DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Objections Claim s 7 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “ wherein the containerized platform comprises a container orchestrator selected from a group of container orchestrators comprising Kubernetes, OpenShift by Red Hat, Tanzu by VMware, Docker Community Edition, Docket Enterprise Edition …” appears to incorrectly recite “ Docket Enterprise Edition” instead of “ Docker Enterprise Edition.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 use the word “means” or “step” and being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means to access/decode/parse/determine…” in claim 20. 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. 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 § 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(s) without significantly more. Claim s 1, 11, and 20 recite: A computer-implemented method, comprising: accessing a first resource from a containerized platform; decoding the first resource into metadata; parsing the metadata into related configuration items; and determining relationship links between the related configuration items to create an application model. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 is a process. Claim 11 is a machine. Claim 20 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘determining’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining relationship links between the related configuration items , including comparison or judgement. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘ accessing’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . The limitation “ accessing ” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The ‘ decoding’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “ decoding ” in the context of this claim encompasses merely decoding the first resource into metadata . See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘parsing’ limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely parsing the metadata into configuration items. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements: At least one processor (Claim 11 ) Computer memory (Claim 11) Instructions (Claim 11) These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception . Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 7 and 17 merely further describe the containerized platform of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Claim s 1, 7, 11, 17 and 20 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 2 and 12 recite: wherein accessing the first resource from the containerized platform comprises obtaining a listing of Helm secrets returned by querying the first resource from the containerized platform with filters, the filters comprising "type=helm.sh/release.v1" and "status=deployed" . Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 is a process. Claim 12 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘ obtaining’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . The limitation “ obtaining ” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2 and 1 2 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 3 and 13 recite: wherein decoding the first resource into metadata comprises decoding the first resource utilizing a decoding library provided with the first resource and obtaining, as an output from the decoding library, compressed binary metadata . Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 3 is a process. Claim 13 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘decoding’ limitation in #6 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “decoding” in the context of this claim encompasses merely decoding the first resource using a decoding library. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘obtaining’ limitation in #7 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . The limitation “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 3 and 13 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 4 and 14 recite: decompressing the compressed binary metadata with a decompression library and receiving therefrom a JavaScript Object Notation string (JSON string) . Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 4 is a process. Claim 14 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘decompressing’ limitation in #8 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “decompressing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely decompressing the compressed binary metadata using a library. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘receiving’ limitation in #9 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . The limitation “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 4 and 14 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 5 and 15 recite: wherein determining the relationship links between the related configuration items to create the application model further comprises parsing the JSON string and obtaining therefrom application data and infrastructure data. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 5 is a process. Claim 15 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘parsing’ limitation in #10 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely parsing a JSON string. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘ obtaining’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . The limitation “ obtaining ” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 5 and 1 5 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 6 and 16 recite: converting the application data and the infrastructure data into configuration data and relationship links interconnecting the related configuration items . Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 is a process. Claim 1 6 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘ converting’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “ converting ” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or converting application and infrastructure data into relationship links interconnecting configuration items , including comparison or judgement. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Therefore, Claims 6 and 16 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 8 and 18 recite: comparing the application model with a reference model to determine differences therebetween and, upon the differences being non-null, performing a restorative action . Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 8 is a process. Claim 18 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘ comparing’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “ comparing ” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or comparing the application and reference models to determine differences , including comparison or judgement. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘performing’ limitation in #14 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a restorative action. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 8 and 18 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 9 and 19 recite: wherein the restorative action comprises initiating an application programming interface (API) call to the containerized platform to deploy a template to attenuate the differences between the reference model and the application model . Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 9 is a process. Claim 19 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘initiating’ limitation in #15 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “initiating” in the context of this claim encompasses initiating an API call to the containerized platform. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 9 and 1 9 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claim 10 recites: wherein the restorative action comprises automatically performing a test to determine if the API call has attenuated the differences between the reference model and the application model and, if successful, generating a new template release. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 10 is a process. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘performing’ limitation in #16 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a test to determine if the API call has attenuated the differences. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘generating’ limitation in #17 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception . The limitation “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses merely generating a new template release. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 10 is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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. Claim(s) 1 , 8, 11 , 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable by Sobrier et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 12425428 B1 ), hereinafter “ Sobrier .” With regards to Claim 1, Sobrier teaches: A computer-implemented method, comprising: accessing a first resource from a containerized platform (Col. 78, lines 22-24 and Col. 79, lines 5-12 , “ At operation 502, the data platform may obtain audit log data generated by a container orchestrator within a cloud compute environment … In both of these data model examples, the audit log data may be combined with other types of data obtained from the cloud compute environment (e.g., telemetry data collected by agents as described above, trail data, etc.) and/or combined with audit log data from multiple cloud compute environments (e.g., including cloud compute environments associated with different cloud service providers). ” The audit log, telemetry, or trail data being obtained from the container orchestrator within a cloud compute environment correlates to accessing a first resource from a containerized platform ) ; decoding the first resource into metadata ( Col. 83, lines 42-57, “ Before being used to generate a data model 526, implementation 530 illustrates another detail that was not explicitly shown in FIG. 5B: audit log data 522 and other cloud data 524-1 may be ingested by way of a data ingestion service 534. Data ingestion service 534 may be implemented within network 518, within data platform 520, or by a separate and standalone device or process. Data ingestion service 534 may implement communication protocols and be configured to arrange for the data 522 and 524 to be obtained in any suitable way (e.g., by requesting the data if necessary, by unpacking and buffering the data, by storing the data temporarily or persistently where it can be used for data modeling and other processes, etc.). As part of this ingestion process, data ingestion service 534 may also process and prepare the data (e.g., by altering the data) in various ways. ” The audit log data and other cloud data being ingested by the data ingestion service through unpacking, buffering, processing, and preparation correlates to decoding the first resource into metadata ) ; parsing the metadata into related configuration items (Col. 84, lines 50-66, “ Once processed by data ingestion service 534, audit log data 522 and other cloud data 524 (e.g., agent-collected data 532 implementing other cloud data 524-1 in this example) may be used for data modeling in the ways described herein. To illustrate, a data model 526-1 is shown that, as indicated by the reference number, represents a specific type of data model 526 used in this example. Specifically, as shown, data model 526-1 is implemented as a polygraph 536 (or other suitable graph described herein) that comprises a plurality of node points 537 (also referred to herein simply as “nodes”) connected by a plurality of edges 538. Each node point 537 (the shaded circles in polygraph 536) of the plurality of node points 537 may represent a logical entity, while each edge 538 (the arrows connecting the node points in polygraph 536) of the plurality of edges 538 may represent a behavioral relationship between node points 537 connected by the edge 538. ” The processed audit log or other cloud data being used to create a polygraph which identifies each node point as a logical entity correlates to parsing the metadata into related configuration items ) ; and determining relationship links between the related configuration items to create an application model (Col. 84, lines 50-66, “ Once processed by data ingestion service 534, audit log data 522 and other cloud data 524 (e.g., agent-collected data 532 implementing other cloud data 524-1 in this example) may be used for data modeling in the ways described herein. To illustrate, a data model 526-1 is shown that, as indicated by the reference number, represents a specific type of data model 526 used in this example. Specifically, as shown, data model 526-1 is implemented as a polygraph 536 (or other suitable graph described herein) that comprises a plurality of node points 537 (also referred to herein simply as “nodes”) connected by a plurality of edges 538. Each node point 537 (the shaded circles in polygraph 536) of the plurality of node points 537 may represent a logical entity, while each edge 538 (the arrows connecting the node points in polygraph 536) of the plurality of edges 538 may represent a behavioral relationship between node points 537 connected by the edge 538. ” The processed audit log or other cloud data being used to create a data model implemented as a polygraph with nodes and edges representing behavioral relationships between nodes correlates to determining relationship links between the related configuration items to create an application model ) . With regards to Claim s 11 and 20 , the method of Claim 1 perform s the same steps as the machine s of Claim s 11 and 20 respectively , and Claim s 11 and 20 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 . With regards to Claim 8 , Sobrier teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Sobrier further teach es : comparing the application model with a reference model to determine differences there between (Col. 28, lines 4-11 and 29-31,“ Each hour (or any other predetermined time interval) after bootstrap, a new snapshot is taken (i.e., data collected about a datacenter in the last hour is processed) and information from the new snapshot is merged with existing data to create and (as additional data is collected/processed) maintain a cumulative graph. The cumulative graph (also referred to herein as a cumulative PType graph and a polygraph) is a running model of how processes behave over time … Next, PType clusters in the snapshot's graph are compared against PType clusters in the cumulative graph to identify commonality. ” The PType clusters in the snapshot graph being compared to the PType clusters in the cumulative graph to identify commonality, where the graphs can be polygraph models, correlates to comparing the application model with a reference model to determine differences) and, upon the differences being non-null, performing a restorative action (Col. 61 , lines 23-34 ,“ In some embodiments, the deployments that are analyzed, monitored, evaluated, or otherwise observed by the systems described herein (e.g., systems that include components such as the platform 12 of FIG. 1D, the data collection agents described herein, and/or other components) may be monitored to determine the extent to which a particular component has experienced “drift” relative to its associated IaC configuration. Discrepancies between how cloud resources were defined in an IaC configuration file and how they are currently configured in runtime may be identified and remediation workflows may be initiated to generate an alert, reconfigure the deployment, or take some other action . ” Discrepancies between how the cloud resources were defined in a configuration file and their current state being identified correlates to the differences being non-null. The remediation workflows being initiated to reconfigure the deployment or other actions correlates to performing a restorative action ) . With regards to Claim 1 8 , the method of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 1 8 , and Claim 1 8 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 . With regards to Claim 9, Sobrier teaches the method of Claim 8 above. Sobrier further teaches: wherein the restorative action comprises initiating an application programming interface (API) call to the containerized platform to deploy a template to attenuate the differences between the reference model and the application model (Col. 61, lines 23-34,“ In some embodiments, the deployments that are analyzed, monitored, evaluated, or otherwise observed by the systems described herein (e.g., systems that include components such as the platform 12 of FIG. 1D, the data collection agents described herein, and/or other components) may be monitored to determine the extent to which a particular component has experienced “drift” relative to its associated IaC configuration. Discrepancies between how cloud resources were defined in an IaC configuration file and how they are currently configured in runtime may be identified and remediation workflows may be initiated to generate an alert, reconfigure the deployment, or take some other action . ” The IaC configuration file correlates to a template. The remediation workflows being initiated to reconfigure the deployment, which utilizes an IaC configuration file and at least one API, correlates to the restorative action initiating an API call to deploy a template to attenuate the differences between the models) . With regards to Claim 19 , the method of Claim 9 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 19 , and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 9 . 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) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobrier in view of Alluboyina et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20210103499 A1 ), hereinafter “ Alluboyina .” With regards to Claim 2, Sobrier teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Sobrier does not explicitly teach: wherein accessing the first resource from the containerized platform comprises obtaining a listing of Helm secrets returned by querying the first resource from the containerized platform with filters, the filters comprising "type=helm.sh/release.v1" and "status=deployed". However, Alluboyina teaches: wherein accessing the first resource from the containerized platform comprises obtaining a listing of Helm secrets returned by querying the first resource from the containerized platform with filters (Paragraphs 344, 346, 348, “ The Helm chart 3902 may further define such objects as services, service accounts, secrets, config maps, and other objects that may be used to define a stateful set 3904 and replica set 3906 as known in the art … FIG. 40 is a process flow diagram of a method 4000 for creating a snapshot of an application 3900 implemented according to a Helm chart 3902. The method 4000 may be executed by the orchestration layer 1300, i.e. a computing device executing the orchestration layer 1300, or some other module that may be executing on a different computing device … The method 4000 may include obtaining 4004 the states of all objects of the application 3900. This may include acquiring information describing some or all of the objects 3904-3914 of the application 3900. This may include, for each object, information such as the type (stateful set, replica set, pod, container, secret, config map, service, service account, etc.) of the object, an identifier of the object, configuration information for the object (identifiers of pods of a stateful or replica set, identifiers of containers managed by a pod, type of a container, identifier of an application instance executed by a container, an identifier of a computing node (e.g. a node 106, 110) hosting the object, or other information). ” The orchestration layer obtaining the states of all objects in the Helm application, which include secrets, correlates to accessing the first resource from the containerized platform comprises obtaining a listing of Helm secrets. The orchestration layer obtaining the states of all objects for the particular application 3900 correlates to obtaining a listing of Helm secrets returned by querying the first resource from the containerized platform with filters ) , the filters comprising "type=helm.sh/release.v1" and "status=deployed" (Paragraphs 286 and 348, “ Note further that a snapshot may be a partial snapshot such that the steps of the method 3100 are performed only for those objects implicated by the instruction, e.g. specific classes of objects, objects in a particular domain or workgroup, objects in some other subset of objects of the application as defined by a human operator, or objects for a single orchestrator (e.g., orchestration layer 1300 or Kubernetes installation 2600) … The method 4000 may include obtaining 4004 the states of all objects of the application 3900. This may include acquiring information describing some or all of the objects 3904-3914 of the application 3900. This may include, for each object, information such as the type (stateful set, replica set, pod, container, secret, config map, service, service account, etc.) of the object, an identifier of the object, configuration information for the object (identifiers of pods of a stateful or replica set, identifiers of containers managed by a pod, type of a container, identifier of an application instance executed by a container, an identifier of a computing node (e.g. a node 106, 110) hosting the object, or other information). ” The method obtaining states of objects which include an identifier hosting the object or application instanced executed by the container requires the application to be deployed and therefore correlates to the filter comprising a deployed status. The states of objects comprising configuration information such as stateful sets and various identifiers correlates to filters comprising "type=helm.sh/release.v1" ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sobrier with wherein accessing the first resource from the containerized platform comprises obtaining a listing of Helm secrets returned by querying the first resource from the containerized platform with filters, the filters comprising "type=helm.sh/release.v1" and "status=deployed" as taught by Alluboyina because snapshot objects can include state information which can be stored for later use, such as on a storage node, remote storage device, or cloud storage system as a backup. These snapshots can be used to roll back an application previously created. Snapshot information can also be used to restore topologies of the application ( Alluboyina : paragraph s 349 and 354 ). With regards to Claim 12 , the method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 12 , and Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 . Claim (s) 3 - 6 and 13 -1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobrier in view of Gonczi et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20200241941 A1 ), hereinafter “ Gonczi ” and O’Grady et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20240385868 A1 ), hereinafter “ O’Grady .” With regards to Claim 3, Sobrier teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Sobrier does not explicitly teach: wherein decoding the first resource into metadata comprises decoding the first resource utilizing a decoding library provided with the first resource and obtaining, as an output from the decoding library, compressed binary metadata. However, Gonczi teaches: wherein decoding the first resource into metadata comprises decoding the first resource utilizing a decoding library and obtaining, as an output from the decoding library, compressed binary metadata (Paragraphs 117-118, “ Following the compression, in illustrative embodiments, the Z-MSG is now binary data that utilizes all 8-bits of the byte. For example, a deflate algorithm may be used to compress the message 422 into Z-MSG. Any other compression algorithm may be used to generate Z-MSG. In some embodiments, for example, an off-the-shelf compression library and algorithm to compress or decompress a message may be utilized. For example, data may be passed into the algorithm, and compressed data may be obtained as an output or vice versa. The Deflate compression algorithm is an example of a generally known, accepted, and used compression algorithm that may be utilized in illustrative embodiments. ” The Z-MSG being compressed by a compression library and converted to a binary data format correlates to decoding the first resource using a decoding library and obtaining compressed binary metadata as an output) . Gonczi does not explicitly teach that the library [is] provided with the first resource . However, a library provided with the first resource is a popular method of data transfer as evidenced by O’Grady ( Paragraph 45, “ The blockchain engine 250 may share or provide features and resources with the client device, including data, libraries, and/or applications retrieved with blockchain engine 250 (e.g., development application 222). ” The blockchain engine sharing or providing resources with the client device such as data and libraries correlates to the library being provided with the first resource ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sobrier with wherein decoding the first resource into metadata comprises decoding the first resource utilizing a decoding library and obtaining, as an output from the decoding library, compressed binary metadata as taught by Gonczi because compression provides numerous benefits to the system including improved network performance and strengthened encryption. When messages are compressed, less data is sent on the queues and therefore faster response times may be achieved ( Gonczi : paragraph 119 ). Additionally , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sobrier with a library provided with the first resource as taught by O’Grady because libraries are relevant resources associated with data for applications and allow a user to perform scripts and other routines ( O’Grady : paragraph 45 ). With regards to Claim 13 , the method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 13 , and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 . With regards to Claim 4, Sobrier in view of Gonczi and O’Grady teaches the method of Claim 3 above. Gonczi further teaches: decompressing the compressed binary metadata with a decompression library and receiving therefrom a JavaScript Object Notation string (JSON string) (Paragraphs 117 and 145, “ At 410, the message 422 may be compressed prior to encryption to generate a compressed message (Z-MSG). For example, in illustrative embodiments, the message 422 may initially be in a clear text format such as, e.g., JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format or a simple American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) text format using 7 bits of an 8-bit byte … At 630, the Z-MSG is expanded to generate the RAW MESSAGE, for example, using an INFLATE(Z-MSG) command which may, for example, be included as part of the deflate algorithm mentioned above. For example, the inflate command reverses the compression performed at step 410. ” The Z-MSG being inflated to reverse the compression and generate a raw message, which includes a text JSON format, correlates to decompressing th e compressed binary metadata with a decompression library and receiving a JSON string ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sobrier with decompressing the compressed binary metadata with a decompression library and receiving therefrom a JavaScript Object Notation string (JSON string) as taught by Gonczi because compression provides numerous benefits to the system including improved network performance and strengthened encryption. When messages are compressed, less data is sent on the queues and therefore faster response times may be achieved . For example, where a message contains a JSON format, there is a repetitive syntax which generally includes a lot of white space for readability purposes. Compression generally reduces the size of such objects by removing or condensing the white space, where the more complex the object, the greater the return on compression ( Gonczi : paragraph s 119 -120 ). With regards to Claim 14 , the method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 14 , and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 . With regards to Claim 5, Sobrier in view of Gonczi and O’Grady teaches the method of Claim 4 above. Sobrier further teaches: wherein determining the relationship links between the related configuration items to create the application model further comprises parsing the data and obtaining therefrom application data and infrastructure data (Col. 83, lines 42-57, “ Before being used to generate a data model 526, implementation 530 illustrates another detail that was not explicitly shown in FIG. 5B: audit log data 522 and other cloud data 524-1 may be ingested by way of a data ingestion service 534. Data ingestion service 534 may be implemented within network 518, within data platform 520, or by a separate and standalone device or process. Data ingestion service 534 may implement communication protocols and be configured to arrange for the data 522 and 524 to be obtained in any suitable way (e.g., by requesting the data if necessary, by unpacking and buffering the data, by storing the data temporarily or persistently where it can be used for data modeling and other processes, etc.). As part of this ingestion process, data ingestion service 534 may also process and prepare the data (e.g., by altering the data) in various ways. ” The audit log data and other cloud data being ingested by the data ingestion service through unpacking, buffering, processing, and preparation correlates to parsing the data and obtaining application and infrastructure data) . Sobrier does not explicitly teach that the data is a JSON string . However, JSON string[s] are a popular data format as evidenced by Gonczi above ( Paragraph 117, “ At 410, the message 422 may be compressed prior to encryption to generate a compressed message (Z-MSG). For example, in illustrative embodiments, the message 422 may initially be in a clear text format such as, e.g., JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format or a simple American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) text format using 7 bits of an 8-bit byte .” The message initially being a clear text format such as JSON format correlates to the data being a JSON string ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sobrier with parsing the JSON string as taught by Gonczi because compression provides numerous benefits to the system including improved network performance and strengthened encryption. When messages are compressed, less data is sent on the queues and therefore faster response times may be achieved . For example, where a message contains a JSON format, there is a repetitive syntax which generally includes a lot of white space for readability purposes. Compression generally reduces the size of such objects by removing or condensing the white space, where the more complex the object, the greater the return on compression ( Gonczi : paragraph s 119-120 ). With regards to Claim 15 , the method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 15 , and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 . With regards to Claim 6, Sobrier in view of Gonczi and O’Grady teaches the method of Claim 5 above. Sobrier further teaches: converting the application data and the infrastructure data into configuration data and relationship links interconnecting the related configuration items (Col. 84, lines 50-66, “ Once processed by data ingestion service 534, audit log data 522 and other cloud data 524 (e.g., agent-collected data 532 implementing other cloud data 524-1 in this example) may be used for data modeling in the ways described herein. To illustrate, a data model 526-1 is shown that, as indicated by the reference number, represents a specific type of data model 526 used in this example. Specifically, as shown, data model 526-1 is implemented as a polygraph 536 (or other suitable graph described herein) that comprises a plurality of node points 537 (also referred to herein simply as “nodes”) connected by a plurality of edges 538. Each node point 537 (the shaded circles in polygraph 536) of the plurality of node points 537 may represent a logical entity, while each edge 538 (the arrows connecting the node points in polygraph 536) of the plurality of edges 538 may represent a behavioral relationship between node points 537 connected by the edge 538. ” The processed audit log or other cloud data correlates to the application and infrastructure data. The processed data being used to create a polygraph with nodes and edges representing behavioral relationships between nodes correlates to converting application and infrastructure data into configuration data and relationship links between the related configuration items ) . With regards to Claim 16 , the method of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 16 , and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 . Claim (s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobrier in view of Jensen et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20240028416 A1 ), hereinafter “Jensen” and Karr et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20210019093 A1 ), hereinafter “ Karr .” With regards to Claim 7, Sobrier teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Sobrier further teaches: wherein the containerized platform comprises a container orchestrator selected from a group of container orchestrators comprising Kubernetes (Col. 76, lines 22-36 and Col. 81, lines 38-41, “ For instance, in examples in which the container o