DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below. Step 1: Claims 1 - 7 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claim s 8-14 are directed to system s and fall within the statutory category of machines . Claims 1 5 - 20 are directed to compute r-readable storage media and full within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 1: Clai ms 1 , 8 , and 15 : The limitations of “ identifying a priority task…” and “modifying the processing sequence… ,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can look at a listing of tasks and choose a most important one, and then modify a schedule of processing based on the location in the schedule of that task . Therefore, Yes , claim s 1 , 8 , and 15 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1 , 8 , and 15 : The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim s recite the following additional elements – “ one or more processors,” “ memory including computer-executable instructions ,” “ a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions, ” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1 , 8 , and 15 recite the following additional elements – “ obtaining a plurality of tasks in a queue ” and “initiating execution of the plurality of tasks according to the modified processing sequence,” which are merely recitations of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and mere instructions to use the computer to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), respectively, which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No , these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim s 1 , 8 , and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application. Step 2B: Claims 1 , 8 , and 15 : The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “ obtaining a plurality of tasks in a queue…” and “initiating execution of the plurality of tasks…” are positively recited steps of receiving data, this would be insignificant extra-solution data gathering which is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “ The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ”). Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No , these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 , 8 , and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . C laims 2- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further mental processes that are similar to the steps in claim 1. Claims 2- 7 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 9-14 and 16-20 also do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert their independent claim s into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, c laims 1 -20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 4, 5 , 8, 10 -12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Harding et al ( U.S. Pat. No. 10,657,603 B1, hereinafter Harding ). As per claim 1 , Harding teaches the limitations as claimed, including a method, the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of tasks of a queue, wherein the plurality of tasks is associated with a processing sequence (Col. 2, Lines 33-37); identifying a priority task within the plurality of tasks (Col. 2, Lines 40-41); modifying the processing sequence based, at least in part, on the priority task (Col. 2, Lines 41-42); and initiating execution of the plurality of tasks according to the modified processing sequence (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 5-55). As per claim 4 , Harding teaches that the modified processing sequence is arranged in an order based, at least in part, on a field entry in the plurality of tasks (Col. 2, Lines 40-41 teaches a priority field, which correlates to a field entry). As per claim 5 , Harding teaches that the plurality of tasks within a same priority level are processed in an order received (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 5-55 teaches that the tasks are processed in the order received except in the case where a higher-priority task causes the order to be modified, which implies that tasks of the same priority would be processed in the order received). As per claim 8 , it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. As per claim 10 , Harding teaches that the queue is a first-in, first-out (FIFO) queue (Col. 2, Lines 35-37). As per claim 11 , Harding teaches that the one or more processors are to cause the system to arrange the plurality of priority tasks of the modified processing sequence in a descending order starting with high priority tasks (Col. 2, Lines 41-42). As per claim 12 , Harding teaches that the tasks within a same priority level are processed based, at least in part, on a timestamp (Col. 2, Lines 35-37 teaches a FIFO queue, which implies processing tasks based on a timestamp). As per claims 15 -17 and 19 , they are medium claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 2 , 3 , 9, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding in view of Chen et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0133724 A1, hereinafter Chen ) . As per claim 2 , Harding does not expressly teach that a priority level of the plurality of tasks is labeled as one of high, medium, low, and none in a field entry. However, Chen teaches that a priority level of the plurality of tasks is labeled as one of high, medium, low, and none in a field entry (Paragraph [0037] teaches a high-priority task). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Chen with those of Harding in order to allow for Harding ’s method to avoid the problems of task delays that can occur if related tasks to high-priority tasks are not executed efficiently (Chen, Paragraph [0082]). As per claim 3 , Harding does not expressly teach querying for other tasks in the queue that have a related identifier to the identified priority task and modifying a priority level of the other tasks having the related identifier. However, Chen teaches querying for other tasks in the queue that have a related identifier to the identified priority task and modifying a priority level of the other tasks having the related identifier (Paragraph [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Chen with those of Harding in order to allow for Harding ’s method to avoid the problems of task delays that can occur if related tasks to high-priority tasks are not executed efficiently (Chen, Paragraph [0082]). As per claims 9 and 13 , they are system claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. As per claims 18 and 20 , they are medium claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding in view of Need et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0108719 A1, hereinafter Need ) . As per claim 6 , Harding does not expressly teach promoting an existing task in the queue to a high priority level and deferring execution of the priority task until after the existing task is first performed. However, Need teaches promoting an existing task in the queue to a high priority level and deferring execution of the priority task until after the existing task is first performed (Paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Need with those of Harding in order to allow for Harding’s method to more efficiently process tasks, which could lead to greater buy-in among prospective users. Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding in view of Ramakrishnan et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0124612 A1, hereinafter Ramakrishnan ) . As per claim 7 , Harding does not expressly teach s etting a default priority level when a priority level is none. However, Ramakrishnan teaches setting a default priority level when a priority level is none (Paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Ramakrishnan with those of Harding in order to allow for Harding’s method to more efficiently process tasks, which could lead to greater buy-in among prospective users. As per claim 14 , it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7762 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bradley Teets can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3338 . 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. /GREGORY A KESSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197