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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present Office Action.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “updating a state of the task within the table of the database system from the created state to an in-progress state” along with the limitation “recording the task metadata in a table of a database system with an initial state of the task recorded as a created state” These both attempt to provide basis for a “state of the task”, and it is uncertain whether it is referring to the same state.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the same limitations, and therefore inherit the same uncertainty and are rejected for the same reasons provided for claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 all depend on claims 1, 8, or 15, and therefore are rejected to for the being dependent on a rejected 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to A computer-implemented method for asynchronous task execution in cloud-based systems, the method being executed by one or more processors and comprising: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
Generating […] serialized task metadata representative of a task that is to be executed in the a cloud-based system;
All of which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
By a task generation service
Recording the task metadata in a table of a database system with an initial state of the task recorded as a created state;
Publishing the serialized task metadata to a queueing system;
Receiving, by a task consuming service of a plurality of task consuming services, the serialized task metadata from the queuing system;
Executing, by the task consuming service, the task;
And during execution, updating a state of the task within the table of the database system from the created state to an in-progress state
Deserializing, by the task consuming service, the task metadata
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitations recited is mere instructions to implement the limitation which can be performed in the human mind (i.e., the judicial exception), on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional element (ii), the limitation recited amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (iii), the limitation recited amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (iv), the limitation recited amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (v), the limitation recited is mere instructions to implement the limitation which can be performed in the human mind (i.e., the judicial exception), on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional element (vi), the limitation recited amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (vii), the limitation recited amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Furthermore, the combination of additional elements results in mere instructions to implement the exception on a computer, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, and storing and retriving information from the memory on a computer. This combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation reciting generic computing components perform the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found that adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional element (ii), the limitation recited is insignificant extra-solution activity which amounts to necessary data gathering/outputting. Further, the additional element (ii) is storing or retrieving information in memory, which has been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have found adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional element (iii), the limitation recited is insignificant extra-solution activity which amounts to necessary data gathering/outputting. Further, the additional element (iii) is storing or retrieving information in memory, which has been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have found adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional element (iv), the limitation recited is insignificant extra-solution activity which amounts to necessary data gathering/outputting. Further, the additional element (iv) is storing or retrieving information in memory, which has been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have found adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional element (v), the limitation reciting generic computing components perform the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found that adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional element (vi), the limitation recited is insignificant extra-solution activity which amounts to necessary data gathering/outputting. Further, the additional element (iv) is storing or retrieving information in memory, which has been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have found adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional element (vii), the limitation recited is insignificant extra-solution activity which amounts to necessary data gathering/outputting. Further, the additional element (ii) is storing or retrieving information in memory, which has been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have found adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising steps of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Consequently, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites Executing the task is performed in response to validating the task by determining that the state of the task indicates that the task is to be executed. Which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 2 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and therefore inherits the same judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 2. Claim 3 recites the limitation “executing the task is performed further in response to validating the task by determining that any precedent task identified in the task metadata was successfully executed.” Since a person would still be able to validate a task through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, the limitation of claim 3 is still reciting a mental process.
Claim 3 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 and 2.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 2, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exceptions recited in claim 1. Further, claim 4 recites “The task metadata comprises a retry configuration that defines one or more retriable errors, each representing a respective error, in response to which a retry of execution of the task is allowed” which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 4 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 4. Further, claim 5 recites “The retry configuration further defines one or more retry intervals for the one or more retriable errors” which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 5 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 or 4.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 4, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exceptions recited in claim 1. Further, claim 6 recites “The task consuming service receives the task metadata in response to the task consuming service being subscribed to the task with the queueing system” which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 6 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exceptions recited in claim 1. Further, claim 7 recites “deleting a message representative of the task in the queueing system in response to one or more of the task being completed and the task failing.” which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 7 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for asynchronous task execution in cloud-based systems, the operations comprising: the steps of the method of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 8 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For clarity of the record, the additional elements recited above amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, which is neither indicative of integration into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claims 9-14 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 2-7, respectively, applied to the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-7, claims 9-14 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claim 15 recites A system, comprising: a computing device; and a computer-readable storage device coupled to the computing device and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations for asynchronous task execution in cloud-based systems, the operations comprising: the method of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 15 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For clarity of the record, the additional elements recited above amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, which is neither indicative of integration into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claims 16-20 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 2-6, respectively, applied to the system of claim 15. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-6, claims 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRock (US 10409638 B2), hereinafter LaRock, and further in view of Tang (CN 114219626 A), hereinafter Tang, and further in view of Standard C++ Foundation (“Serialization and Unserialization”, 2015), hereinafter ISOCPP.
Regarding claim 1, LaRock teaches:
A computer-implemented method for asynchronous task execution in cloud-based systems, the method being executed by one or more processors and comprising: (see e.g., abstract, “A method, apparatus, computer-readable medium, and/or system may comprise a user device configured to receive, from a user, a selection of a plurality of dependent computing tasks for a first computing task.”) (see e.g., column [004], lines [027-041], “Network 151 may be any suitable network including a cloud network, the Internet, an intranet, a wide-area network (WAN), […], or any combination of any of the same. The network 151 may comprise one or more nodes (e.g., server nodes) and/or node clusters for executing one or more tasks.”)
generating, by a task generation service, task metadata representative of a task that is to be executed in [[the]] a cloud-based system; (see e.g., column [006], lines [043-050], “As will be described in further detail below, after task information is updated or generated, the task management computing device 101 may store, such as in the task registry 161 and/or the dependent task registry 163, the task information in association with the task (e.g., via the unique identifier for the task).”)
recording the task metadata in a table of a database system; (see e.g., column [006], lines [043-050], “As will be described in further detail below, after task information is updated or generated, the task management computing device 101 may store, such as in the task registry 161 and/or the dependent task registry 163, the task information in association with the task (e.g., via the unique identifier for the task).”) (see e.g., column [008], lines [0047-0051], “In response, the computing device 101 may store the updated and/or new parameter values in a database, such as in the task registry 161 and/or dependent task registry 163.”)
publishing the task metadata to a queueing system; (see e.g., column [005], lines [008 – 020], “The system 100 may also comprise a task queue 171. The task queue 171 may be used to receive, such as from the task registry 161, tasks to be executed.”)
receiving, by a task consuming service of a plurality of task consuming services, the serialized task metadata from the queueing system; (see e.g., column [005], lines [008 – 020], “When a task is ready to be executed, the task queue 171 may send the task to one or more node or node cluster 141 of the network 151 for execution. The task queue 171 may be used to manage active tasks (e.g., tasks currently being executed) and/or tasks waiting to be executed. Load balancing may be used to select the node 141 or node cluster(s) to execute a task.”)
executing, by the task consuming service, the task; (see e.g., column [005], lines [008 – 020], “When a task is ready to be executed, the task queue 171 may send the task to one or more node or node cluster 141 of the network 151 for execution. The task queue 171 may be used to manage active tasks (e.g., tasks currently being executed) and/or tasks waiting to be executed. Load balancing may be used to select the node 141 or node cluster(s) to execute a task.”)
LaRock fails to explicitly teach:
That the task metadata is serialized.
That the database system is with an initial state of the task recorded as a created state;
deserializing, by the task consuming service, the task metadata;
and during execution, updating a state of the task within the table of the database system from the created state to an in-progress state.
Tang teaches:
That the database system is with an initial state of the task recorded as a created state; (see e.g., page [011-012], paragraph [071-077], “Specifically, retry configuration information can be pre-set for each abnormal subtask. The retry configuration information may include information such as the maximum number of retries and the time interval between each retrieval. The current status information corresponding to the abnormal subtask can be obtained from the abnormal task data table. The current status information may include information such as the progress status code, the number of retries, and the last modified time. When the progress status code is 00 – not started, [list of other conditions], the abnormal subtask is determined to meet the retry conditions and can be treated as an abnormal task to be processed.”) Tang shows a status code for a task that can be given an initial state.
Tang is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of scheduling and processing tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the database system to contain tasks as taught by LaRock to include more specifically task state information as taught by Tang. Doing so would allow for scheduling decisions to be made more intelligently, and allow for error processing (see Tang: Page 3). Further, Tang enables custom failure tolerances for each task a system might perform, which will enable cost-effective exception handling for a system that processes a large number of subtasks consistently (see also Tang: Page 3).
and during execution, updating a state of the task within the table of the database system from the created state to an in-progress state. (see e.g., page [011-012], paragraph [071-077], “For example, the progress status of the subtask corresponding to the subtask is shown in Table 2. […] Among them, 00-Not Started means no processing has been performed, 20 – Executing means normal execution, 21 – Retrying means exception handling is underway, and 40 – Completed means the process has ended (task execution was successful or failed).”)
Tang fails to explicitly teach:
That the task metadata is serialized.
deserializing, by the task consuming service, the task metadata;
ISOCPP teaches:
That the task metadata may be serialized when sent from one location to another. (see e.g., page [02], paragraph [01-02], “Like the Transporter on Star Trek, it’s all about taking something complicated and turning it into a flat sequence of 1s and 0s”)
deserializing, by the task consuming service, the task metadata; (see e.g., page [02], paragraph [01-02], “then taking that sequence of 1s and 0s (possibly at another place, possibly at another time) and reconstructing the original complicated “something.”)
ISOCPP is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of scheduling and processing tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the database system to contain tasks as taught by LaRock in view of Tang to include serialization of data before transporting it, and deserialization afterwards. Doing so would allow for scheduling decisions to be made remotely, and allow for the task metadata to be handled between applications (in effect, to turn a transient object into a file that can be stored and transferred) (see ISOCPP: page 02)
Regarding claim 2, LaRock recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein executing the task is performed in response to validating the task by determining that the state of the task indicates that the task is to be executed. (see e.g., column [006], lines [024 – 40], “In step 302, the task management computing device 101 may determine whether it received task information. […] If the computing device 101 has not received task information (step 302: N), the computing device may wait to receive task information.”) This shows that the task performing may wait until information is received before executing. If we take into account the task states provided by Tang as mentioned earlier (for reference, Tang pages [011-012], paragraphs [071-077]), using the task state instead of just its presence becomes much more obvious, as the system would have more states than “task waiting” and “task finished”, which could earlier be represented by the presence of the task in the queue (a binary) and now would be represented by various codes as taught by Tang.
Regarding claim 3, LaRock recites:
The method of claim 2, wherein executing the task is performed further in response to validating the task by determining that any precedent task identified in the task metadata was successfully executed. (see e.g., columns [007 – 008], lines [060 – 015], “In an exemplary many-to-one task dependency scenario, 3 tasks may have to be executed (initiated and/or completed) before another task is to be executed. In an exemplary many-to-many task dependency scenario, 3 tasks (e.g., dependent tasks) may have to be executed before another 5 tasks are to be executed. In an exemplary one-to-many task dependency, 1 task may have to be executed before another 4 tasks are to be executed. [...] In some aspects, the computing device 101 may validate any of the task information previously described prior to storing the task information in, for example, the task registry 161 and/or the dependent task registry 163.”)
Regarding claim 4, LaRock teaches The method of claim 1
LaRock fails to expressly teach wherein the task metadata comprises a retry configuration that defines one or more retriable errors, each representing a respective error, in response to which a retry of execution of the task is allowed.
However, Tang teaches the metadata comprises a retry configuration that defines one or more retriable errors, each representing a respective error, in response to which a retry of execution of the task is allowed. (see e.g., claim 2, “The step of obtaining the exception subtask to be processed includes: […] Obtain one or more abnormal subtasks that meet the retry conditions from the abnormal task data table, and use them as abnormal subtasks to be processed.”)
Regarding claim 5, Tang teaches that the retry configuration further defines one or more retry intervals for the one or more retriable errors. (see e.g., claim 3, “The step of determining whether the abnormal subtask meets the retry condition includes: Obtain the current status information and retry configuration information corresponding to the abnormal subtask, wherein the retry configuration information includes the maximum number of retries and the retry time interval; Based on the current status information and the retry configuration information, determine whether the abnormal subtask meets the retry conditions.”)
Regarding claim 6, LaRock recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the task consuming service receives the task metadata in response to the task consuming service being subscribed to the task with the queueing system. (see e.g., column [008], lines [040 – 051], “The user may provide a task time trigger 512, which may indicate the time and/or date for the task to be executed, such as if the task is a time-based task. The user may select an option 514 to submit the updated parameter values (or new parameter values) for the task. In response, the computing device 101 may store the updated and/or new parameter values in a database, such as in the task registry 161 and/or dependent task registry 163.”)
Regarding claim 7, LaRock recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising deleting a message representative of the task in the queueing system in response to one or more of the task being completed and the task failing (see e.g., column [012], lines [006 – 010], “In step 428, the task management computing device 101 may remove the executed task from the task queue 171.”)
Regarding claim 8, LaRock recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for asynchronous task execution in cloud-based systems, (see e.g., abstract, “A method, apparatus, computer-readable medium, and/or system may comprise a user device configured to receive, from a user, a selection of a plurality of dependent computing tasks for a first computing task.) (see e.g., column [004], lines [027 – 041], Network 151 may be any suitable network including a cloud network, the Internet, an intranet, a wide-area network (WAN), […], or any combination of any of the same. The network 151 may comprise one or more nodes (e.g., server nodes) and/or node clusters for executing one or more tasks.”) the operations comprising: the method of claim 1. As such, claim 8 is rejected as being anticipated by LaRock in view of Tang and further in view of ISOCPP for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1.
Claims 9-14 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 2-7 respectively, applied to the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8. As such, claims 9-14 are rejected as being anticipated by LaRock in view of Tang and further in view of ISOCPP for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-7.
Regarding claim 15, LaRock recites:
A system, comprising: a computing device; and a computer-readable storage device coupled to the computing device and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations for asynchronous task execution in cloud-based systems, (see e.g., abstract, “A method, apparatus, computer-readable medium, and/or system may comprise a user device configured to receive, from a user, a selection of a plurality of dependent computing tasks for a first computing task.) (see e.g., column [004], lines [027 – 041], Network 151 may be any suitable network including a cloud network, the Internet, an intranet, a wide-area network (WAN), […], or any combination of any of the same. The network 151 may comprise one or more nodes (e.g., server nodes) and/or node clusters for executing one or more tasks.”) the operations comprising: the method of claim 1. As such, claim 15 is rejected as being anticipated by LaRock in view of Tang and further in view of ISOCPP for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1.
Claims 16- 20 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 2- 6, respectively, applied to the system of claim 15. As such, claims 16- 20 are rejected as being anticipated by LaRock in view of Tang and further in view of ISOCPP for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2- 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, see pages 1-4, have been fully considered and are unpersuasive. The original rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have thus been amended to include analysis of the amended additional elements of the independent claims.
More specifically, applicants argue that the amended limitations do not recite any judicial exception and more particularly that the claims are directed toward an architecture that includes decoupled microservices, a queueing system, and an interactive table, and as such, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The architecture is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (see e.g., generating task metadata representative of a task [even if in a cloud-based system]) using generic computer components, or generic processors to perform the judicial exception. The human mind can generate metadata about a task that they have been provided with, by using ones eyes and mind or with pen and paper.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 102, see pages 4-6, have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the amended claims. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn, and replaced with the rejections under U.S.C. 103 described above, which rely on Tang and ISOCPP to alleviate the alleged deficiencies toward the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, see page 6, ultimately recite the allowability of claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasoning of allowability of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19. The original rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 have been withdrawn, so the rejections have been re-written as described above to include the replaced rejections under U.S.C. 103 as depicted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor Imiola Blackburn whose telephone number is (571)272-6547. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270 - 3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.I.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights