DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
Figures 5 and 10 are objected to because the features shown in these drawings are not legible. It appears that applicant has relied on informal screenshots as opposed to formal drawings. As noted in MPEP 608.01, “Legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and paper can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. This requires a high contrast, with black lines and a while background.” In Figures 1 and 3, the text is shaded or grey scale. See 37 CFR 1.84(1). “The use of greyscale for text, intentional or otherwise, has made the text difficult to read and not amenable to reproduction.” See Id. Further, numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
Examiner has reproduced a portion of applicant’s Fig. 5 here to highlight the difficulty in identifying features shown in the drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
543
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
522
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12 and 18-20 recite “system of claim 10” should read “system of claim 11”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “a contract terms” should read “a contract term”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claims 10 and 20 recite “structuring and indexing, via a data cleaning, structuring and indexing module, data to structure and index the AI model corresponding to resume creation” (bold emphasis). However, the specification does not describe how that is actually performed to accomplish the intended result of “structure and index the AI model corresponding to resume creation.” The specification does not specify how the data structures and indexes the AI model, because data is structured and indexed as input to train the model. However, the claim is requiring the data to perform the action of structuring and indexing of the AI model instead of structuring or indexing the data for the AI model to use/process. Based on the specification in para. [0108] only states “data cleaning, structuring and indexing module 842 can be configured to structure the AI model corresponding to resume creation.” However, there is no other information providing the detail for how to structure the AI model corresponding to resume creation other than indicating there is data cleaning, structuring and indexing module 842 can perform the step.
Although one skilled in the art would have found the invention to be enabled because one skilled in the art, without undue experimentation, could possibly come up with one way of performing the above-mentioned steps, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine how the applicant has intended for this structure and index of the AI model corresponding to resume creation to be done and would, therefore, be unable to determine if the applicant had possession of the invention. To put it another way, one skilled in the art would be unable to make and use the invention in the manner intended by the applicant since the applicant has failed to provide sufficient working examples of how the above steps are performed so as to cover the wide scope laid out by the claimed invention and, therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine whether the applicant had possession of the genus since insufficient species have been provided. One skilled in the art would have found that the claimed invention and corresponding specification is attempting to claim all known and unknown possibilities of performing the above-mentioned steps without providing sufficient examples in the Specification to allow one skilled in the art to determine whether the Applicant had possession of such a wide scope of possibilities.
Finally, as a point of clarification, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Therefore, the test for determining whether or not the applicant’s claims meet the § 112(a) written description requirement is possession, not whether one skilled in the art is enabled to perform the invention. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the Examiner concludes that the applicant’s disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of the invention. Applicants’ are attempting to claim any and all ways of performing the above-mentioned steps. Thus, Applicant is attempting to claim the entire genus of performing the above-mentioned steps. Yet, the specification does not demonstrate a generic invention that achieves the claimed result because there is no disclosure of sufficient species. As the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariad:
genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the Appellant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the Appellant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally- defined genus. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Applicants’ claim to such an open-ended genus of performing the above-mentioned steps is similar to the claims at issue in Ariad that "merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it.” Id. At 1353. Ariad further states that “Patents are not awarded for academic theories [and a] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its conclusion.” Id. Therefore, Ariad requires that when the applicant claims a genus, sufficient materials must be disclosed to demonstrate that the genus has in fact been disclosed which the applicant has not.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim.
Claims 12-20 depend from claim 1 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “for validating the at least one smart contract” (bold emphasis) is found to be indefinite. The claims previously introduce “at least one smart contract blockchain profile” but do not introduce a “smart contract” on its own. It becomes unclear if “the at least one smart contract” is referring to the “at least one smart contract blockchain profile” or a different “smart contract”. The Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation, “for validating the at least one smart contract” to be “for validating an at least one smart contract” or “for validating the at least one smart contract blockchain profile”.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “simulate transactions with the smart contract” (bold emphasis) lack antecedent basis and indefinite. The claims previously introduce “at least one smart contract blockchain profile”, “a smart contract node” and “the at least one smart contract,” but do not introduce a “smart contract” on its own. It becomes unclear if “the smart contract” is referring to the “at least one smart contract blockchain profile”, “a smart contract node” or “the at least one smart contract”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “simulate transactions with the smart contract” to be --simulate transactions with the at least one smart contract-- which in last limitation, “for validating the at least one smart contract” is interpreted to be -- for validating an at least one smart contract-- for providing the antecedent basis.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “generating the relational contract code on the blockchain upon successful validation of the smart contract code” (bold emphasis) which is found to be indefinite. The claims previously introduce “validating the relational contract code” but never introduce “smart contract code”. Based on the specification para. [0096], “system stores the relational chaincode (i.e., the code that executes the smart contracts which direct what gets stored “on-chain””; the Examiner interprets “generating the relational contract code on the blockchain upon successful validation of the smart contract code” to be --generating the relational contract code on the blockchain upon successful validation of the relational contract code--.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “generating a referral-based database of resumes of blockchain smart contracts” (bold emphasis) which is found to be indefinite. It is unclear whether if the database stores resumes or if the smart contracts possess resumes. Based on the specification para. [0006] and [0089], “generating a referral-based database of candidate attributable resumes using blockchain smart contracts is provided.” The Examiner interprets “generating a referral-based database of resumes of blockchain smart contracts” to be -- generating a referral-based database of resumes using blockchain smart contracts--.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from claim 1 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 11-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1 and 11, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 11 is
receiving at least one profile, the at least one profile corresponding to a unique user profile containing qualifications and experiences of at least one candidate;
processing the at least one profile to output a contract for validating the at least one contract;
processing the contract to generate a relational contract code;
validating the relational contract code with model to simulate transactions with the contract; and
generating the relational contract code upon successful validation of the smart contract code.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing employment recruiting and evaluating candidate resumes.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (step [A]) and analyzing the information (steps [B]-[E]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and evaluating/simulating data transactions, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors for commercial and human resource practice. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of receiving candidate qualifications, evaluating/validating the qualifications, and recording the relationship between referrers and candidates, which has been long-standing commercial and human resource practice, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “smart contract blockchain”, “a smart contract node”, “smart contract”, “a generative artificial intelligence model”, and “on the blockchain”
Claim 11: “A system for generating a referral-based database of resumes of blockchain smart contracts, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one storage medium for storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor for causing the system to:”;
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, process, validate, and generate information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0065]-[0066], [0077]-[0078], [0111]-[0120]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[E] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[E] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for managing employment recruiting and evaluating candidate resumes. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claims 2-7 and 12-17 merely recite the classifying the data being stored; claims 8 and 18 recite additional abstract step of writing a pointer to locate data outside the blockchain; claims 9 and 19 recite the abstract step of analyzing transaction data to obtain a scoring component based on variables such as degree of separation and successful transactions, which is mathematical concept for calculating a score based on weighted variable; claims 10 and 20 further recite abstract step of structuring data and identifying relational connection. These additional abstract steps and information do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaidi et al. (US 20220318757 A1, hereinafter, “Zaidi”) in view of Abdelrahman et al. (US 20240394705 A1, hereinafter, “Abdelrahman”).
Claims 1 and 11, Zaidi discloses a method and a system for generating a referral-based database of resumes of blockchain smart contracts (Abstract, para. [0021], [0037]), comprising:
at least one processor (para. [0014]); and
at least one storage medium for storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor for causing the system to (para. [0014]):
receive at least one smart contract blockchain profile, the at least one smart contract blockchain profile corresponding to a unique user profile containing qualifications and experiences of at least one candidate (para. [0037], “the blockchain based credential wallet could be acted as a resume because it includes the user's education, work experience, credentials, accomplishments, etc.” discloses creating a blockchain profile that is a resume containing candidate qualifications. In para. [0003], [0031] discloses the receiving the blockchain credential to evaluate the candidate);
process the at least one smart contract blockchain profile to output a smart contract node for validating the at least one smart contract (para. [0009], “token server system may then store the hash and the link on a blockchain using one or more smart contract functions.” Para. [0027], “the network 110 could be, but not limited to, a blockchain network, a private blockchain network based on Hyperledger and its frameworks such as, but not limited to, Fabric, Sawtooth, Indy, Burrow, chaincode and smart contracts,” discloses the blockchain network of smart contracts. Para. [0017], [0029], “the credentials themselves are issued and recorded on the blockchain. In one embodiment, the database could be an InterPlanetary file system, which is a protocol and peer-to-peer network for storing and sharing the candidate's blockchain credentials in a distributed file system.” Para. [0034], “the computer-implemented credentials verification network utilizes blockchain technology and tracks/verifies the credentials for candidates that could later be used in the hiring verification process. In one embodiment, a company has a change in employment for a particular employee that company can publish and update of the employee's employment information onto the blockchain, wherein the information can be shared among the peer nodes connected to the blockchain network.” discloses the candidate profile is updated or processed to the network’s nodes for verification.);
process the smart contract node to generate a relational contract code (Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interprets, “relational contract code” to be smart contract code that is generated and executed to govern the relationship, permissions, and secure sharing of data between candidate and employer/network member, suggested in the applicant’s specification para. [0096] and [00101]-[00105]. In Zaidi, Abstract: “The system is configured to enable candidates to store blockchain credentials and verify the candidates' blockchain credentials and create a blockchain based credential wallet for the users and/or candidates to securely transfer/share the credentials.” Para. [0016], [0028], “the platform of the system could be built on a programmable Blockchain network, for example, a private blockchain network based on Hyperledger and its frameworks such as, but not limited to, Fabric, Sawtooth, Indy, Burrow, chaincode, and smart contracts, and Ethereum and allows the users and/or individuals or candidates to securely transfer or share credentials stored in a blockchain based credential wallet via the blockchain network to one or more electronic devices or user devices, for example, a smartphone.” Para. [0031], “This allows the sender could share the document both internally through other members of the blockchain network or externally with members who are not part of the blockchain network.” Zaidi discloses the executing of code/system to establish secure relationship for transferring and sharing credentials between the candidate and other entities such as employers, HR.).
However, Zaidi fails to expressly disclose,
validate the relational contract code with a generative artificial intelligence model to simulate transactions with the smart contract; and
generate the relational contract code on the blockchain upon successful validation of the smart contract code.
Abdelrahman is in the similar field of methods and systems for smart contract creation, validation, and monitoring using generative artificial intelligence models, which specifically teaches,
validate the relational contract code with a generative artificial intelligence model to simulate transactions with the smart contract (Abstract, para. [0042], [0065], [0094] “Methods and systems for smart contract creation, validation, and monitoring using generative artificial intelligence models are described… the merged models may be used for generation of smart contract code, generation of synthetic data used to validate or test smart contract code, or in cooperation with agents to monitor execution of smart contract code once published on the blockchain.” The synthetic data used to validate or test smart contract code is equivalent of simulate transactions to validate the code); and
generate the relational contract code on the blockchain upon successful validation of the smart contract code (Abstract, para. [0007], [0074], [0094] teaches the generative AI model is used to validate/test the code, then the system monitors the execution of the code once published on the blockchain. The publish/publication of the code on the blockchain is equivalent to generating the relational contract code on the blockchain upon successful validation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the blockchain resume system and method of Zaidi with the generative AI smart contract validation of Abdelrahman for the motivation of ensuring the smart contract with sensitive candidate credential and referral information are immutable on the live blockchain ledger (para. [0003]).
Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Zaidi further discloses,
wherein the relational contract code is embedded with transactions in which data itself is stored outside of the blockchain (Zaidi, para. [0009], [0011], [0030], [0033], storing data on IPFS and embedding the hash/link in the blockchain transaction constitutes embedding transactions in which the data itself is stored outside of the blockchain (off-chain)).
Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12. Zaidi further discloses,
wherein the transactions are at least one of a personal identifiable information contract, a user-specific administrative data contract, a data permissions contract, a different user types contract, and a same user types contract (para. [0002], [0037] disclosing personal identification contract; para. [0038], [0043] disclosing user-specific administrative data contract and data permissions contract; para. [0013], [0037] disclosing different user types contract and same user types contract).
Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13. Zaidi further discloses,
wherein the personal identification information contract includes data associated with personal information of a user (Zaidi, para. [0002], “Several categories of background checks may be performed including identity checks, credit history checks, criminal background checks, and education and employment experience checks.” Para. [0037], “the blockchain based credential wallet could be acted as a resume because it includes the user's education, work experience, credentials, accomplishments, etc.” discloses storing personal information such as identity, background, and education records on the blockchain network).
Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13. Zaidi further discloses,
wherein the data permission contract includes data associated with administrative rights for content attribution (para. [0038], [0043] Zaidi discloses giving user administrative rights to control who can view or access the shared information/resume).
Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13. Zaidi further discloses,
wherein the different user types contract includes data associated with different types of users (para. [0013], [0037], Zaidi discloses categorizes the network into different user types, (e.g., candidate (user), issuer, and receivers (employer)) and facilitates transactions).
Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13. Zaidi further discloses,
wherein the same user types contract includes data associated with same types of users (para. [0017], [0037] discloses facilitating transactions/connections between users of exactly same type (peer-to-peer user connections). The enabling users to connect with other users to view or share credential constitutes a same user types contract).
Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Zaidi further discloses,
further comprising writing an output of the relational contract code into one or more blocks containing a contract term and a pointer (Zaidi para. [0009], [0029], [0033], discloses writing blockchain transactions (blocks) that contain cryptographic links or hashes (pointers) to locate documents. Under BRI, an IPFS has or a URL published to a blockchain ledger constitutes a pointer. The execution of smart contract to verify a candidate’s resume, it writes the transaction output of IPFS hash/pointer and the contract terms of the verification into the blocks),
wherein the contract term is used to create a temporary data structure in a virtual machine or other computing platform (para. [0014] and [0016] discloses the system utilizes virtual machines and computerized environments to execute the software modules and process the blockchain data), and
wherein the pointer is used to create an address or location of data outside of the blockchain (para. [0009] “The token server system may use the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) protocol and/or servers such as Amazon simple storage service (Amazon S3).” Zaidi discloses the pointer (IPFS hash or URL) creates an address for data stored outside of the blockchain. Furthermore, see para. [0011], [0030], and [0033] for additional details).
However, Zaidi fails to expressly disclose the retrieving of data for the purpose of artificial intelligence analysis.
Nonetheless, Abdelrahman teaches (italic emphasis) for artificial intelligence analysis (Para. [0091], teaches AI system for analyzing smart contracts and interactions with the outside world. In para. [0062] teaches the AI system utilizes Oracles and external databases to access off-chain data for analysis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the blockchain resume system and method of Zaidi with the artificial intelligence analysis system of Abdelrahman for the motivation of providing a more efficient and less costly process on blockchain network for storing large dataset (see para. [0239]-[0241], [0274]).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaidi et al. (US 20220318757 A1, hereinafter, “Zaidi”) in view of Abdelrahman et al. (US 20240394705 A1, hereinafter, “Abdelrahman”), and further in view of Amin et al. (US 20130318180 A1, hereinafter, “Amin”).
Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
The combination fails to expressly teach:
further comprising analyzing transactional data to obtain a scoring component that matches at least one resume based on at least a total number of connected users by user type, a user degree of separation from valuing/viewing user, a total number of successful transactions by type, a total number of attempted transactions, and a total number of users recruited onto a platform.
Amin is in the similar field of referral-based network, which specifically teaches:
further comprising analyzing transactional data to obtain a scoring component that matches at least one resume based on at least a total number of connected users by user type, a user degree of separation from valuing/viewing user, a total number of successful transactions by type, a total number of attempted transactions, and a total number of users recruited onto a platform (para. [0049], Amin teaches a social referral engine that analyzes transactional (behavioral) and social graph data to generate scoring components (affinity scores and connection strengths) to match users to relevant recommendations. In para. [0022], [0024], [0059] teaches scoring and matching user based on degree of separation and types of entities/users they are connected to. Analyzing nodes by entity/people types maps directly to “connected user by user type”. In para. [0078], tracking the frequency/extent of interactions maps to tracking attempted and successful transactions. In para. [0066], tracking the total number of members joined a group based on invitations maps directly to the “total number of users recruited”. Amin teaches the calculating scores based on the volume of historical interactions and the number of users who have joined (recruited to) a group or platform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the referral-based blockchain database system and method of Zaidi to include the social graph scoring of degrees of separation and interaction frequency as taught by Amin to rank and match the blockchain resume for the motivation of improving the quality of the hiring recommendations from allowing employers on the blockchain network to filter and rank candidate resumes based on strength, proximity, and historical activity of network connections.
Claims 10 and 20, the combination of Zaidi and Abdelrahman makes obvious of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Abdelrahman further teaches,
structuring and indexing, via a data cleaning, structuring and indexing module, data to structure and index the AI model corresponding to resume creation (As noted in the 112(b) rejection above, the claim limitation is interpreted to be structuring and indexing data to be used by the AI model. In Abdelrahman para. [0319] teaches the software modules/interfaces configured to structure and prepare data for the AI model).
However, the combination fails to expressly teach:
identifying, via a relational connection module, relational connection between users;
analyzing, via a transaction data analysis module, data to analyze transactional records containing transactional detail components; and
identifying, via a platform user recruitment module, data to identify a specific platform based on the relational connection.
Amin is in the similar field of referral-based network, which specifically teaches:
identifying, via a relational connection module, relational connection between users (para. [0052], [0060], Amin teaches a software module dedicated to identifying relational connections between users in the network. Connection strength module which identifies connection paths between members is representative of “relational connection module”);
analyzing, via a transaction data analysis module, data to analyze transactional records containing transactional detail components (para. [0046], [0057] Amin teaches module analyzing historical interactions, behaviors, and transactional records between users and entities. The affinity score module 23 analyzing behavioral data includes purchases and interaction is representative of “transaction data analysis module” analyzing transactional records); and
identifying, via a platform user recruitment module, data to identify a specific platform based on the relational connection (para. [0029], [0045], [0072], Amin teaches utilizing the identified relational connections to recruit users to join specific groups companies, or platforms. The group or company affiliation hosted on the network is representative of specific platform and the recommendation module 25 identifies the groups and sending the inventions to recruit users to join based on relational connection is representative of platform user recruitment module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the referral-based blockchain database system and method of Zaidi/ Abdelrahman to include the connection and affinity modules as taught by Amin for the motivation of improving the quality of the hiring recommendations from allowing employers on the blockchain network to filter and rank candidate resumes based on strength, proximity, and historical activity of network connections.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Nolan et al. (US20210126826A1) is directed to a system and method for decentralized data storage and processing for IoT devices, which also teaches the off-chain storage with on-chain cryptographic pointers of claim 8 and 18.
S. K and A. S. Poornima, "A Transparent and Privacy-Preserving Job Search Platform Built on the Ethereum Blockchain Framework," 2023 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Industrial Electronics: Developments & Applications (ICIDeA), Imphal, India, 2023, pp. 235-242, teaches the use of blockchain for job recruitment platform similar to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 C Uber can be reached on (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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights