DETAILED ACTION
Claims 25-44 are presented for examination. Claims 25, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 40, and 44 are amended.
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 25-44 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 25-34 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes.
Claims 35-44 are directed to devices and fall within the statutory category of machines.
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:
Claims 25 and 35: The limitations of “determining a target running category…,” “determining a target classification priority…,” “determining a target scheduling priority…,” and “scheduling a resource…,” 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 examine data and use that data to determine a variety of attributes about a task in order to properly schedule that task, and based on those attributes decide a schedule.
Therefore, Yes, claims 25 and 35 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 25 and 35: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “an application,” “a resource,” “at least one processor,” and “at least one memory,” 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.
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 claims 25 and 35 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 25 and 35: 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.
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 25 and 35 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 25, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 25. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further mental processes that are similar to the steps in claim 25. Claims 26-34 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 25 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 36-44 also do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert their independent claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 25-44 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. On page 12, applicant argues that claims 25 and 36 cannot be practically performed in the human mind because observing and reacting to execution state of concurrently running applications is a machine-specific inquiry, not a mental exercise.
b. On page 12, applicant further argues that the claim language requires the allocation of time slices, which again is impossible for a human mind.
c. On page 13, applicant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself, pointing out paragraphs [0004] and [0006] of the specification.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would point out that the claims, as written, do not require observing and reacting to execution state of concurrently running applications. In fact, they are limited to a single application (“determining a target running category of an application…”). While it might be impossible to observe and react to a large number of concurrently running applications, observing the status of a single application at any given time is a much more reasonable possibility. Should applicant wish to amend the claims to apply to a large number of near-simultaneous observations of different applications, such an argument could potentially be persuasive. Thus, the rejection stands.
b. The examiner would initially point out that the claim language does not require scheduling (plural) time slices. Instead, it claims that the resources comprise “one or more time slices…” Again, the difficulty of picking a single time slice would be far more doable than the more complex version that applicant argues but does not claim.
Further, the examiner would point out that the claim language does not even require allocation of time slices. The claim limitation in question states, “wherein the resource of the processing system comprises one or more running time slices…” According to MPEP 2111.03, “The transitional term ‘comprising’… is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements…” Hence, the claim limitation does not require the scheduling of time slices. It only requires the scheduling of resources of the processing system. Paragraph [0093] of the instant specification states that, “the resource herein may refer to a processing system…. This aspect is not limited in embodiments disclosed in this application.” The question of whether or not someone could schedule time slices as a mental process is immaterial to the proper analysis of this claim, as the claim does not require it. Thus, the rejection stands.
c. The examiner would point out that even if the specification does cite such an improvement, the claims do not necessarily implement that improvement. The claims only require scheduling based on priority. In fact, as written, one could actively and purposely choose to schedule the lowest-priority tasks in the foreground first while higher-priority tasks wait in the background. As long as they base their decision on the priority of the tasks, it would meet the limitations as claimed. Thus, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (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
