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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the bandwidth reduction message” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 11 has been interpreted as depending on claim 10. 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 -3, 8-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See table below for rationale of rejection. Claim 1: Treated Under: Explanation: A computer-implemented method for computer resource control, comprising: Step 1 – MPEP § 2106.03 The claim falls into a statutory category of subject matter. identifying current usage of a computer resource by a plurality of software processes; Step 2B – MPEP § 2106.05(g) A human operator could mentally identify current usage based on viewing data on a terminal and making mental determinations. identifying an execution platform for each of the plurality of software processes; Step 2A Prong 1 – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) A human operator could mentally identify an execution platform based on viewing data on a terminal and making mental determinations. identifying a semantic context for each process using natural language processing of metadata associated with the process; Step 2A Prong 1 – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) A human operator could mentally identify an execution platform based on viewing data on a terminal and making mental determinations. and executing a mitigation action based on the computer resource usage, the execution platform, and the semantic context associated with each process. Step 2A Prong 2 – MPEP § 2106.04(d) Step 2B – MPEP § 2106.05(g) Courts have found that “[p] resenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price ” amounts to mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g) (citing OIP Technologies , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 ). Here, the mitigation action may include merely providing a notification to a user. Accordingly, the mitigation action does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Under Step 2B, the “executing a mitigation action” does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea for the same reason that it does not integrate any recited abstract ideas into a practical application. Regarding claim 2, it further recites “computer resource comprises network utilization , ” which amounts to generic computing devices for implementing an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) . Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible. Regarding claim 3, it further defines issuing a bandwidth reduction message, which is merely presenting a message to a user; therefore, it amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible. Regarding claim 8 , a human operator could mentally read asset metadata by viewing data on a computer terminal . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible. Regarding claim 9, a human operator could mentally read calendar information by viewing data on a computer terminal. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Accordingly, claim 9 is ineligible. Regarding claim 10, it further defines issuing a bandwidth reduction message, which is merely presenting a message to a user; therefore, it amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 10 is ineligible. Regarding claim 11, the collecting data amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The predicting amounts to a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). And the issuing the bandwidth reduction message amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of presenting a notification. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Accordingly, claim 11 is ineligible. Regarding claims 12 and 17 , they correspond to claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 1 -3, 8 - 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poorchandran (US 2019/0044882) and further in view of Kurien (US 2023/0146818 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Poorchandran teaches: A computer-implemented method for computer resource control, comprising: identifying current usage of a computer resource by a plurality of software processes (¶ 59, “ The resource usage collector 426 is configured to collect resource usage data from the compute devices 108. Such resource usage data may include any information usable to identify a present usage (e.g., a usage metric, a percentage used/available of a total amount, etc.) of each compute device 108 ”) ; identifying an execution platform for each of the plurality of software processes (¶ 33, “ Each of the compute devices 108 may be embodied as any type of computation or computing device capable of performing the functions described herein, including, without limitation, a mobile computing device (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a wearable device) ”) ; identifying a semantic context for each process using natural language processing of metadata associated with the process ( ¶ 67, “ In block 528, the network compute device 104 analyzes the collected and monitored data to identify a present context of the compute device 108 based on at least a portion of the collected and analyzed data ” ) ; and executing a mitigation action (¶ 50, “ The bandwidth moderator 422 is configured to determine how to divide the total available bandwidth across the connected compute devices 108 based on the context priority associated with each compute device 108 ”) based on the computer resource usage, the execution platform, and the semantic context associated with each process (¶ 47, “ For example, one family member may be is watching a movie being streamed to a television in the living room, while another family member is browsing the web on their smartphone in master bedroom. In such an example, the context priority determiner 418 may be configured to give a higher priority to digital media being streamed over web browsing and/or to the television in the living room relative to that smartphone based on the previously configured priority configuration settings ”) . Poorchandran does not teach as clearly as Kurien discloses: identifying a semantic context for each process using natural language processing (¶ 32, “ The bridge 120 may include a key phrase detection module 122 that may analyze the voice transcription from the virtual collaboration session using speech recognition and natural language processing algorithms to detect key phrases that may trigger the transmission of multimedia from the presentation in the virtual collaboration session ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of identifying a semantic context for each process using natural language processing , as taught by Kurien , in the same way to the identifying a semantic context , as taught by Poorchandran . Both inventions are in the field of identifying semantic contexts , and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method to “ reduce bandwidth requirements of a virtual collaboration sessio n ,” as indicated by Kurien ( abstract ). Regarding claim 2, Poorchandran teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the computer resource comprises network utilization (¶ 15, “ the network compute device 104 is additionally configured to dynamically allocate bandwidth to each of the connected compute devices 108 ”) . Regarding claim 3, Kurien teaches: The method of claim 2, further comprising issuing an automatic group chat bandwidth reduction initiation message (¶ 2, “ Each participant in a virtual collaboration session may communicate a video image of themselves along with audio of their voice using a computing device such as a smart phone, tablet computing device, or personal computer, among other devices ” and ¶ 3, “ An embodiment is directed to a computer-implemented method for reducing bandwidth requirements of a virtual collaboration session ”) . Regarding claim 8 , Poorchandran teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the semantic context comprises reading asset metadata (¶ 60, “ the network traffic monitor 428 may be configured to identify signature headers to identify the services in use, inspect at least a portion of a payload in a stream of network traffic ”) . Regarding claim 9, Poorchandran teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the semantic context comprises reading calendar information associated with an execution platform (¶ 66, “ in block 526, the network compute device 104 collects data/time information, such as may be collected from a digital calendar application or digital home assistant ”) . Regarding claim 10, Poorchandran teaches: The method of claim 8, wherein the mitigation action includes issuing a bandwidth reduction message issued to at least one electronic device (claim 1, “ update a moderated bandwidth allocation policy to reflect the determined amount of bandwidth allocated to the compute device ”) . Regarding claim 11, Poorchandran teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting historical usage data for each execution platform; predicting a future usage trend based on the collected historical usage data (¶ 15, “ The network compute device 104 is additionally configured to identify patterns based on usage. Such usage patterns may be identified based on historically allocated bandwidth and may be device, user, and/or location specific, for example. ”) ; and wherein issuing the bandwidth reduction message is based on the predicted future usage trend ( ¶ 70, “ In block 544, the network compute device 104 updates a moderated bandwidth allocation policy to reflect the determined amount of bandwidth to allocate to the compute device 108 ” ) . Claims 12 and 17 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim (s) 4 , 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poorchandran and Kurien , as applied above, and further in view of Lee (US 8,589,987) . Regarding claim 4, Poorchandran and Kurien do not teach; however, Lee discloses: the mitigation action includes pausing a video stream (col. 7:30-33, “ Upon receiving the pause instructions 240, 242, and 244, the mobile devices 202, 204, and 208 cease transmission of the video streams to the base station 214 ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the mitigation action includes pausing a video stream , as taught by Lee, in the same way to the mitigation action, as taught by Poorchandran and Kurien . Both inventions are in the field of adjusting bandwidth based on collected metrics, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method to “ conserve bandwidth by selecting one or more of the videos of the single event to send to each of the destinations specified by all of the videos capturing the event ,” as indicated by Lee (abstract). Claims 13 and 18 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 4. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim (s) 5 -7, 14-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poorchandran and Kurien , as applied above, and further in view of Leske (US 2015/0237305) . Regarding claim 5 Poorchandran and Kurien do not teach; however, Leske discloses: the mitigation action includes reducing a resolution of a video stream (¶ 46, “ For example, video conferencing process 10 may reduce 108 the resolution of video channel 202 ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the mitigation action includes reducing a resolution of a video stream , as taught by Leske , in the same way to the mitigation action, as taught by Poorchandran and Kurien . Both inventions are in the field of adjusting bandwidth based on collected metrics, and combining them would have predictably resulted in solving the problem of “ high levels of degradation of audio quality within an AV synchronous communication session ” that “ may result in the same being rendered unusable by many participants ,” as indicated by Leske (¶ 35). Regarding claim 6, Poorchandran and Kurien do not teach; however, Leske discloses: the mitigation action includes converting a video call to an audio call (¶ 52, “ video conferencing process 10 may simply transition video conference 152 to an audio-only conference for user 36 ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the mitigation action includes converting a video call to an audio call , as taught by Leske , in the same way to the mitigation action, as taught by Poorchandran and Kurien . Both inventions are in the field of adjusting bandwidth based on collected metrics, and combining them would have predictably resulted in solving the problem of “ high levels of degradation of audio quality within an AV synchronous communication session ” that “ may result in the same being rendered unusable by many participants ,” as indicated by Leske (¶ 35). Regarding claim 7, Poorchandran and Kurien do not teach; however, Leske discloses: the mitigation action includes converting an internet audio call to a telephone network audio call (¶ 54, “ video conferencing process 10 may transfer 114 audio channel 200 to a public switched telephone network (PSTN 206) ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the mitigation action includes converting an internet audio call to a telephone network audio call , as taught by Leske , in the same way to the mitigation action, as taught by Poorchandran and Kurien . Both inventions are in the field of adjusting bandwidth based on collected metrics, and combining them would have predictably resulted in solving the problem of “ high levels of degradation of audio quality within an AV synchronous communication session ” that “ may result in the same being rendered unusable by many participants ,” as indicated by Leske (¶ 35). Claims 14-16, 19, and 20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 5-7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chehanowitz (US 11,151,520) discloses “ the residential network router determines a plurality of events saved to the electronic calendar, wherein the plurality of events require, at least in part, simultaneous network resource (e.g. bandwidth) usage ” (abstract), which relates to the disclosed semantic priority analysis of bandwidth usage. Anerousis (US 2017/0054641) discloses “ predict network traffic density is extracted from the collected events information ” (abstract), which relates to the disclosed semantic priority analysis of bandwidth usage. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9993 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Pierre Vital can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4215 . 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. /JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198