DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 3 February 2026.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 after 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims, as amended, explicitly recite the specific technical solution…
“Consequently, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims incorporate any alleged mental process into a practical application…Applicant therefore requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn, and the present application passed to allowance.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The new limitations added in the most recent amendment fail to realize a technological solution to a technological problem. For example, applicant has amended to newly recite:
“determine a deadline associated with a service level agreement for the job”,
“determine that the predicted runtime allows completion of the new job instance by the deadline”, and
“submit the new job instance to the operating system for execution thereof in compliance with the service level agreement.”
The applicant alleges that such limitations “incorporate any alleged mental process into a practical application” by “explicitly recit[ing] the specific technical solution.” Regarding this argument, MPEP 2106.05(a) states:
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art” (emphasis added).
In this case, the improvement is not provided, or realized, because the claim does not require that the submitted jobs be actually executed by the operating system. In other words, any benefit from only executing jobs that comply with a service level agreement requires that, and is achieved only when those jobs are executed. There is no hypothetical improvement to the operating system by simply submitting jobs that may or may not comply with a service level agreement, because there is no guarantee that the operating system even attempts to execute these jobs. The claim does not even describe what happens if a job is found to be not in compliance with the service level agreement (claims 21 and 22 attempt to address this, and they will be addressed below).
Further, the applicant’s argument fails to identify a particular limitation that “incorporates the alleged mental process into a practical application.” In claims 1, 11, and 18, steps a and b (see above) recite “determining” steps that have been determined to recite additional mental processes (see analysis of these new limitations below). MPEP 2106.05(a) is clear that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” The examiner has not found, neither has the applicant argued that step c (see above) reciting the submission of the compliant job to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because in step 2A prong 2, it is an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and in step 2B, it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 18 remain patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, applicant appears to attempt to remedy ineligibility in new claims 21, and 22. However, these claims fail to provide eligibility, as analyzed in the rejection below. Essentially, in claim 21, determining to delay submission of the second new job instance comprises a mental process of judgement, and, as discussed above, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. In other words, merely delaying submission of a job does not provide or realize the hypothetical improvement that comes from delaying the job until that job is later executed. Similarly, in claim 22, determining to allocate additional resources and submitting the second new job using the additional resource comprises a mental process of allocating an additional resource, and the insignificant extra-solution activity/well-understood, routine and conventional activity of submitting a job, and, as discussed above, neither of which provide eligibility. Therefore, claims 1-22 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a computer program product that segments jobs according to runtime prediction algorithms and submits new jobs for execution based on the predicted runtime. A computer program product is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “classify a job of a plurality of completed jobs executed by an operating system…as having a runtime that is not predictable within a first prediction threshold of a first prediction algorithm or within a second prediction threshold of a second prediction algorithm of a plurality of prediction algorithms” (a person can mentally classify jobs that have already been executed as steps of evaluating the runtime predictability of jobs and making a judgement of what classification the job falls under)
ii. “perform a segmentation of the job instances into first job instances and second job instances using at least one segmentation threshold” (a person can mentally segment, or subdivide jobs into smaller jobs as steps of evaluating jobs and making a judgement of that creates smaller partitions of the jobs).
iii. “select the first prediction algorithm, based on the segmentation” (a person can mentally select a prediction algorithm as a step of judgement of a particular algorithm to use).
iv. “predict a predicted runtime of the new job instance, using the first prediction algorithm” (i.e., a person can mentally determine a deadline for a job as a step of evaluating a service level agreement and making a judgement of the deadline).
v. “predict a predicted runtime of the new job instance, using the first prediction algorithm” (i.e., a person can mentally predict a runtime of a job as steps of evaluating aspects of the job and making a judgment of the runtime).
vi. “determine that the predicted runtime allows completion of the new job instance by the deadline” (i.e., a person can mentally determine that a runtime does or does not allow for completion by a deadline as steps of evaluating a runtime and comparing it to a deadline, and making a judgment of whether the deadline is exceeded).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
viii. “A computer program product, the computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, are configured to cause the at least one computing device to” (mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
ix. “the job having a corresponding plurality of job instances” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
vii. “at least one segmentation threshold that defines the first job instances as having runtimes predicted within the first prediction threshold when using the first prediction algorithm or the second prediction threshold when using the second prediction algorithm” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
viii. “receive a new job instance of the job” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
ix. “submit the new job instance to the operating system for execution thereof, based on the predicted runtime in compliance with the service level agreement” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
v. “A computer program product, the computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, are configured to cause the at least one computing device to” (mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
vi. “the job having a corresponding plurality of job instances” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
vii. “at least one segmentation threshold that defines the first job instances as having runtimes predicted within the first prediction threshold when using the first prediction algorithm or the second prediction threshold when using the second prediction algorithm” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
viii. “receive a new job instance of the job” (receiving data over a network, or presenting offers, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
ix. “submit the new job instance to the operating system for execution thereof, based on the predicted runtime in compliance with the service level agreement” (transmitting data over a network, or presenting offers, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “the first prediction algorithm includes a fast job prediction algorithm for predicting job instance runtimes based on a fast time limit, and the first prediction threshold is based on the fast time limit” (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “the segmentation threshold is based on the fast time limit, and the first job instances have runtimes within the fast time limit” (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “the first prediction algorithm includes a stable job prediction algorithm for predicting job instance runtimes based on an average, and the first prediction threshold is based on a deviation-to-mean ratio threshold” (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “the segmentation threshold is determined using an adaptive binarization threshold, and the first job instances have an average runtime within the first prediction threshold” (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “the stable job prediction algorithm predicts the predicted runtime of the new job instance using an average value of the first job instances” (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, in step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components: “the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: define the plurality of job instances as a first group of job instances having a first job property, the job having a second group of job instances having a second job property” (a mental process of evaluating job instances and making judgements as to whether they should be in groups with properties). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, in step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components: “the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: determine, when receiving the new job instance, that the new job instance has the first job property; and select the first prediction algorithm for predicting the predicted runtime, based on the new job instance having the first job property” (a mental process of evaluating job instances and making judgements as to whether algorithms should be selected based on job properties). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, in step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components: “the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: classify the second job instances as noise with respect to the first prediction algorithm” (a mental process of evaluating job instances and making judgements as to whether algorithms should be classified as noise). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “insert the new job instance into a job queue of job instances to be submitted to the operating system” (in step 2A, prong 2, insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage, and in step 2B, storing and retrieving information in memory). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-17, they comprise limitations similar to claims 1-5, and 7-9, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claims 18-20, they comprise limitations similar to claims 1, and 7-9, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, in step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that recite abstract ideas (mental processes): “predict a second predicted runtime of a second new job instance” (a person can mentally make a prediction of a runtime by evaluating information about the job and making a judgement of a runtime), “determine that the second predicted runtime does not allow completion of the second new job instance by the deadline” (a person can mentally determine that a predicted runtime will not complete by a deadline by evaluating the runtime and deadline, and making a judgement that it will not complete in time), and “delay submission of the second new job instance to the operating system for execution thereof” (a person can mentally determine to delay submission of a job instance by making a judgement to wait before submitting a job). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, in step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that recite abstract ideas (mental processes): “predict a second predicted runtime of a second new job instance” (a person can mentally make a prediction of a runtime by evaluating information about the job and making a judgement of a runtime), “determine that the second predicted runtime does not allow completion of the second new job instance by the deadline” (a person can mentally determine that a predicted runtime will not complete by a deadline by evaluating the runtime and deadline, and making a judgement that it will not complete in time) “allocate an additional resource to the operating system” (a person can mentally allocate resources to an operating system by evaluating resources and making a judgement of a simple plan of an additional resource to assign to the operating system). Further, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “submit the second new job instance to the operating system for execution thereof in compliance with the service level agreement and using the additional resource” (in step 2A, prong 2, insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output, and in step 2B, transmitting data over a network). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YEH et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0167191 A1 discloses a laxity-aware task scheduler that schedules tasks according to a job deadline by estimating a task duration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195