Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`
`
`
`fight-.322 'on of: Vianello, Marc
`
`Serial No.: 10/101,644
`
`Filed: March 19, 2002
`
`For: APPARTUS AND METHODS FOR
`PROVIDING CAREER EMPLOYMENT
`SERVICES
`
`Last Office Action: July 14, 2005
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`
`Examiner: Romain Jeanty
`
`Group Art Unit: 3623
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`Customer No.: 027526
`
`Confirmation No.: 8626
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`this correspondence is being
`I hereby certify that
`deposited with the United States Postal Service as
`First Class Mail
`in
`an envelope addressed to:
`Commissioner
`for
`Patents, PO. Box
`1450,
`Alexa
`ria,
`Virginia
`22313-1450
`on
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Non-Fee Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`AMENDMENT E
`
`In response to the Office Action mailed July 14, 2005, and within the three months for response
`
`thereto, please amend the above-identified application in accordance with the amendments and remarks as
`
`set forth herein. Based on a discussion with the Examiner during a telephone conversation held on
`
`Tuesday, August 16 2005, during which the Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments to the
`
`claims would not be entered afier final, Applicant is filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
`
`concurrent with this response.
`
`Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims, which begins on page 2 of this
`
`paper.
`
`Remarks/Arguments begin on page g of this paper.
`
`A Clean Copy of the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims, which begins on page 5_4 of
`
`this paper.
`
`xc—1313110-5
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.1/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.1/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`REMARKS
`
`The above amendments and these remarks are submitted in response to the Office Action mailed
`
`July 14, 2005 in the above captioned application, which has been received and carefully analyzed.
`
`Claims 205 and 207 have been added. Claims 13 and 201 have been deleted. Claims 5-8, 10-12, 14-15,
`
`17, 198-200 and 202- 207 are now pending in this case for prosecution. Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 14 and 198
`
`have been amended. Claims 5, 11, 14, 198, 199 and 206 are independent.
`
`SECTION 101 REJECTION
`
`Claims 5-8, 10 and 198—204 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter. The claims have been amended to recite processes that expressly incorporate
`
`technology as performing the steps therein.
`
`SECTION 103 REJECTIONS
`
`Claims 5-8, 14, 16-17, and 198-204 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly
`
`unpatentable over McGovern et a1 (U .3. Patent No. 5,978,768) in view of Williams et a1. (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,618,734) and further in View of Joao (U .S. Patent No. 6,662,194).
`
`Claims 9-13, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable over
`
`McGovern et al. (U .8. Patent No. 5,978,768) in View of Williams et al. (US. Patent No. 6,618,734) and
`
`further in view of Joao (U .8. Patent No. 6,662,194).
`
`It should initially be noted that applicant’s invention is directed to an economic event that is
`
`triggered by the mutual consent of parties to a request for the release of contact information. See Fig 12,
`
`steps 1206 to 1208.
`
`Importantly, the economic event of the present invention is completely independent
`
`of and unrelated to the occurrence or non-occurrence of an interview.
`
`A synopsis of the teachings of the cited references are presented to set forth and illustrate the
`
`distinction and non-obviousness of the features of applicant’s invention, over the prior art.
`
`KC-1313110-5
`
`44
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.2/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.2/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 10 1 ,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`McGovern
`
`McGovern is directed to a method and apparatus to enable advertisement of positions, receipt of
`
`resumes from prospective candidates and perform screening of the resumes. McGovern is a job
`
`search/posting system. There exists a contractual relationship between employers and a hosting service
`
`provider. An employer pays a license fee to the site provider for access to certain application functions
`
`and a finite number of job postings. See column 8, lines 39-54. The system matches job seekers to
`
`employer requirements. When a match is identified as between a job seeker and an advertised position,
`
`McGovern links the job seeker to the relevant page of the employer's website, wherein the details of the
`
`position are described. See column 15, lines 36-55. The job seeker may then communicate directly with
`
`the employer via the employer's website and the job seeker can obtain additional information regarding
`
`the available position and/or forward an e-mail or resume‘ to the company to apply for the position.
`
`McGovern also provides automated matching of a job seeker to future positions. The job seeker is
`
`provided the contact information and particulars of the employer, thus allowing the job seeker to make
`
`direct contact. See columnl6, lines 5-24.
`
`McGovern does not necessitate the exchange of contact information between the parties.
`
`In the
`
`instances where such exchange occurs, there is no economic event associated with the exchanges (no
`
`payment or obligation of payment); nor does McGovern require the mutual consent from employer and
`
`job seeker as a prerequisite before the exchange occurs. McGovern does not discuss or hint at any
`
`financial considerations to a site operator.
`
`Williams
`
`Williams is directed to a system and method for assessing candidate qualifications and
`
`determining/monitoring the progression of candidates through an interview process. As a part of this
`
`process,
`
`the system performs occupational qualifier interviews. Candidates are presented with and
`
`respond to customized assessment questions, which allow the system to determine the best match of
`
`candidates to employer criteria.
`
`In essence, Williams provides and teaches an initial candidate screening
`
`KC-l3l3l 10—5
`
`45
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.3/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.3/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`and interviewing tool that is purported to help reduce employer workload in the area of candidate
`
`screening.
`
`See Colunm 12,
`
`lines 25-34. Williams collects candidate information,
`
`then questions
`
`candidates to assess job-related behavioral characteristics and then evaluates this information to determine
`
`which candidates best satisfy the client/employer prerequisites. Candidates are winnowed by the system.
`A candidate is presented with numerous questions for responses. The responses are utilized by the system
`
`to determine the candidate that best matches criteria that was set forth by the employer. Those who best
`
`match criteria set by the employer are advised that they pre-qualify for a follow-up interview and are
`
`given instructions regarding a direct, follow-up interview. The contact information of the parties are then
`
`made available to one another so that an interview may be scheduled.
`
`Williams is also an interview process management system that provides automated follow-up
`
`interview scheduling, recordation of ideal times for phone calls from the employer, and so forth.
`
`As clearly set forth in Applicant's amended claims, Applicant's method has nothing to do with
`
`soliciting job-related behavioral characteristics, evaluating the proffered information to determine which
`candidates best satisfy the client/employer prerequisites, and scheduling an interview.
`Instead, the
`
`Applicant’s method is directed to payment from the employer for the exchange of contact information
`
`only after mutual consent for the release of such contact information has been obtained from both the
`
`employer and the candidate.
`
`Joao
`
`Joao teaches a system and method for providing recruitment information. More specifically, Joao
`
`determines an applicant’s and employer’s interest in getting together to pursue an opportunity. The
`
`system facilitates information exchange between the parties in preparation for an interview, employment
`
`screening, and/or other recruitment processes. The system monitors the recruitment process and records
`
`the related information. Joao further teaches a system of maintaining a financial account on behalf of an
`
`employer and making payments or transfers to account(s) of individual employee(s).
`
`Joao addresses
`
`monetary transactions between the employer and employee and functions as an escrow service.
`
`KC-1313110-5
`
`46
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.4/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.4/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`Joao also facilitates and maintains the engagement of an individual by an employer. Even
`
`further, Joao provides automated mechanisms that are pre-configured by the employer to cause the system
`
`to act on behalf of the employer.
`
`Importantly, Joao’s teaching that relates to payments or compensation
`
`services describes an agency or escrow type of situation. See Column 35, lines 27-45.
`
`Joao does not
`
`teach or suggest an economic event or benefit to a site operator in connection with an agreement to
`
`provide contact information.
`
`More specifically, the Joao reference has been cited by the Examiner to disclose payment from
`
`one party to another. This disclosure is correctly identified by the Examiner at Column 34, Lines 29—46.
`
`However, this disclosure is very clear in that payment by the employer is specifically related to services
`
`performed by the individual or individuals. Payment is specifically processed and transferred on behalf of
`
`the employer from the employer's account to an individual's account or to accounts of individuals for
`
`services rendered by the individual.
`
`It has nothing to do with paying for the exchange of contact
`
`information before any meeting or interview is accomplished between the candidate and the employer.
`
`The payment process disclosed in the Joao reference is strictly related to services performed by the
`
`individual on behalf of the employer.
`
`Column 34 at Lines 47-55 further discusses the possibility of purchasing an option from the
`
`individual or person or entity representing the individual for the respective individual‘s services, with the
`
`price of said option being determined by using conventional financial options pricing models and/or
`
`methods. This is totally different and distinguishable over Applicant's system whereby an employer pays
`
`a career site operator a specific fee for exchanging contact information only after mutual consent from
`
`both the employer and the candidate has been obtained for the exchange of such information. No
`
`payment scheme similar to Applicant's system is disclosed or even contemplated in the Joao reference.
`
`Stepping through the Examiner’s remarks and rejections,
`
`the Examiner acknowledges that
`
`McGovern does not disclose or teach receiving a request for an interview, and that Williams teaches
`
`following-up and scheduling an interview.
`
`In this regard, and as amended in the claims, Applicant’s
`
`KC-1313110-5
`
`47
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.5/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.5/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`invention does not deal with interviews. Instead the invention addresses mutual_consent to the release of
`
`contact information, and provides that the consent for such release results in a real time fee computation
`
`and an obligation for payment of the fee. This event is independent, irrespective of, and prior in time to
`
`any interviews, or the actual exchange of such contact information.
`
`Williams does not teach or suggest the occurrence of an economic event in connection with
`
`mutual consent for providing contact information. Even further, Williams teaches a winnowing process
`
`that gleans candidates to a best fit based on employer specified criteria. This is contrary to Applicant’s
`
`invention wherein a decision of mutual interest triggers a release of contact information along with a
`
`payable fee amount. As such, McGovern and Williams do not teach or suggest mutual consent for release
`
`of contact information.
`
`The Examiner provides the teachings of Joao to suggest disclosure of contact
`
`information.
`
`However, Joao does not teach or suggest an economic event, which is the earning of a fee, by the site
`
`operator before the release of contact information, or that such disclosure should be based upon mutual
`
`consent of an employer and a candidate prior to any direct contact between them. As explained above,
`
`the payment feature disclosed in Joao at Column 34, Lines 29—55 is directed to the employer paying the
`
`candidate for services rendered or about to be rendered.
`
`It has nothing to do with the release of contact
`
`information based upon a match and based upon mutual consent.
`
`As per claims 5 and 198-204, the examiner states that it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to modifi) the interactive employment recruiting service system ofMcGovern et al
`
`to incorporate the interview based on mutual consent as evidenced by Williams. However, Williams does
`
`not teach that the consent is for the release of contact information, or that there is an economic event
`
`associated with the consent. Further, Applicant’s invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in
`
`the art, because the prior art teachings occur much later in the process than what
`
`is provided by
`
`Applicant’s invention.
`
`KC-l313llO—5
`
`48
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.6/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.6/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`The Examiner further asserts that Joao in the same field of endeavor discloses the concept of
`
`authorizing the provision of contact information (email address) between employers and employees.
`
`Here again, it is clear that Joao does not disclose or suggest that any such authorization is an economic
`
`event. Joao also does not teach or suggest that consent is an event that results in the earning of a fee by
`
`the site operator for matching candidate and employer, before the release of contact information.
`
`The discussion respecting claims 5 and 198-204 are equally applicable to the claims that depend
`
`therefrom and to the other independent claims 11, 14, 199 and 206, along with their respective dependent
`
`claims.
`
`’
`
`The Examiner concludes by asserting that the teachings of Joao with McGovern and Williams
`
`should allow the rendering ofpayments or fees for services rendered to a party. However, it should be
`
`noted that this is quite distinct from the sale of contact information. The associated software programs,
`
`logic and description of the cited systems, along with their business model are not consistent with a
`
`suggestion that Applicant’s invention would have been obvious.
`
`Applicant would also like to preemptively address the distinction of the present invention over
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,832,497 to Taylor (‘497 Patent) which was previously submitted by applicants in
`
`an Information Disclosure Statement filing. There are a number of distinguishing aspects between the
`
`‘497 Patent and Applicant’s invention. Firstly, while the ‘497 Patent at Column 6, lines 44 — 57 discusses
`
`the exchange of contact information, the ‘497 Patent does not disclose or suggest a need for w
`
`
`consent for each specific request, nor does it require a specific payment for each specific request.
`
`Secondly, in Applicant’s invention, the candidate has an option to provide consent when any employer
`
`makes a request for contact information.
`
`In other words, the candidate can elect not to have his/her
`
`information released to a specific employer, or to any plurality of specific employers. This is not true of
`
`the Taylor system. Thirdly, in the ‘497 Patent when a user selects the “option of maintaining the resume
`
`on the system without submission” (Column 5, lines 44 -49), there can be no matching of candidates as
`
`required by Applicant’s invention and as claimed in all independent claims. Fourthly, if a user elects to
`
`KC-1313110—5
`
`49
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.7/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.7/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 1 01 ,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`submit his/her resumé to a resumé pool of employers or as an application to any posted job, the user will
`
`have no opportunity to decline or refuse to release his/her contact information if any employer requests
`
`the same. This is not true of the present invention wherein the candidate will always have the opportunity
`
`(mutual consent) to refuse or consent to the release of contact information. Fifthly, the ‘497 Patent also
`
`requires an upfront payment in the form of a subscription fee rather than a transactional payment as
`
`provided in Applicant’s invention for each specific transfer of contact information.
`
`Addressing the amended claims in the present application more specifically, newly amended
`
`claim 5 specifically requires that the method or program determine whether there is mutual consent for
`
`the release of contact information regarding the candidate for each specific request and, once there; is
`
`mutual consent, the program obligates a payment due from the employer in real time based on the mutual
`
`consent to release contact information for each specific request where the payment is due to a career site
`
`operator. Nothing similar to this process is taught or even suggested in any combination of McGovern,
`
`Williams, Joao, and/or Taylor for all of the reasons set forth above. It is only after a mutual consent to the
`
`release of contact information is obtained and payment is obligated that the actual exchange of contact
`
`information occurs in real time in the Applicant’s invention.
`
`Mutual consent is further emphasized in claim 8 where the determining step of the present
`
`method further requires receiving a response to the request for release of contact information from the
`
`non-requesting candidate or employer. Again, nothing similar is disclosed in any of the cited prior art
`
`references.
`
`Independent claim 11 likewise requires a request for release of contact information from either
`
`the candidate or the employer, and that the comparator be operable to determine whether there is in fact
`
`mutual consent to such request wherein the mutual consent includes authorization for the release of
`
`contact information from the non-requesting party for each such request. Here again, nothing similar is
`
`disclosed in the cited prior art references. Also, importantly, claim 11 also specifically requires a
`
`payment interface operable to receive payment in real time from the employer based on an occurrence of
`
`KC-l3l3llO-5
`
`50
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.8/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.8/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`mutual consent to the release of contact information for each specific request wherein the payment is a fee
`
`to a career site operator. Again, none of the cited prior art references disclose this specific combination of
`
`system steps, either alone or in any combination.
`
`Independent claim 14 is likewise similar to independent claims 5 and 11 except that it is written
`
`in means plus function language. Again, there is no release of contact information before mutual consent
`
`to a request for such release is obtained for each specific request and, a fee is computed to a career site
`
`operator in real time based upon the mutual consent to release the contact information for each such
`
`request. Nothing similar is disclosed or even suggested in the cited prior art references.
`
`Independent claim 198 is of slightly different scope than independent claim 5 in that
`
`it
`
`specifically requires the release of at least some of the contact information items based upon mutual
`
`consent for each specific request and based upon computing a payment due from the employer in real
`
`time based upon such mutual consent for each specific request and based upon the release of at least some
`
`of the contact information items. Independent claim 198 allows for releasing at least some of the contact
`
`information items, not necessarily all contact information items stored in the system from the candidate to
`
`‘
`
`the employer. Here again, nothing similar is disclosed in any of the cited prior art references.
`
`Independent claim 199 is somewhat similar to independent claim 5 and is clearly and patentably
`
`distinguishable over the cited prior art for all of the reasons set forth above. Claim 199 likewise requires
`
`the release of contact information only after a determination of mutual consent is accomplished for each
`
`specific request and a payment is computed based upon such mutual consent for each specific request.
`
`Still further, new claim 205 is likewise patentably distinguishable over the cited prior art in that it
`
`specifically requires that during the determining step of claim 5, if it is determined that either the
`
`employer or the candidate was previously requested to provide a response to a request for release of
`
`information and no response was received from such candidate or employer, such non-responding party is
`
`then precluded from further interaction with the system until the previous response is provided. This
`
`precludes a candidate or employer from gaining the benefits associated with the present system without
`
`KC-1313llO-5
`
`51
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.9/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.9/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`responding to requests for release of contact information. Again, nothing similar is disclosed or even
`
`suggested in any of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination with each other.
`
`Independent claim 206 is likewise similar to other independent claims except that it also further
`
`requires that the amount of payment is lcnown to the employer in advance of the request for release of
`
`contact infOrmation from the employer. Here again, nothing similar is disclosed in any of the prior art
`
`references.
`
`None of the cited prior art addresses or provides any teachings relating to compensation of a site
`
`operator, and especially in conjunction with each specific request for the release of contact information.
`
`More specifically, there is no teaching or suggestion in any one or more of teachings, in combination or
`
`alone regarding income generation/compensation or an economic event that is concurrent with mutual
`
`consent by the parties for the release of contact information, and especially in conjunction with each
`
`specific request.
`
`In other words, the prior art systems do not address or suggest income generation from
`
`the sale of each specific request for the release of contact information. As described above, the prior art
`
`systems focus on economic benefit derived from utilizing traditional advertising models, placement and
`
`hiring of a prospect, or an automated human resource function, such as monitoring/tracking the
`
`recruitment and interview process, or the release of contact information in an environment where mutual
`
`consent is not required for each specific release. The prior art systems and method merely mirror
`
`traditional non-computerized job search and placement operations. They all address and require further
`acts or commitments, e.g. interview, job acceptance, job completion, or an upfront subscription fee, for
`
`the derivation of income to a site operator, if at all. The system and method of the present invention
`
`provides a novel and useful method of doing business, which sets forth a heretofore unidentified and
`
`unutilized source/method of income generation in the relevant art.
`
`Applicant believes that the amendments and remarks place the application in condition for
`
`allowance.
`
`KC-l3l3110-5
`
`52
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.10/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.10/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14,2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`If any issue regarding the allowability of any of the pending claims in the present application
`
`could be readily resolved, or if other action could be taken to further advance this application such as an
`
`Examiner’s amendment, or if the Examiner should have any questions regarding the present amendment,
`
`it is respectfully requested that the Examiner please telephone Applicant’s undersigned attorney in this
`
`regard.
`
`Date:
`
`52 32 0;
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`0—;—
`
`
`gba 1
`Ladi O. S
`Reg. No. 46,291
`Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
`2300 Main Street, Suite 1000
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 983-8000
`ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT
`
`KC-l313110-5
`
`53
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.11/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.11/97)
`
`

`

`u
`
`Application No. 10/ 101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`In the claims:
`
`CLAIM AMENDMENTS
`
`1.
`
`(Withdrawn) A system for collecting and classifying information using a structured
`
`information format, said system comprising:
`
`an employment management system configured to provide continuous recruiting
`
`and continuous career enhancement by providing a search interface to a plurality of job
`
`descriptions and to a plurality of blind resumes, wherein employers provide said job
`
`descriptions and talent provide talent information corresponding to said blind resumes.
`
`2.
`
`(Withdrawn) The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein personal contact information
`
`corresponding to at least one selected resume is provided to said employers after said employers agree to
`
`purchase said personal contact information.
`
`3.
`
`(Withdrawn) The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein said employers are provided an
`
`opportunity to purchase personal contact information corresponding to at least one selected resumé if a
`
`selected talent corresponding to said selected resumé indicatesponsent.
`
`4.
`
`(Withdrawn) The system as set forth in claim 3, wherein said consent is indicated by
`
`specifying at least one preferred employer.
`
`5.
`
`(Currently Amended) A method executed by a computer processor, for of authorizing
`
`information exchange between at least one candidate of a plurality of talent-contributors and at least one
`
`of a plurality of employers prior to any direct contact between said candidate and said employer, said
`
`candidate having one or more candidate attributes including candidate requirements, and said employer
`
`having employer attributes including employer requirements, said method comprising:
`
`programmatically matching said candidate with said employer based on said
`
`candidate requirements and said employer requirements;
`
`receiving a request for intewiew release of contact information from either at
`
`least—ene—ef—said candidate and or said employer;
`
`KC-1313110—5
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.12/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.12/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`determining whether there is mutual consent te—sard—request—fer—mtemewg
`
`wherein—said—mutual—eensent—ineludes—authematien for the release of contact information
`
`regarding the candidate for each specific request; and
`
`
`
`obligating a payment due from said employer in real time based on the mutual
`
`consent
`
`te—saiel——request—fer—in-tefiéeHith—said—eafid~iéate f0;release o_f contact
`
`information for each specific request wherein said payment due is a fee to a career site
`
`operatorgaid
`
`providing exchange of contact information in real time.
`
`6.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method as set forth in claim 5, wherein said information
`
`exchange eeeurs—in—preparatien—fer—an—in-temew is the release of contact information, said—inteflaaat-ien
`
`exehange—eeeufleing prior to any direct contact between the parties.
`
`7.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method as set forth in claim 5, wherein said determining
`
`further comprises confirming said candidate’s attributes with said employer’s requirements in a candidate.
`
`8.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method as set forth in claim 5, wherein said determining
`
`further comprises receiving a response to said request for interview release of contact information from at
`
`least—ene—efisaid the non requesting one of said candidate and said employerMW
`
`l
`
`.
`
`l
`
`E
`
`“H 15
`
`.
`
`.
`
`9.
`
`(Canceled).
`
`10.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method as set forth in claim 5, wherein an amount of said
`
`obligation 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 greater than or equal to said master
`
`degree amount, which is greater than or equal to said bachelor degree amount, which is greater than or
`
`equal to said associate degree amount, which is greater than or equal to said vocational educational
`
`KC-13l3110-5
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.13/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.13/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/ 1 01 ,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`training amount, which is greater than or equal to said high school amount, which is greater than or equal
`
`to said general equivalency diploma amount.
`
`11.
`
`(Currently Amended) A computer system for coordinating information exchange between
`
`at least one candidate in a plurality of talent-contributors and at least one employer in a plurality of
`
`employers prior to any direct contact between said candidate and said employer, said candidate having
`
`candidate attributes including candidate requirements and said employer having employer attributes
`
`including employer requirements, said computer system comprising:
`
`a comparator operable to match said candidate with said employer based on said
`
`candidate requirements and said employer requirements;
`
`an interface operable to receive a request for interview- release of contact
`
`
`information from at—least—ene—ef either said candidate 9_r_and—said employer;
`
`said comparator further operable to determine whether there is mutual consent to
`
`said request for release of contact information for each specific request intewiew wherein
`
`said mutual consent includes authorization for the release of contact information from the
`
`non-requesting one of said candidate and said employer by—the—eandidate; and
`
`a payment interface operable to receive payment in real time from said employer
`
`based on an occurrence of said mutual consent for each specific request, wherein said
`
`payment is a fee to a career site operator.
`
`12.
`
`(Previously Presented) The computer system as set forth in claim 11, wherein said
`
`comparator is further operable to compare said candidate’s attributes with said employer’s_requirements
`
`in a candidate.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`(Canceled).
`
`(Currently Amended) A distributed network for facilitating interviews contact between
`
`at least one candidate in a plurality of talent-contributors and at least one employer in a plurality of
`
`KC-1313110-5
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.14/97)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1017 (p.14/97)
`
`

`

`Application No. 10/101,644
`Reply to Office Action of July 14, 2005
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15703.10002
`
`employers, said candidate having candidate attributes including candidate requirements and said employer
`
`having employer requirements, said distributed network comprising:
`
`means for managing enterprise database resources;
`
`means for matching said candidate with said employer based on said candidate
`
`requirements and said employer requirements;
`
`means for receiving a request for interview release of contact information from at
`
`least—eneef gitlig said candidate gr and said employer;
`
`means for determining whether there is mutual consent to said request for
`
`interview release of contact information for each specifi