "character strengths" means generally a person's positive traits and qualities reflected in their thoughts, feelings, personality, and actions, and can include capacities for thinking, feeling, and behaving, which can be expressed in degrees.”
3 “Vocational interest inventories” are psychological, self-report questionnaires designed to measure an individual's preferences, likes, and dislikes regarding various activities, work environments, and occupations; for example see: https://elevates.marylandpublicschools.org/secondary-transition-toolkit-interest-inventories/.