`Reply Dated December 22, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of November 10, 2011
`
`REMARKS:
`
`The Advisory Action dated November 10, 2011, has been received and carefully reviewed.
`
`Reconsideration and modification of the requirement for restriction is respectfully requested in
`
`view of the remarks below.
`
`I.
`
`§ 121 Restriction Requirement
`
`In response to the Examiner’ s restriction requirement, Applicant respectfully disagrees that
`
`the requirement of restriction appropriately groups the claims. The Examiner has grouped the
`
`claims into five categories: (1) 1—11; (11) l2—28; (111) 29—34; (IV) 35—48; and (V) 49—60. Applicant
`
`suggests grouping the claims as follows: (1) 1—11; (11) l2—20; (111) 21—34; and (IV) 35—60.
`
`Based upon MPEP § 802.01,
`
`the Director may require restriction if two or more
`
`“independent and distinct” inventions are claimed in one application. See also 35 U.S.C. § 121.
`
`According to MPEP § 802.01, Independent means unrelated. Two or more inventions are related
`
`(i.e., not independent) if they are disclosed as connected in at least one of design, operation, or
`
`effect. MPEP§ 802.01(II).
`
`This application includes six independent claims (1, 12, 21, 29, 35, and 49). Generally
`
`stated, all six independent claims are related to methods for matching employee candidates with
`
`job opportunities of prospective employers.
`
`The MPEP provides authority for the examiner to group together species in a patent
`
`application, when plural species exist, if the species are patentably distinct.
`
`Applicant believes that several of these species may be related in design, operation or
`
`effect. Therefore, Applicant suggests modifying the restriction requirement to group the claims as
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1003 9.1
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1003 p.1
`
`
`
`Application No. 12/846,635
`Reply Dated December 22, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of November 10, 2011
`
`follows: (I) 1-11; (II) 12-20; (III) 21-34; and (IV) 35—60.
`
`A reasonable number of species may be claimed when there is an allowable claim generic
`
`thereto. 37 CPR. § 1.141; MPEP § 806(D). Applicant believes Claim 1 is a generic claim and
`
`claims 12, 21, 29, 35, and 49 are species thereof. Applicant believes a reasonable number of
`
`species are included within claims 21 and 29, and the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`In comparison with the Examiner’s suggested grouping of claims, Applicant believes the
`
`pair of species disclosed in claims 21 and 29, and the claims dependent therefrom, and the pair of
`
`species disclosed in claims 35 and 49, and the claims dependent therefrom, each hold a higher
`
`degree of relation to one another than such pairs hold to the other species disclosed.
`
`Claim 21 is related to determining whether a job description matches candidate profile
`
`threshold requirements and communicating the matches to a prospective employer. Claim 29 is
`
`related to determining whether a candidate profile matches job description threshold requirements
`
`and communicating the matches to a candidate.
`
`Claim 35 is related to determining whether a job description matches at least one candidate
`
`profile threshold requirement, based upon a threshold comparison, and transmitting a request for
`
`interview from a prospective employer to a candidate associated with the matching candidate
`
`profile. Claim 49 is related to determining whether a candidate profile matches at lease one job
`
`description, based upon a threshold comparison, and transmitting a request for interview from a
`
`candidate to a prospective employer associated with the matching job description.
`
`Based on the above and foregoing, Applicant suggests grouping the claims into four
`
`categories: (I) 1—1 1; (II) 12—20; (III) 21—34; and (IV) 35—60. From those four categories, Applicant
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1003 p2
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1003 p.2
`
`
`
`Application No. 12/846,635
`Reply Dated December 22, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of November 10, 2011
`
`would elect group III as a reasonable number of species to the allowable generic claim of group I.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact applicant's attorney at the telephone number
`
`listed below in the event that prosecution of this application can be expedited thereby.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Marc Vianello
`
`By / Arthur K. Shafier/
`Arthur K. Shaffer
`
`Reg. No. 50,257
`
`Intellectual Property Center, LLC
`7101 College Blvd.
`Suite 1520
`
`Overland Park, KS 66210
`
`Telephone (913) 345—0900
`Facsimile (913) 345—0903
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1003 9.3
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1003 p.3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
