Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021002770 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/020,720 06/27/2018 Kedar U. Kulkarni 902288-US-NP (3080.L44US1 3724 45839 7590 03/30/2022 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER / LINKEDLN/MICROSFT PO BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER PUJOLS-CRUZ, MARJORIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USPTO@slwip.com slw@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEDAR U. KULKARNI, PRATEEK JANARDHAN, and MADS JOHNSEN ____________ Appeal 2021-002770 Application 16/020,720 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, L.L.C. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002770 Application 16/020,720 2 THE INVENTION Appellant claims techniques for performing interaction-based predictions and recommendations for applicants. (Spec. ¶ 1). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, comprising: determining, by one or more computer systems, features related to a job posting in an online network and features related to a first member of the online network, wherein the features related to the job posting comprise (a) a historical response rate, of a poster of the job posting, to applications submitted and (b) a number of submissions of applications already received for the job posting; applying, by the one or more computer systems, a machine learning model to the features related to the job posting and the features related to the first member to produce a score representing a likelihood of the first member receiving any response, from the poster, to an application made by the first member for the job posting; comparing the score to a threshold to determine a recommendation related to applying to the job posting by the member; outputting the recommendation to the member; receiving an application for the job posting from the first member; receiving from the poster of the job posting a response to the application by the member; updating the machine learning model using the features, the score, and the received response; and applying the updated machine learning model to a different member-job posting pair. Appeal 2021-002770 Application 16/020,720 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrett (US 2020/0193387 A1; published June 18, 2020), Budzienski (US 2014/0244532 A1; published Aug. 28, 2014), and Zhu (US 9,569,735 B1; issued Feb. 14, 2017). Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrett, in view of Zhu, in further view of Chatterjee (US 10,536,554 B2; issued Jan. 14, 2020). ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTIONS Rejection over Jarrett, Budzienski and Zhu We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with Appellant that the prior does not disclose “applying . . . a machine learning model. . . to produce a score representing a likelihood of the first member receiving any response” and “comparing the score to a threshold to determine a recommendation related to applying to the job postings by the member.” The Examiner relies on paragraph 68 of Jarrett for teaching producing a competency score and paragraph 85 of Jarrett for comparing the competency score to a threshold. (Final Act. 8-9). We find that the threshold in Jarrett represents the minimum competence score the job seeker should achieve. (Jarrett ¶ 85). Recognizing that the competency score is not a score “representing a likelihood of the first member receiving any response” as required by claim 1, the Examiner relies on Zhu for teaching a score that represents the likelihood of the first member receiving any response. We find that Zhu discloses a score that represents the likelihood Appeal 2021-002770 Application 16/020,720 4 that a prospective job candidate will respond to an email communication sent from the recruiter. (Zhu, col. 7, ll. 21-26). The prior art provides support in Jarrett for a competency score being compared to a threshold. However, the Examiner has not provided a teaching in the prior art or even a suggestion in the prior art of comparing a score that represents the likelihood of any response as is taught in Zhu to a threshold. While the Examiner may be correct that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the value associated with a number of job seekers who applied for the employment opportunity to allow the method to further provide a likelihood of receiving a response based on historical response rate, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has not explained how the prior art teaches or suggests comparing a response score that represents a likelihood of any response to a threshold as required by claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-9, 11 and 12 dependent therefrom. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining claims subject to this rejection for the same reasons. Rejection over Jarrett, Zhu and Chatterjee We will not sustain this rejection for the same reasons given for the preceding rejection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-002770 Application 16/020,720 5 DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-9, 11-17, 19, 20 103 Jarrett, Budzienski, Zhu 1-9, 11-17, 19, 20 10, 18 103 Jarrett, Zhu, Chatterjee 10, 18 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED