`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMER E
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alenmhin. Vitginia 22313-1450
`ww.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`10/101,644
`
`03/19/2002
`
`Marc Vianello
`
`1570110002
`
`8626
`
`BLACKWELL SANDERS PEPER MARTIN LLP
`4801 Main Street
`Suite 1000
`KANSAS CITY, MO 64112
`
`IEANTY. ROMAIN
`
`3623
`
`DATE MAILED: 01/12/2005
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.1/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.1/13)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`10/101,644
`
`Examine,
`
`VIANELLO. MARC
`
`Art um:
`
`3623 -
`
`— The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address —
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) FROM
`THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(3).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communiwtion.
`Ii the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days. a reply within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely.
`-
`Ii NO period for reply is specified above. the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communimtion.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will. by statute. cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communiwtion. even if timely filed. may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event. however. may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`HE Responsive to communication(s) filed on 20 October 2004.
`
`2a)E] This action is FINAL.
`
`2mm This action is non-final.
`
`3”] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 0.6. 213.
`
`
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`ME Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above Claim(s) 1-4l 18-197 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5):] Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`6)|Z] Claim(s) 5-17. and 198 is/are rejected.
`
`7):] Claim(s)
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`8):] Claim(s)
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10)E] The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)C] accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CF R 1.121(d).
`
`11):] The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)|:j All
`b)[:] Some * c)|j None of:
`
`11:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`' See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) {Z} Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) E] Notice of Draftsperson‘s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date _.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) I] interview Summary (PTO-413)
`‘
`Paper NOISVMa" Date. _ -
`5) CI Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
`6) C] Other: _.
`
`”CL-326 (Rev' 1.04)
`
`Office Aetion surnlrnal"Monster Worldwide-7138f Eaitiiibit°iiiiiii°(ii‘92i?§3°‘ 1o
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.2/13)
`
`

`

`Application/Contro1 Number: 10/101 ,644
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Requesr for Continued Examination (RCE)
`
`1.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
`
`37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application afier final rejection. Since this application is
`
`eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
`
`has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
`
`37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 20, 2004 has been entered. Claims 5-17
`
`and 198 are pending in the application.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 5-17 and 198 have been considered but are
`
`moot in View of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 USC. 112:
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 198 is rejected under 35 USC. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
`
`failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
`
`the invention.
`
`‘Claim 198 recites the limitation "the non requesting" in line 11. There is insufficient
`
`antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.3/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.3/13)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
`described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 5-8, 14, 16-17, and 198 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over McGovern et al (U.8. Patent No.5, 978,768) in view of Williams et a] (U.S. Patent No.
`6,618,734) and further in view of Joao (US. Patent No. 6,662,194).
`.
`
`As per claims 5, and 198, McGovern et al disclose an interactive employment recruiting
`
`service comprising:
`
`matching said candidate with said employer based on said candidate requirements and
`
`said employer requirements (matching a job seeker’s salary requirements with an employer
`
`position requirement) (col. 13, lines 27-40);
`
`McGovern et a1 disclose all of the limitations above except for receiving a request for
`
`interview from at least one of said candidate and said employer and determining whether there is
`
`mutual content to said request for interview. Williams in the same field of endeavor, teaches the
`
`idea of following-up and scheduling interview between a job candidate and a client (since
`
`Williams et a1 teaches following—up on an interview and mutually agreed time, it implies that
`
`there was a request for the interview and there was a mutual consent/agreement for the
`
`interview) col. 8, lines 42-50 and col. 9, lines 1-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to a
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.4/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.4/13)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 4
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interactive employment recruiting service system
`
`of McGovern et al to incorporate the interview based on mutual consent as evidenced by
`
`Williams. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a
`
`modification in order to determine which applicants best match the criteria set by the client.
`
`The combination of McGovern et a1 and Williams does not expressly disclose
`
`authorization for the release of contact information by the candidate and providing exchange of
`
`contact information.
`
`Joao in the same field of endeavor discloses the concept of authorizing
`
`contact information the provision of contact information (email address) between employers and
`
`employees (col. 27, lines 47-60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to modify the teachings of McGovern et a1 and Williams et al to incorporate the teachings of
`
`Joao in order to provide the identity of the party requesting the information to the respective
`
`individual, employer and/or hiring entity.
`
`As per claim 6, McGovern et a1 and Williams do not expressly disclose wherein said
`
`information exchange occurs in preparation for an interview, said information occurring prior to
`
`any direct contact between the parties. Joao discloses the exchange of information between the
`
`employer and the employee (col. 27, lines 47-60) (Since Joao does not state whether the
`
`exchange of information occurs prior or after any direct contact between the employer and the
`
`employee, it infers that the information exchange occurs before any direct contact between the
`
`party). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings
`
`of McGovern et a1 and Williams et al to incorporate the teachings of Joao in order to provide the
`
`identity of the party requesting the information to the respective individual, employer and/or
`
`hiring entity. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.5/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.5/13)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 5
`
`applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of McGovern to incorporate the exchange of
`
`information in preparation for an interview as evidenced by Williams et al with the motivation to
`
`better match candidates to take suitability interview.
`
`As per claims 7 and 16, the combination of McGovern et al and Williams et al discloses
`
`the limitations of claim 7 in the rejection of claims 5 and 14. In addition, McGovern et a1
`
`discloses comparing a preferred employer specification in said candidate attributes (col. 4, lines
`
`26-3 1).
`
`As per claims 8 and 17, the combination of McGovern et al and Williams et al discloses
`
`all of the limitations in the rejection of claims 5 and 14. In addition, McGovern et al disclose
`
`receiving a response to said request for interview from at least one of said candidate and said
`
`employer and utilizing said response to schedule the interview (col. 11, lines 54-58 and col. 11,
`
`lines 12—16). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the employment recruiting system of McGovern et al to include
`
`receiving a response to said request for interview from at least one of said candidate and said
`
`employer as evidenced by Williams. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to use such a modification in order to insure that interview will be taken place.
`
`Claim 14 is a distributed network for facilitating interviews between at least one
`
`candidate and at least one employer for performing the steps of method claim 5; and therefore is
`
`similarly rejected.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 9—13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`McGovern et al (US. Patent No.5, 978,768) in view of Williams et al (US. Patent No.
`
`6,618,734) and in further in view of view of Joao (US. Patent No. 6,662,194).
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.6/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.6/13)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/ 1 01 ,644
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`As per claims 9 and 15, the combination of McGovern et a1 and Williams does not
`
`explicitly disclose computing a payment due from said employer. Joao in the same field of
`
`endeavor teaches the idea of providing interview between the two parties and receiving payment
`
`between the parties (col. 34, line 29 through col. 35 line 41). It would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in order to modify the teachings of McGovern et al and Williams et al
`
`to include the teachings ofJoao with the motivation to guarantee by a service provider that an
`
`employer receives best matched candidates, therefore maximizing revenue of the service
`
`provider.
`
`As per claim 10, it is common that a company would pay a lot more to an employment
`
`firm to fill in an executive position and vary the pay amount based on the prospective
`
`employee’s experience level, types ofposition, open position and fee schedules, etc. Applicant’s
`
`claimed features “an amount of said payment is chosen from a general equivalency diploma
`
`amount, a high school amount, a vocational educational training amount, an associate degree
`
`amount, a bachelor degree amount, a master degree amount, and a doctorate amount, wherein
`
`said doctorate amount is less than or equal to said master degree amount, which is less than or
`
`equal to said bachelor degree amount, which is less than or equal to said associate degree
`
`amount, which is less than or equal to said vocational educational training amount, which is less
`
`than or equal to said high school amount, which is less than or equal to said general equivalency
`
`diploma amount” are similar type of features a company would pay for a candidate for the
`
`motivation of attracting more qualified candidates.
`
`Claim 11 recites is a computer system for performing the method step of claim 5;
`
`therefore is rejected similarly. McGovern et a1 and William does not expressly disclose “a
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.7/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.7/13)
`
`

`

`Application!Control Number: 10/ 1 01 ,644
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 7
`
`payment interface operable to receive payment from said employer based on occurrence of said
`
`mutual consent. Joao in the same field of endeavor teaches the idea of providing interview for
`
`job candidates and employers pay a fee for service rendered (col. 34, line 29 through col. 35 line
`
`41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to modify the
`
`teachings of McGovern et a1 and Williams et alto include the teachings of Joao with the
`
`motivation to guarantee by a service provider that an employer receives best matched candidates,
`
`therefore maximizing revenue of the service provider and at the same time maximizing potential
`
`income of the service provider.
`
`As per claim 12, the combination of McGovern et al and Williams et a1 discloses the
`
`limitations of claim 12 in the rejection of claim 11 above. In addition, McGovern et a1 discloses
`
`comparing a preferred employer specification in said candidate attributes (col. 4, lines 26-31).
`
`As per claim 13, McGovern et a discloses all of the limitations in the rejection of claim
`
`11 above, but McGovern et al fail to disclose receiving a response to said request for interview
`
`from at least one of said candidate and said employer and utilizing said response to schedule the
`
`interview. Williams, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the idea of following-up on an
`
`interview and mutually agreed time between an employer and an employee (col. 8, lines 42-50
`
`and col. 9, lines 1-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify the interactive employment recruiting service system of McGovern et al to incorporate
`
`the interview based on mutual consent as evidenced by Williams. A person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to use such a modification in order to insure that interview
`
`will be taken place.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.8/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.8/13)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101 ,644
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Conclusion
`
`9.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed Romain Jeanty whose telephone number is (703) 308-9585. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 7:30 am to 6:00 pm. If attempts to
`
`reach the examiner are not successful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tariq R Hafiz can be reached
`
`at (703) 305—9643.
`
`Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
`
`should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 308-1113.
`
`Any response to this action should be mailed to:
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`or faxed to: (703) 305-7687
`
`Hand delivered responses should be brought to Crystal Park 5, 2451 Crystal Drive,
`
`Arlington VA, Seventh floor receptionist.
`
`Ro ain J
`
`ty
`
`Patent Examiner
`
`Art Unit 3623
`
`January 10, 2005
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.9/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.9/13)
`
`

`

`
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`
`10/101,644
`Examiner
`Romain Jeanty
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`VIANELLO, MARC
`ArtUnit
`3623
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`°f1
`
`
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`Date
`Document Number
`
`II WWWW W
`US-6,662,194
`12-2003
`
`Joao, Raymond Anthony
`
`707/104.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Document Number
`Country Code—Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`C°U“W
`
` FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Classification
`
`Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher. Edition or Volume. Pertinent Pages)
`
`'A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
`US. Patent and Trademrk Office
`PTO—892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 20050110
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.10/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.10/13)
`
`

`

`0
`
`Search Notes
`
`APP'icati” "0-
`
`10/101.644
`Examiner
`
`APpIicant(s)
`
`VIANELLO, MARC
`
`Romain Jean
`
`3623
`
`SEARCHED
`
`SEARCH NOTES
`(INCLUDING SEARCH STRATEGY)
`
`104.1
`
`Examiner
`
`:' 1,10/2005
`
`1/10/2005
`
`INTERFERENCE SEARCHED
`
`Class
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No. 200501 10
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.11/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.11/13)
`
`

`

`Index of Claims
`
`lllllllll|l|llll|llll|||l|l|ll||llllllllllllllllll
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`10/101,644
`Examiner
`
`VIANELLO, MARC
`Art Unit
`
`‘Romain Jean
`
`3623
`
`Rejected
`
`H Allowed
`
`(Through numeral)
`Cancelled
`
`Restricted
`
`M Non-Elected
`I Interference
`
`Objected
`
`neg-
`
`III-
`
`III-
`
`III-
`
`III-
`
`701234677777
`
`5701314|22214|111
`
`11111111111
`
`--------
`
`nam--------------
`Ill-lIll-IIllllllllllllIll-lIll-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll-III-llIIII-IlllllllIll-IIIIll-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEll-lflflflflflflflflflflflfllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllmmmmmumnna-.2gonmunnumnummmmm
`
`
`
`IllIIll-llIIll-Ill-IllIIll-Illlllllllllllllilllll
`
`mmmmmmnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnm
`III-IIll-llIll-III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`Ill-IIIllIlllllllllllllllllllllIlllllIII-l-IllIlllIII-Illlllllllllllllllll
`
`
`
`
`
`
`890123M56782233333333
`
`I
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No. 20050110
`
`Monster Worldwide
`
`Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.12/13
`
`)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.12/13)
`
`

`

`Index of Claims (continued)
`H
`"II
`I
`
`II
`I
`N .
`App'cm" °
`10/101,644
`Examiner
`
`Romain Jean
`
`|'
`t
`Amman (s)
`VIANELLO, MARC
`
`(Through numeral)
`
`Non Elected
`Cancelled
`I
`_ _
`
`_
`
`--IIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`-IE:]IIIIIIIII
`
`--IIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`IIIIIII
`III...
`II...
`II...
`II...
`III.
`
`NmIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`
`N8
`
`
`
`NNNNNNMNNV‘J‘I‘I‘Jmm(taxman-ac~10)
`
`N3‘:
`
`IIIIII
`
`IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`
`NM‘1‘:00‘:
`IIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`-EEIIIIIIIII
`-E§IIIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`-E§]IIIIIIIII
`
`--IIIIIIIII
`-E=ZIIIIIIIIII
`-EEIIIIIIIII
`-E=I=]IIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`-E=EIIIIIIIII
`-E=I=]IIIIIIIII
`--IIIIIIIII
`
`IIIIII
`
`HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`
`—l_l—l(D(DCDCDmN(QM—I
`
`—I—l—l NVmm
`
`i
`
`.4 W(D
`
`ii‘VNVNV‘IcomamuuA
`—l—l-—l.3.3.W030)coCDNO')N
`Bunk
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No. 20050110
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.13/13)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1014 (p.13/13)
`
`