DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the application filed 07/27/2023 . Claims 1- 2 0 are presenting for examination. Claims 1 and 13 are independent Claims. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 07/27/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered. Specification 3. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The cross reference related to the application cited in the specification must be updated (i.e., update the relevant status, with PTO serial numbers or patent numbers where appropriate). Correction is required. Drawings 4 . The drawings filed 07/27/2023 are accepted for examination purposes. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs. Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong. Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Regarding Claims 1-12: Step 1 Analysis Claims 1-12 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories. Step 2 Analysis Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea: “ generating a pending request graph for at least some pending requests from the workspace revision queue using a dependency graph for the plurality of documents, the dependency graph representing interdependencies of content references among the plurality of documents ” and “ causing the revisions indicated by the pending requests of the pending request graph to be performed on the plurality of documents according to a dependency ordering based on the pending request graph, wherein the dependency ordering is different from an ordering for the workspace revision queue ” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas); Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: “ storing pending requests in a workspace revision queue that is shared by the plurality of documents, the pending requests indicating revisions to be carried out on the plurality of documents ” ( this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea . See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data storing is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)) The element “ one or more computing devices ” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “ storing the pending requests comprises storing the pending requests using a first in, first out (FIFO) ordering for the workspace revision queue ” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data storing is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “ generating the pending request graph comprises adding nodes to the pending request graph corresponding to the at least some pending requests; and edges between nodes of the pending request graph indicate parent nodes for parent requests and child nodes for child requests that depend from parent requests according to the dependency graph ” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “ identifying ready requests from nodes of the pending request graph that do not have incomplete parent nodes, wherein nodes of the pending request graph are flagged as incomplete before and during processing of corresponding requests and flagged as complete after processing of the corresponding requests; and processing corresponding revisions for the ready requests , ” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 5, the limitations “ processing the revisions for the ready requests comprises processing two or more revisions for the ready requests in parallel ” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “ identifying the ready requests comprises ordering and processing the ready requests according to positions of the ready requests in the workspace revision queue ” encompass es a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “ generating the dependency graph for the plurality of documents before storing the pending requests in the workspace revision queue ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 8 , the limitation “ updating the dependency graph according to the processed ready requests ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “ adding the nodes to the pending request graph comprises adding the nodes based on a pessimistic relational impact for nodes among the pending request graph ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “ the workspace revision queue is a durable log of requests that are flagged as the pending requests or as processed requests indicating revisions that have been carried out on the plurality of documents ” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f) . After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 11, the limitations “ flagging a pending request as a processed request in the durable log only when a corresponding revision has been processed and an earlier adjacent request in the durable log is a processed request ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “ flagging a sequential group of pending requests as processed requests when each revision corresponding to pending requests of the sequential group has been processed and requests prior to the sequential group have been processed ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claims 1 3 - 20 : Step 1 Analysis Claims 13-20 are directed to a computing device and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories. Step 2 Analysis Independent Claim 1 3 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea: “ generate a pending request graph for at least some pending requests from the workspace revision queue using a dependency graph for the plurality of documents, the dependency graph representing interdependencies of content references among the plurality of documents” and “cause the revisions indicated by the pending requests of the pending request graph to be performed on the plurality of documents according to a dependency ordering based on the pending request graph, wherein the dependency ordering is different from an ordering for the workspace revision queue ” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas); Independent Claim 1 3 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: “ store pending requests in a workspace revision queue that is shared by the plurality of documents, the pending requests indicating revisions to be carried out on the plurality of documents ” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data storing is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)) The elements “ computing device ”, “ a processor ”, “ a non-transitory computer-readable memory ”, and “ instructions ” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claims 1 4, 18, and 20 the claims correspond to claims 3, 9, and 12 . Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 15, the limitations “ identify ready requests from nodes of the pending request graph that do not have incomplete parent nodes, wherein nodes of the pending request graph are flagged as incomplete before and during processing of corresponding requests and flagged as complete after processing of the corresponding requests; and process corresponding revisions for the ready requests, including processing two or more revisions for the ready requests in parallel, ” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “ order and process the ready requests according to positions of the ready requests in the workspace revision queue ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The limitation “ store the pending requests using a first in, first out (FIFO) ordering for the workspace revision queue” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data storing is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 17, the limitations “ generate the dependency graph for the plurality of documents before storing the pending requests in the workspace revision queue” and “update the dependency graph according to the processed ready requests ” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “ the workspace revision queue is a durable log of requests that are flagged as the pending requests or as processed requests indicating revisions that have been carried out on the plurality of documents ” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f) . T he limitation “ flagging a pending request as a processed request in the durable log only when a corresponding revision has been processed and an earlier adjacent request in the durable log is a processed request ” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6 . 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tealdi et al. (US 20150100304 A1) . The reference was cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 07/27/2023 . As to Claim 1 : Tealdi teaches a method for maintaining revisions for a plurality of documents, the method carried out by one or more computing devices and comprising: storing pending requests in a workspace revision queue that is shared by the plurality of documents, the pending requests indicating revisions to be carried out on the plurality of documents ( Fig.2, [00 82-0083] and [0096] ) ; generating a pending request graph for at least some pending requests from the workspace revision queue using a dependency graph for the plurality of documents, the dependency graph representing interdependencies of content references among the plurality of documents (Fig.2, [0087-0088]); and causing the revisions indicated by the pending requests of the pending request graph to be performed on the plurality of documents according to a dependency ordering based on the pending request graph, wherein the dependency ordering is different from an ordering for the workspace revision queue (Fig.2, [009 4 -0097] and [0109-0113] ) . As to Claim 2 : Tealdi teaches storing the pending requests comprises storing the pending requests using a first in, first out (FIFO) ordering for the workspace revision queue ([0083] and [0096-0097 ) . As to Claim 3 : Tealdi teaches generating the pending request graph comprises adding nodes to the pending request graph corresponding to the at least some pending requests; and edges between nodes of the pending request graph indicate parent nodes for parent requests and child nodes for child requests that depend from parent requests according to the dependency graph ([0070-0076]). As to Claim 4 : Tealdi teaches causing the revisions comprises: identifying ready requests from nodes of the pending request graph that do not have incomplete parent nodes, wherein nodes of the pending request graph are flagged as incomplete before and during processing of corresponding requests and flagged as complete after processing of the corresponding requests; and processing corresponding revisions for the ready requests ([0094-0096]). As to Claim 5 : Tealdi teaches processing the revisions for the ready requests comprises processing two or more revisions for the ready requests in parallel ([0060-0061]). As to Claim 6 : Tealdi teaches identifying the ready requests comprises ordering and processing the ready requests according to positions of the ready requests in the workspace revision queue ( [0096-0097] and [ 0113 ]). As to Claim 7 : Tealdi teaches generating the dependency graph for the plurality of documents before storing the pending requests in the workspace revision queue ([0013] and [0083]). As to Claim 8 : Tealdi teaches updating the dependency graph according to the processed ready requests ([0083] and [0096-0097]). As to Claim 9 : Tealdi teaches adding the nodes to the pending request graph comprises adding the nodes based on a pessimistic relational impact for nodes among the pending request graph ([0083] and [0096-0097]). As to Claim 10 : Tealdi teaches the workspace revision queue is a durable log of requests that are flagged as the pending requests or as processed requests indicating revisions that have been carried out on the plurality of documents ([0113-0115]). As to Claim 11 : Tealdi teaches flagging a pending request as a processed request in the durable log only when a corresponding revision has been processed and an earlier adjacent request in the durable log is a processed request ([0096-0097]). As to Claim 13: Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 13 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 13 is a computing device Claim and Claim 1 is a method Claim. As to Claim 14 : Tealdi teaches add nodes to the pending request graph corresponding to the at least some pending requests; and wherein edges between nodes of the pending request graph indicate parent nodes for parent requests and child nodes for child requests that depend from parent requests according to the dependency graph ([0070-0076]). As to Claim 15 : Tealdi teaches identify ready requests from nodes of the pending request graph that do not have incomplete parent nodes, wherein nodes of the pending request graph are flagged as incomplete before and during processing of corresponding requests and flagged as complete after processing of the corresponding requests; and process corresponding revisions for the ready requests, including processing two or more revisions for the ready requests in parallel ( ([0060-0061]) and [0094-0096]). As to Claim 16 : Tealdi teaches order and process the ready requests according to positions of the ready requests in the workspace revision queue; and store the pending requests using a first in, first out (FIFO) ordering for the workspace revision queue ([0083], [0096-0097], and [0113]). As to Claim 17 : Tealdi teaches generate the dependency graph for the plurality of documents before storing the pending requests in the workspace revision queue; and update the dependency graph according to the processed ready requests ([0013], [0083], and [0096-0097]). As to Claim 18 : Tealdi teaches add the nodes based on a pessimistic relational impact for nodes among the pending request graph ([0083] and [0096-0097]). As to Claim 19 : Tealdi teaches the workspace revision queue is a durable log of requests that are flagged as the pending requests or as processed requests indicating revisions that have been carried out on the plurality of documents; wherein the processor is configured to carry out instructions from the memory that configure the computing device to: flag a pending request as a processed request in the durable log only when a corresponding revision has been processed and an earlier adjacent request in the durable log is a processed request ([0096-0097] and [0113-0115]). Allowable Subject Matter 7. Claims 12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the 101 rejection detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner. Conclusion 8. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art. Contact information 7 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form . /MAIKHANH NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144