DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below. Step 1: Claims 1 -5 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 6-10 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 11-15 are directed to computer-readable storage media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 1: Clai ms 1 , 6, and 11 : The limitation of “ determine if the request requires a data context…,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can examine a request and determine from it whether data is required from another location. Therefore, Yes , claim s 1 , 6, and 11 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1 , 6, and 11 : The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim s recite the following additional elements – “ a processor,” “a data orchestrator comprising a program of instructions,” “a plurality of host systems including a first host system and a second host system,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “computer-executable instructions,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1 , 6, and 11 recite the following additional element s – “ receive a request from a first workload container…,” which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and “couple a stream of data…,” which is merely a recitation to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus does not which do es not integrate a judicial exception into practical application , which will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No , these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim s 1 , 6, and 11 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application. Step 2B: Claims 1 , 6, and 11 : The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “ receive a request from a first workload container… ” is a positively recited step of receiving data, this would be insignificant extra-solution data gathering which is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “ The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ”). Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No , these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 , 6, and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . C laims 2- 5, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on the above rejected claims but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the claims on which they depend . Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements. Claims 2-5 , 7-10, and 12-15 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim s 1 , 6, and 11 into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, c laims 1 - 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0391494 A1, hereinafter Yang ) . As per claim 1 , Yang teaches the limitations as claimed, including a n information handling system the information handling system comprising: a processor (Figure 1A, Elements 130) ; and a data orchestrator comprising a program of instructions configured to, when read and executed by the processor (Paragraph [0046]) , in a distributed ecosystem comprising a plurality of host systems including a first host system and a second host system (Figure 1A) : receive a request from a first workload container executing on the first host system and associated with a user session (Paragraph [0079]; Paragraph [0140] teaches a user session) ; determine if the request requires a data context of a second workload container executing on the second host system and associated with the user session (Paragraph [0079]) ; and if the request requires a data context of a second workload container executing on the second host system, couple a stream of data associated with the data context from the second workload container and the first workload container (Paragraph [0079]) . As per claim 6 , it is a method claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. As per claim 11 , it is an article of manufacture claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 2 , 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ibryam ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0035646 A1 ) . As per claim 2 , Yang does not expressly teach that the request from the first workload container is received via a sidecar sink container executing on the first host system. However, Ibryam teaches that the request from the first workload container is received via a sidecar sink container executing on the first host system (Paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Ibryam with those of Yang in order to allow for Yang’s system to more efficiently transfer data, which could increase the reliability of the system, thereby potentially increasing adoption from prospective users. As per claim 3 , Ibryam teaches that the sidecar sink container and the first workload container are integral to a pod of containers such that the sidecar sink container is dedicated to the first workload container (Figure 2). As per claim s 7 and 8 , they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. As per claim s 1 2 and 13 , they are article of manufacture claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7762 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bradley Teets can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3338 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GREGORY A KESSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197