Detailed Action This action is in response application filed on 10/17/2023 which claims priority to Korean application KR-10-2022-0153802 filed on 11/16/2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1- 20 are pending. Claims 1- 20 are rejected. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 and 10/17/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement filed 09/23/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Drawings The drawings submitted on 10/17/2023 are accepted. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “task managing system configured to receive…a process managing system configured to confirm… a performed managing system configured to confirm” (claim 1); “managing system configured to broadcast” (claim 8), “process managing system is configured to integrate and manage…assign” (claim 9), “database configured to store…remote logic storage configured to store”. The examiner notes that ““task managing system configured to receive…” (claim 1); and “database configured to store…remote logic storage configured to store”. are interpreted to be non-specialized functions. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See, figure 1-2 , fig. 15 , and at least paragraphs 0020 , 0049-0057, 0072-0077. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1 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. For instance: Claim 1, lines 12, and 21 recite “an application process”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from “an application process” as recited in line 4. Claim 1, lines 18 recites “a task”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in line 12. Additionally, the examiner notes that the claims appear to be translation into English from a foreign document and includes idiomatic errors. Appropriate amendments/remarks required. Independent claim 11, and 20 includes similar offending language as claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1. At least due to dependency, claims 2-10 , and 12-19 are rejected under same rational as set forth claim 1. Additionally: Claim 3 recites “an application process”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from “an application process” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 3, lines 10 recites “a task”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 4, lines 18, and 20 recites “a task”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 5 recites “an application process”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from “an application process” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 6, lines 13-14 recites “a task”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 7 recites “an application process”, “a task”, “computing device”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from an application process”, “a task”, “computing device” as recited in its parent claims. Claim 8 recites “an application process”, “a task”, “computing device”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from an application process”, “a task”, “computing device” as recited in its parent claims. Claim 9, recites “a task”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 12 recites “an algorithm processing process”, and “a task request message”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from “an algorithm processing process”, and “a task request message” as recited in its parent claim. Claim 13 recites “an application process”, and “a computing device”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from “an application process”, and “a computing device”; as recited in its parent claim. Claim 15 recites “a task”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 16, recites “a task”, “computing device”, and “an algorithm processing process”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task”, “computing device”, and “an algorithm processing process” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 17 recites “an application process”, “task”, “computing device”; however, it is not clear if these elements are the same or different from an application process”, “ task”, “computing device” as recited in its parent claims. Claim 18, recites “a computing device”, “a task”, ; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. Claim 19, recites “an application process”, “an algorithm”; however, it is not clear if this element is the same or different from “a task” as recited in the parent claim. 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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 : In summary, claim 20 recites “computer-readable storage medium” . The specification fails to provide deliberate and limiting definition for “computer-readable storage medium” . Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “computer-readable storage medium” includes carrier waves and /or signals. Thus, the recited “computer-readable storage medium” is not a "process", a "machine", a "manufacture", or "composition of matter", as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 is directed to a computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected , including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process , the computing resource management system comprising: a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from an application process requiring a task from each computing device; a process managing system configured to confirm an algorithm processing process of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and determine whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned; and a performed managing system configured to confirm a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process . Per prong 1, Step 2A , the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, m ental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform resource management including a mentally via observation/judgement confirm an algorithm processing process /application of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and mentally determine via observation/judgment whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned; and a performed managing system configured/mentally to confirm /assign a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process. Per prong 2, Step 2A , the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “ a computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected , including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process , the computing resource management system comprising: a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from an application process requiring a task from each computing device ”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “ a computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected , including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process , the computing resource management system comprising: a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from an application process requiring a task from each computing device ”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 11, and 20 are method and medium claims corresponding to system claim 1 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 11, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-10, and12-19 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 11, and 20 . In particular, As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task managing system, the process managing system, and the performed managing system are performed in at least one computing device connected in the cluster computing environment. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task managing system is configured to, receive a task request of an application process requiring a task from a computing device including only an application process running on computing devices in addition to the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements ) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and /or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a computing device including the application process requested for a task is different from a computing device including the algorithm processing process to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein, when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which an application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, the process managing system is configured to, in consideration of residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, further recites wherein the process managing system is configured to, when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h) . Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task managing system is configured to, broadcast an application process requiring a task, or transmit the application process to a computing device including an algorithm processing process to process algorithm for the application process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the performed managing system is configured to, broadcast a result of an application process whose task is performed, or transmit the result to a computing device including the application process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the process managing system is configured to, integrate and manage the algorithm processing process of the computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and assign the application process requested for a task to an algorithm processing process in an idle state. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: a database configured to store data required for performing algorithmic processing of the application process, wherein the data includes metadata or parameter data; and a remote logic storage configured to store low-level (RAW) data. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, further recites wherein the resource assigning operation comprises: assigning the application process requested for a task to an algorithm processing process in an idle state responding to a task request message loaded in a task managing system on a first-come-first-served basis. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task request operation comprises: receiving a task request of an application process requiring a task from a computing device including only an application process running on the computing device in addition to the computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements ) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and /or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 4, the rejection of claim 1 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the resource assigning operation comprises: when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, in consideration of residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, requesting at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 5, the rejection of claim 1 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the resource assigning operation comprises : when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process request for a task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, requesting the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 6, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task request operation comprises: broadcasting an application process requiring a task, or transmitting the application process to a computing device including an algorithm processing process to process the algorithm for the application process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task performed operation comprises: broadcasting a result of an application process whose task is performed, or transmitting the result to the computing device including the application process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a computing device including the application process requested for a task in the task request operation is different from a computing device including the algorithm processing process to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned in the resource assigning operation. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements ) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 1 9 , the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites comprising: prior to the task request operation, in order to operate an application process running on each computing device independently of an algorithm processing process performing task processing on the application process, separating the algorithm processing process from the application process; and integrating and managing the algorithm processing process of each computing device connected to the cluster computing environment in a single process pool . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim s 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Rose et al. ( US 20060048161 A1 , referred hereinafter as D1 ) in view of Moler ( US 20090320026 A1 , referred hereinafter as D2). As per claim 1, D1 discloses, A computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected, (D1, abstract, fig 1 show networked computing devices in a cluster executing application/processes). including an application process running on each computing device , (D1, abstract, fig 1 , 0017, 0019 , 0037-0038 show networked computing devices in a cluster executing master and slave BoT application/processes . ). and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process, the computing resource management system comprising , (D1, abstract, fig 1, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038 show networked computing devices in a cluster executing master and slave BoT application/processes, where slave boT application/process configured to run independently of the master BoT application process and perform task processing on the application process or provided tasks , the computing resource management system comprising ). a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from an application process requiring a task from each computing device , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038 show grid user/GRM submitting task for processing which reads on a task managing system configured (e.g. CRM) to receive a task request message from an application process (e.g. user/GRM/master BoT application) requiring a task from each computing device /node). a process managing system configured to confirm an algorithm processing process of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and determine whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041 -0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM submitting task for processing, and system of D1 determining idle connected nodes/processes and loading executing application/task to the connected idle node /processes which fairly reads on a process managing system configured to confirm an algorithm processing process of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and determine whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned ). and a performed managing system configured to confirm a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM submitting task for processing, and system of D1 determining idle connected nodes/processes and loading executing application/task to the connected idle node/processes , and per steps 220-222 determining if all task have been completed which fairly reads on a performed managing system configured to confirm a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process ). As noted above, D1 arguably discloses including an application process running on each computing device ; nevertheless, for the sake completeness , D2 (0058 , 0079, 0095 ) explicitly discloses - an application process running on each computing device and computing results via the application , where the results are returned back to the requesting node/environment /application that submitted the task. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 . This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing in parallel via application installed on multiple devices as disclosed by D2 and known the art. As per claim 2 , rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses wherein the task managing system, the process managing system, and the performed managing system are performed in at least one computing device connected in the cluster computing environment , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting nodes to process tasks, and determining if tasks completed. ). As per claim 3 , the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein the task managing system is configured to, receive a task request of an application process requiring a task from a computing device including only an application process running on computing devices in addition to the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting nodes to process tasks, and determining if tasks completed which reads on receive a task request of an application process requiring a task from a computing device (e.g. receive task from grid user/GRM/CRM and/or Master BoT application) including … an application process running on computing devices in addition to the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment ). D1 application executing on computing device; however, fails to expressly disclose – only [an application process running on computing]. However, the examiner takes official notice a computing device executing only one application was notoriously was well known before the effective filing of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include only an application process running on computing . This would have been obvious with predicable results of executing single application on a computing device as known in the art. As per claim 4 , the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein a computing device including the application process requested for a task is different from a computing device including the algorithm processing process to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes. ). As per claim 7 , the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein the task managing system is configured to, broadcast an application process requiring a task, or transmit the application process to a computing device including an algorithm processing process to process algorithm for the application process , (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes, where D1 further discloses loading/transmitting slave BoT application /process to idle nodes in order to process the tasks which reads on transmit the application process to a computing device including an algorithm processing process to process algorithm for the application process . ). As per claim 8 : T he rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses D1 fails to expressly disclose- wherein the performed managing system is configured to, broadcast a result of an application process whose task is performed, or transmit the result to a computing device including the application process. D2 (0058, 0079, 0095) explicitly discloses - an application process running on each computing device and computing results via the application that are returned /transmitted back to the requesting node/environment/application that submitted the task. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing in parallel via application installed on multiple devices as disclosed by D2 and known the art. As per claim 9 , the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses wherein the process managing system is