DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed 27 July 2023 , claiming benefit back to 4 February 2021 . Claims 1 – 13, 17, 18, 23, 26 – 29 are pending and have been examined. This action is Non-Final. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS s ) have been considered by the examiner. 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 – 13, 17, 18, 23, 26 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of a method for performing a digital process (P), comprising the steps of: a) providing a central system (110); b) the central system (110) initiating the process (P) with a defined set of activities (A 1 ;A2) to be performed by respective peripheral systems (210;220), being autonomous systems operating independently from said central system (110), said activities (Al;A2) comprising a second activity (A2) to be performed by a second one of said peripheral systems (220); c) the central system (110), in a second request (R2), requesting said second peripheral system (220) to perform said second activity (A2) ; d) the second peripheral system (220) performing said second activity (A2) (; e) a second piece of information (12) resulting from said second activity (A2) being made available from the second peripheral system (220) to said central system (110); and f) the central system (110) updating a status of said process (P) based on said second (12) piece of information, wherein: the second request (R2) comprises a second identifier (ID2); said second piece of information (I2) is made available to the central system (110) in the form of a digital work product (WP) output by the second peripheral system (220) , the central system (110) automatically performs the additional steps of: g) collecting said work product (WP); h) finding an anchor piece of information or pattern (I2') in the work product (WP), said anchor piece of information or pattern (I2') being said second identifier (ID2), being derivable from said second identifier (ID2) or being associated with said second identifier (ID2), or said second identifier (ID2) being derivable from said anchor piece of information or pattern (I2') i) identifying said second piece of information (I2) in said work product (WP) based on a location of the anchor piece of information or pattern (I2') in the work product (WP) and/or on a content of the anchor piece of information or pattern (I2'), said finding of the anchor piece of information or pattern (I2') and/or identifying of the second piece of information (I2) is performed by a trained machine learning model (112) comprised in the central system (110); in that the method comprises a first successful finding and/or identifying, resulting in a fully automatic extraction of said second piece of information (12) from the work product (WP) by the central system (110); and in that the method further comprises a second unsuccessful finding and/or identifying, resulting in that an interpretation is performed that is at least partly based on a manual input provided by a user through a user interface, a result of said interpretation being fed back to a machine learning training feedback loop affecting training of said machine learning model (112) with respect to said finding and/or identifying. These limitation s ( bolded ant italicized ), as drafted are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers creation, assignment, and collection of a work product (e.g., a task), then identifying and extracting information within a collected work product. These limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activity, such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, in that the claims encompass assigning tasks to workers for completion and collecting the completed work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. (See also Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. , stating that the collection and analysis of information without more is within the realm of abstract ideas ). Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the additional limitations of: a central system (110) , and central system (110) automatically perform [ ing ] and peripheral systems (210;220) , however these are recited at a high level of generality, and are used to perform the abstract such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f) ; a second piece of information (12) resulting from said second activity (A2) being made available from the second peripheral system (220) to said central system (110) , f) the central system (110) updating a status of said process (P) based on said second (12) piece of information, wherein: the second request (R2) comprises a second identifier (ID2) , said second piece of information (I2) is made available to the central system (110) in the form of a digital work product (WP) output by the second peripheral system (220) , however this amounts to data gathering (e.g., the collecting of a finished work product and updating a status), and amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g); performed by a trained machine learning model (112) and affecting training of said machine learning model (112) , provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer , see MPEP 2106.05(f) . Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” ( buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350. ) Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se ), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to dependent claims 2 – 13, 17, 18, 23, 26 – 29 , the claims either further describe the abstract idea, or merely recite additional elements that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Step 2B : The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] . Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., page 5; page 22, lines 14 – 17 , FIG. 1, provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation . Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1 – 13, 17, 18, 23, 26 – 29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Alford; Francine A. et al. US 7092948 B1 Method and system of integrating information from multiple sources Kolegayev; Dmitriy et al. US 20150120374 A1 Automation Of Customer Relationship Management (Crm) Tasks Responsive To Electronic Communications Hamada; Yoshinobu US 20160054963 A1 Management System And Control Method Nivala; Antti et al. US 20170220604 A1 Method, An Apparatus, A Computer Program Product For Determining Metadata For A Data Item Rogynskyy; Oleg US 20190364130 A1 Systems And Methods For Matching Electronic Activities To Record Objects Of Systems Of Record With Node Profiles Marr; Michael US 20200273098 A1 Method and Apparatus for Integrating Loan Information and Real Estate Listing Zusman; Dmitry et al. US 11157690 B2 Techniques for asynchronous execution of computationally expensive local spreadsheet tasks Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm . Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288. Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration t ool. To schedule an interview, a pplicant 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALAN S MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625