Detailed Action This action is in response to application filed on 09/21/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1- 20 are pending. Claims 1- 20 are rejected. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings submitted on 09/21/2023 are accepted. 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 is directed t o A method comprising: performing, by a computing device , a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple sources, the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, and a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space; extracting, by the computing device , key patterns from the data to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and performing, by the computing device , a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns utilizing a threshold formatter to identify a threshold for a health check . Per prong 1, Step 2A , the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships mathematical formulas or equations , mathematical calculations For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method comprising performing mentally a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple sources, the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, and mentally using dimensionality reduction process (e.g. mathematical concepts) that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space; mentally and/or via pen paper extracting, key patterns from the data to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns; and mentally performing, a post-analysis process on the extracted key patterns utilizing a threshold formatter /human mind to identify a threshold for a health check . Per prong 2, Step 2A , the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “ computing device ”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “ computing device ”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 8, and 15 are product and system claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 8, and 15 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 8, and 15 . In particular, As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the health check is utilized for discovering an exception in a virtual machine instance (VMI) creation process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites wherein the health check is utilized to predict whether a VMI can be successfully created in advance. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements ) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and /or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, further recites wherein a runtime log is provided as input to a failed pattern filter that determines whether the runtime log passes the failed pattern filter . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein upon the runtime pattern filter passing the runtime log , a timer reset check determines whether a next normal pattern is reached based on a second threshold. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a health check agent is generated for a plurality of system components for the pre-analysis process and the post-analysis process. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h) . Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the health check is applied to a runtime log in each of the multiple sources. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, M ental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper . Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B , the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Claims 9-14 , and 16-20 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claim 2-7 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 9-14 , and 16-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 2-7 . Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1, 6- 8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. ( US 20190065343 A1 , referred hereinafter as D1 ) in view of Dutta et al. ( US 20240098099 A1 , referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Effern et al. ( US 11831525 B1 , referred hereinafter as D3). As per claim 1, D1 discloses, A method comprising , (D1, title). performing, by a computing device, a pre-analysis process utilizing a collected log from multiple [sessions] , (D1, fig 2, 0032, shows/discloses system/computing device performing parsing a collected log from multiple sessions in to plurality of data sets). the pre-analysis process including a data formatter that identifies data based on a metric, (D1, fig 2, 0032, 0034, shows/discloses system/computing device performing parsing a collected log from multiple sessions in to plurality of data sets, and extracting from data set values a s specified/based on set of parameters). and a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space , (D1, fig 2, 0032- 0036 , shows/discloses system/computing device encoding feature values and converting to vectors (e.g. construed as distributes value into n- dimensional space/vector) ). extracting, by the computing device, key patterns from the data to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns , (D1, fig 2, 0032-00 45 , shows/discloses that system of D1 extracting, key patterns ( e.g. extracted sessions vectors corresponding to errors , and calculating clusters based on extracted session vectors/matrices) from the data to separate a normal status and an abnormal status for the extracted key patterns ). and performing, by the computing device, a post-analysis process on …, (D1, fig 2, 3D, 0032-0045, 0051 shows/discloses that system of D1 performing, a post-analysis process on live data to make prediction for new errors to may occ ur. ). D1 fails to expressly disclose - log from multiple sources . D2 (0028-0029 , figures 14-17 ) discloses processing data log from multiple sources (e.g. NFs), and also/additionally discloses a dimensionality reduction process that distributes the data into an n-dimensional space. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 . This would have been obvious with predicable results of additionally collecting log data from plurality of sources, and thereafter reducing number of metrics to reduced dimension metrics in order to reduce amount of computing resource needed process/analyze data as disclosed by D2 (0021-0027). D1 discloses extracted patterns; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [processing data ] utilizing a threshold formatter to identify a threshold for a health check. D 3 ( col. 4 lines, 20-col. 5 line 1-13, figure 1, 9 ) discloses processing data utilizing a threshold formatter /generator to identify a threshold/score to be used for determining past/future anomaly in order check health of systems/application. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D 3 . This would have been obvious with predicable results of determining appropriate threshold for efficiently and dynamically determining / classifying data set as an anomaly as disclosed by D3 (col. 2, lines 14-19). As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein a health check agent is generated for a plurality of system components for … the post-analysis process , (D1, fig 2, 3D, 0032-0045, 0051 shows/discloses that training prediction model to monitor log of one or more applications, and predict errors). D1 fails to expressly disclose – [agent] for the pre-analysis process. D2 (fig. 3) discloses generating agent/model (see, figure 3, element 330) for the pre-analysis process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 . This would have been obvious with predicable results of reducing number metrics to reduced dimension metrics in order to reduce amount of computing resource needed process/analyze data as disclosed by D2 (0021-0027). As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein the health check is applied to a runtime log in each of [application], (D1, fig 2, 3D, 0032-0045, 0051 shows/discloses that system of D1 performing, a post-analysis process using trained model on live data to make prediction for new errors to may occur.). D1 fails to expressly disclose - the multiple sources . D2 (0028-0029, figures 14-17) discloses data log from multiple sources (e.g. NFs). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 . This would have been obvious with predicable results of additionally collecting log data from plurality of sources as disclosed by D2. Claims 8, 13-15, and 20 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claim s 1, and 6-7 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim s 1, and 6-7. Claim 2 , 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. ( US 20190065343 A1 , referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Dutta et al. ( US 20240098099 A1 , referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Effern et al. ( US 11831525 B1 , referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Gan et al. ( US 20190354675 A1 , referred hereinafter as D4). As per claim 2 , the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein the health check is utilized for discovering an exception in [live applications], (D1, fig 2, 3D, 0032-0045, 0051 shows/discloses that system of D1 performing, a post-analysis process on live data to make prediction for new errors to may occur.). D1 fails to expressly disclose - a virtual machine instance (VMI) creation process. D 4 (fig. 8) discloses detecting errors in a virtual machine instance (VMI) creation /start process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D4 . This would have obvious with predicable results of detecting corrupted virtual machines and preventing a compromised virtual machine from corrupting the deployed system as disclosed by D4 (0115). Claims 9, and 16 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claim 2, and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 9, and 16 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 2. Claim 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. ( US 20190065343 A1 , referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Dutta et al. ( US 20240098099 A1 , referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Effern et al. ( US 11831525 B1 , referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Gan et al. ( US 20190354675 A1 , referred hereinafter as D4) in view of RAMASWAMY et al. ( US 20240419504 A1 , referred hereinafter as D5). As per claim 3 , the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein the health check is utilized to predict whether a [new error has occurred], (D1, fig 2, 3D, 0032-0045, 0051 shows/discloses that system of D1 performing, a post-analysis process on live data to make prediction for new errors to may occur.). D1 fails to expressly disclose - VMI can be successfully created in advance. D 5 ( 0049 ) discloses using c apacity predictions to determine if VMI can be successfully created in advance . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D 5 . This would have obvious with predicable result s of i ncreas ing V M creation success rate as disclosed by D5 (0049). Claims 10 , and 17 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claim 3 , and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 10, and 17 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 3 . Claim 4 , 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. ( US 20190065343 A1 , referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Dutta et al. ( US 20240098099 A1 , referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Effern et al. ( US 11831525 B1 , referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Gan et al. ( US 20190354675 A1 , referred hereinafter as D4) in view of RAMASWAMY et al. ( US 20240419504 A1 , referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Caldwell, Jr. et al ( US 12130830 B1 , referred hereinafter as D6). As per claim 4 , the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D1 discloses, wherein a runtime log is provided as input to a [model] that determines whether the runtime log [includes errors], (D1, fig 2, 3D, 0032-0045, 0051 shows/discloses that system of D1 performing, a post-analysis process on live data using trained model to make prediction for new errors to may occur.). D1 fails to expressly disclose - failed pattern filter… [data] passes the failed pattern filter . D6 ( col. 7, lines 4-7 ) discloses using filter to pass data to file which reads on failed pattern filter… [data] passes the failed pattern filter . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D 6 . This would have obvious with predicable result s of extracting certain data in for further processing as disclosed by D6. Claims 11 , and 1 8 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claim 4 , and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 11, and 18 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 4 . Claim 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. ( US 20190065343 A1 , referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Dutta et al. ( US 20240098099 A1 , referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Effern et al. ( US 11831525 B1 , referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Gan et al. ( US 20190354675 A1 , referred hereinafter as D4) in view of RAMASWAMY et al. ( US 20240419504 A1 , referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Caldwell, Jr. et al ( US 12130830 B1 , referred hereinafter as D6) in view of Funes ( US 20160139575 A1 , referred hereinafter as D7). As per claim 5 : The rejection of claim 4 further incorporated. D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein upon the runtime pattern filter passing the runtime log . D6 ( col. 7, lines 4-7 ) discloses using filter to pass data to file which reads on failed pattern filter… [data] passes the failed pattern filter . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D6 . This would have obvious with predicable result s of extracting certain data in for further processing as disclosed by D6. D1 fails to expressly disclose - a timer reset check determines whether a next normal pattern is reached based on a second threshold. D 7 ( 0134) discloses a timer reset check/system of D7 determines whether a next normal pattern is reached based on a second threshold. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D7 . This would have obvious with predicable result s detecting normal and/or abnormal data disclosed by D7 (0134). Claims 12 , and 1 9 are product and medium claims corresponding to method claim 4 , and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 12, and 19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 5 . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. MECHANISM TO ALLOW FOR MONITORING OF DISCONNECTED COMPONENTS IN CONTAINER ORCHESTRATION SYSTEMS Document ID US 20250123872 A1 Date Published 2025-04-17 Abstract The disclosure provides a method for monitoring a disconnected component in a container orchestration system. The method generally includes obtaining, by an abstraction layer, monitoring data associated with the component while the component is connected to a network, wherein the abstraction layer comprises at least one proxy component acting as a proxy for the component in the container orchestration system; intercepting, by the abstraction layer, a query intended for the component, wherein the query originated from one or more monitoring agents configured to continuously monitor at least the component; and responding to the query based on the monitoring data obtained by the abstraction layer for the component. DYNAMIC DEBUGGER MANAGEMENT HELPER SERVICE Document ID US 20250028622 A1 Date Published 2025-01-23 Abstract Aspects of the present invention monitor at least one microservice within a container module for a failure; collect logged data in response to the at least one microservice having the failure; check the logged data to determine that an existing tree is not built for the logged data; perform telemetry tracing on the at least one microservice in response to the existing tree not being built for the logged data; collect logged tracing data based on performing the telemetry tracing on the at least one microservice; visualize an actual flow of the collected logged tracing data; and fix the at least one microservice based on the visualized actual flow the collected logged tracing data. METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL ROOT CAUSES OF PROBLEMS IN A DATA CENTER USING LOG STREAMS Document ID US 20210382770 A1 Date Published 2021-12-09 Abstract Automated methods and systems described herein are directed to identifying potential root causes of a problem in a data center. Methods and systems receipt an alert or other notification of a problem occurring in a data center and a time when the problem was noticed. A search window is created based on the time and a stream of log messages generated in the search window is converted into a time dependent metric. An anomaly detection technique is applied to the metric to determine a start time of a problem. Logging events and key phrases in the log messages are identified in the search window and presented as potential root causes of the problem. The potential root cause may then be used by system administrators and/or tenants to diagnose the problem and execute remedial measures to correct the problem. See form 892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young , can be reached on 571-270-3180 FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form . /MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194