CTNF 18/822,139 CTNF 93518 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Acknowledgments Claims 4, 11, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending. Applicant did not provide information disclosure statement. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments 35 USC 101 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/ 21/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 ha ve been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Th e rejection is maintained. Ap plicant argues on page 8 As amended, claim 1 expressly requires machine-generated execution results generated by different execution environments, where such results are automatically produced by computing systems operating across multiple environments and stored in a central datastore. These machine-generated execution results are not merely collected, but are used to determine a dependency status that governs system behavior, including controlling whether at least one additional task is permitted to initialize. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim amendments are merely descriptive of the tasks. For example, even though the tasks results are machine generated, a user can still receive this data without the use of a computer. For example, a user would be able to receive machine generated results with respect to a piece of paper. In addition, a user would be able to look with their eyes and see that a task has failed to complete without the use of a computer. Applicant argues on page 9 Moreover, the claims are directed to a technical improvement in distributed computing systems rather than to a business practice. The invention addresses the technical problem of coordinating execution of interdependent tasks across different execution environments, including ensuring proper sequencing, maintaining consistency of execution state, and preventing improper or premature execution of dependent tasks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Coordinating tasks, ensuring proper sequencing, and managing execution of tasks are not technical problems but business problems. These tasks are handled by a manager who manages tasks. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. Applicant argues on page 9 Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims involve an abstract concept, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. The claimed invention applies machine-generated execution results from multiple execution environments to perform centralized evaluation of distributed system state and to control task initialization based on computed dependency status, with enforcement carried out through specific orchestration mechanisms. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Evaluation of data is merely an abstract idea step that would in the mental process grouping. In addition, controlling tasks initialization is a business problem and not a technical problem. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are directed to a method, computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium, and system. Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15 recite the limitations of Monitoring …a plurality of interdependent tasks that include tasks… controlling… a workflow of the plurality of interdependent tasks to ensure the plurality of interdependent tasks run in a correct sequence; determining …that a task among the plurality of interdependent tasks has failed to complete; and executing… an action based upon, at least in part, a determination that the task among the plurality of interdependent tasks has failed to complete… preventing at least one additional task among the plurality of interdependent tasks from running prior to initialization of the at least one additional task. With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 4/21/2026, the claims further include wherein preventing the at least one additional task from running includes controlling whether the at least one additional task is permitted to initialize based on a dependency status determined from the machine-generated execution results, including enforcing dependency constraints among the plurality of interdependent tasks using one or more workflow orchestration and coordination mechanisms. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of monitoring, controlling, determining, and executing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply monitoring tasks, controlling a workflow, determining a task failed to complete, and executing an action based on the determination. The execution includes the abstract idea step of preventing a task. The controlling of initializing tasks includes enforcing dependency constraints. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. Managing tasks/workflows is not novel and has been done before the technological age. Given a real-world example, these steps are carried out by a manager in charge of a workflow. The claims also recite abstract idea steps of receiving and storing but these steps are not positively recited in the claims. The claims deal with monitoring workflows/tasks which also include interactions between users as seen in para 0039 in Applicant’s specifications. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations/interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes. Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of computing device, software applications, electronic notification, computer program product, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, central datastore, computing system, and memories. These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe what the action is such as sending an electronic notification. In addition, the dependent claims further describe how the task data is seen such as on a rendered dashboard. Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites Method however method is not considered an additional element, claim 1 further recites computing device, central datastore and software applications Claim 2, 9 recite electronic notification Claim 3, 10 recite electronic mail notification Claim 8 recites computer program product, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, central datastore, processors, software applications, and computing device Claim 15 recites computing system, processors, memories, software applications, central datastore, and computing device When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0027. When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0027. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05 Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Kzoloski (US20140180752A1) Discloses an application selection system for completing a work process includes an environment activity module that detects at least one event to determine an environmental activity occurring in an environment exposed to a user of the application selection system. Kumar (US20100324948A1) Discloses a present invention that extends to methods, systems, and computer program products for managing event timelines. Ohashi (US 20140297355 A1) Discloses a first executing unit that executes, among tasks included in a first workflow, a first task group including one or more tasks using a resource. When a task included in the first task group is stopped, a rollback processing unit restores the resource to its former state prior to the execution of the first task group. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST. 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/822,139 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights