DETAILED ACTION 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- 14 are pending. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: -- AI -- is abbreviated without reciting the full form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: -- AP -- is abbreviated without reciting full form in line 7 page 37. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 1, 5 of co - pending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 18/568,843 (hereafter '843 ) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" replacement pattern includes application ID ([0226]-[0229] . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Instant Invention Co-pending Application ( ‘843 ) An execution platform determination system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory device storing instruction which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: A replace system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least processor to perform operations comprising: constructing each of a plurality of applications on any one of a plurality of execution platforms; identifying, for each of a plurality of execution platforms on which an application to be added is executable, an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms; identifying, for each of the plurality of the execution platforms, an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of the execution platforms; identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, a predicted value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms obtained in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms based on the actual result value relating to the each of the plurality of execution platforms; identifying, for each of a plurality of replacement patterns, based on the actual result value, a leveling index value indicating , in a case in which at least one of the applications has been replaced onto another one of the execution platforms, at least one of a degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the another one of the execution platforms of a replacement destination or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms; identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, based on the predicted value, a leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, at least one of a degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms; and determining, based on the leveling index value identified for each of the plurality of the replacement patterns, a replacement pattern relating to replacement to be executed; and determining, based on the leveling index value, one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed from among the plurality of the execution platforms. replacing at least one of the applications based on the determined replacement pattern. 5 . The replace system according to claim 1, the operations further comprise identifying, for an addition-scheduled execution platform on which an application is to be added among the plurality of the execution platforms, a predicted value of the resource usage status on the addition-scheduled execution platform in a case in which the application has been constructed on the addition-scheduled execution platforms. wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on the identified predicted value. As illustrated in above table, Claim 1 of instant application are rejected on over claim s 1 and 5 of US co-pending application (‘843). Claim 1 of instant application is directed to an application while co-pending application ‘843 is directed to a replacement pattern. Replacement pattern is associated with application ([0226]-[0229]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention that the replacement pattern as recited in co-pending application ‘843 corresponds to the application recited in the instant invention. Therefore, a lthough the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. The following terms lack proper antecedent basis: -- the same -- in claim 3 line 4. The following claim language is not clearly understood: Claim 1 recites “application to be added ”, and later recites “application has been constructed ”. It is unclear what is meant by adding or constructing the application i.e. is the claim directed to installing/deploying / executing of the application on the execution platform. Applicant is requested to use the terms consistently. Claim 1 recites “degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the each of plurality of execution platforms or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of execution platforms”. It is unclear what is being referred by “among the plurality” and how is it different from “each of the plurality”. Claim 1 recites “ identifying, for each of a plurality of execution platforms on which an application to be added is executable , an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms”. It is unclear if the application is executed on the platform or not. It is also unclear if the execution platform is executable or application is executable or both are executable. Claim 1 recites “ actual result value of a resource usage status”. It is unclear if the term is referring to a resource usage for running the application on a platform or a different actual result quantity. Claim 1 recites “ predicted value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms obtained in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platform”. It is unclear if the resource usage status corresponding to the execution of the application or construction of the application. Claim 1 recites “predicted value … based on actual result value”. It is unclear if the prediction is based on actual result value or the based on previous actual result value. Claim 2 recites “ respective applications ” while claim 1 recites “an application”. It is unclear if a single application is being executed on multiple different platform for usage or multiple application is being executed on m ultiple different platform. Claim 4 recites “period types ” without clearly reciting what are different types of a period. Claim 5 recites “ smallness of the variation”. Smallness is a relative term and therefore is not definite. Claim 8 recites “application has been arranged on the each of the plurality of the execution platform”. It is unclear what is being referred by arranging the application. Claim 14 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2- 13 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims. * Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim. 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 -1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application. Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post- Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1 -1 4 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Me ntal process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “ determining execution platform for an application based on a levelling index value, wherein the leveling index value is indicative of degree of leveling of predicted resource usage, and wherein predicted resource usage value is based on actual resource usage value ” at a high level of generality . Step 1 As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 1 recites a system comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 14 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id . Step 2A Prong One As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Claim Elements i. 1. An execution platform determination system, comprising: intended use ii. at least one processor; and at least one memory device storing instruction which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: generic computing iii. identifying, for each of a plurality of execution platforms on which an application to be added is executable, an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms; information gathering iv. identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, a predicted value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms obtained in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms based on the actual result value relating to the each of the plurality of execution platforms; mental process abstract idea v identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, based on the predicted value, a leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, at least one of a degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms; and mental process abstract idea vi determining, based on the leveling index value, one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed from among the plurality of the execution platforms. mental process abstract idea The overall process described by steps [i v ]-[vi] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [i v ]-[vi] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id . For example, step [i v ] recites “ identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, a predicted value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms obtained in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms based on the actual result value relating to the each of the plurality of execution platforms ”, which is directed to identify predicted values based on actual resource usage v alue, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind , according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Claim 1 in step [v] recites “ identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, based on the predicted value, a leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, at least one of a degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms ”, which is directed to determining degree of leveling index value or resource usage status of either each of plurality of execution platform or among the plurality of execution platforms based the predicted value, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind , according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Claim 1 in step [vi ] recites “ determining, based on the leveling index value, one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed from among the plurality of the execution platforms ”, which is d irected to determining one of the platform based on the leveling index values of the plurality of execution platform , which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind , according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim . Therefore, steps [iv]-[vi] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper " to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception of mental process . For these same reasons, claim 14 recites judicial exception of mental process . Step 2A, Prong Two As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception . Because claims 1 and 14 recite a judicial exception of mental process , Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[ii i ]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “ a n execution platform determination system ”, which recites a system with intended use and is generic and is not considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “ at least one processor; and at least one memory device storing instruction which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations ”, which is directed to generic computing components, as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art . Claim 1 in step [iii] recites “ identifying, for each of a plurality of execution platforms on which an application to be added is executable, an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms ”, which is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest interpretation of claim elements. Information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology and /or technical field. The s pecification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[iii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i]-[iii] , under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception of mental process without integrating into practical application . For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claim 14 is also recites judicial exception o f mental process without integrating into practical application . Step 2B As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because claims 1 and 14 are directed to judicial exception of mental process without integrating into practical application , analysis must determine, according to Alice , whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception. T he Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states: In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states: A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element. Claim 1 in step [i] recites additional claim elements of “ an execution platform determination system”, whic h recites a system with intended use and is generic and do not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites additional claim elements of “ at least one processor; and at least one memory device storing instruction which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations ”, which is directed to generic computing components, as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art , and do not amount to significantly more . Claim 1 in step [iii] recites additional claim elements of “ identifying, for each of a plurality of execution platforms on which an application to be added is executable, an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms”, which is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest interpretation of claim elements. Information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity. The specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[iii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power , 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output . Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp. , 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC , 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”). Thus, Claims 1 and 14 , under broadest reasonable interpretation, directed to mental process abstract idea without i ntegrat ing into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Dependent claim 2 recites “ wherein identifying the actual result value comprises identifying a total sum of actual result values of resource usage statuses in respective applications executed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms as the actual result value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms ”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper , according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Dependent claim 3 recites “ wherein identifying the predicted value comprises identifying the predicted value based on the actual result value of the resource usage status in a running application of the same type as the type of the application to be added ”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Dependent claim 4 recites “ wherein identifying the predicted value comprises identifying predicted values for respective period types, and wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on the predicted values for the respective period types ”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Dependent claim 5 recites “ wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in the case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, a variation in the predicted values for the respective period types on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, and wherein determining comprises determining , based on smallness of the variation indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Dependent claim 6 recites “w herein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in the case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the predicted values for the respective period types on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, and wherein determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the difference indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims Dependent claim 7 recites “ wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying, for each of the plurality of the execution platforms, the leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been arranged on the each of the plurality of the execution platforms, a variation in the predicted values of the resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms, and wherein determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the variation indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Dependent claim 8 recites “ wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, the leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been arranged on the each of the plurality of the execution platforms, a total sum of absolute values of differences between the predicted values of the resource usage statuses on the respective plurality of execution platforms and a predetermined value, and wherein determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the total sum of the absolute values of the differences indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed , which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims . Dependent claim 9 recites “ the operations further comprise constructing the application on the determined one of the plurality of execution platforms ”, which is deploying the application on the platform and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology and/or technical field, and also do not amount to significantly more because deploying application is well-understood, routine and conventional as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Dependent claim 10 recites “ wherein the execution platform is a Kubernetes cluster ”, which describes the execution platform, without further imposing limitations on the claim in such a manner to make the claim patent eligible . Dependent claim 11 recites “ wherein the application is an application included in a communication system ”, which describes the application without further imposing limitations on the claim in such a manner to make the claim patent eligible. Dependent claim 12 recites “ wherein the application is a network function ”, w h ich describes the application without further imposing limitations on the claim in such a manner to make the claim patent eligible . Dependent claim 13 recites “ wherein the resource usage status is at least one of a usage status of a CPU, a usage status of a memory, a usage status of a storage, a usage status of a network, or a usage status of electric power ”, which only defines the resource usage status without further imposing limitations on the claim in such a manner to make the claim patent eligible . Therefore, the claim(s) 1-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more. 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. Claims 1-1 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2014/0325072 A1, hereafter Zhang) in view of Iwasa et al. (US 2021/0373968 A1, hereafter Iwasa ). Iwasa was cited in the IDS filed on 12/11/2023. As per claim 1, Zhang teaches the invention substantially as claimed including an execution platform determination system, comprising ([0011] execute, software programs, computing-related hardware resources [0031] computing nodes 120 for executing programs): at least one processor; and at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising ([0073]) : identifying, for each of a plurality of execution platforms on which an application to be added is executable ([0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425) , an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms ( [0081] actual program execution capacity that is available from computing node groups; fig. 5 515 [0090] obtains actual execution capacity usage values used during prior execution of computing node group [0046] fig. 2A CPU utilization, network bandwidth utilization [0042] different computing system, program with different types or resource criteria and/or computing resource usage ) ; identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, a predicted value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms obtained in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms based on the actual result value relating to the each of the plurality of execution platforms ([0091] use prior actual capacity usages to generate corresponding predicted execution capacity usage values; fig. 6 generate predicted execution capacity values for the computing node group based on the obtained values 620) ; identifying, f or eac h of the plurality of execution platforms, based on the predicted value ([0091] use prior actual capacity usages to generate corresponding predicted execution capacity usage values; fig. 6 620) , a leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, at least one of a degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms ([0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts ; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted da t a from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty rang e; fig. 8 835 840 ) ; and determining, based on the leveling index value, one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed from among the plurality of the execution platforms ([0106] generated predicted capacity information, enable later acquisition and/or provisioning of computing node for the computing node group [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncerta inty; deviation of the predicted da t a from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty rang e; fig. 8 835 84 0 ; particular computing node group, selected to be used in future [0024] automatically governing dynamic program execution capacity modifications based on predicted information, manage amount of work handled by each computing node [0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425 [0042] c omputing systems to select for executing particular programs [0043] particular computing node is selected to execute one or more programs ) . Zhang doesn’t specifically teach leveling. Iwasa, however, teaches levelling ([0017] load leveling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Iwasa of load levelling to improve efficiency, ease of use /description and allow levelling of the resource usage to the method of Zhang as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the load levelling as taught by Iwasa to the method of determining the prediction range for software program as taught by Zhang to yield predictable result with improved efficiency and ease of use/description. As per claim 2, Zhang teaches wherein identifying the actual result value comprises identifying a total sum of actual result values of resource usage statuses in respective applications executed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms as the actual result value of the resource usage status on the each of the plurality of execution platforms ([0081] actual program execution capacity that is available from computing node groups; fig. 5 515 [0090] obtains actual execution capacity usage values used during prior execution of computing node group [0046] fig. 2A CPU utilization, network bandwidth utilization [0042] different computing system, program with different types or resource criteria and/or computing resource usage [0026] total computing resources and program capacity of the group [0027] aggregate amount of one or more types of computing resources e.g. amounts of memory, hard drive space, CPU, network bandwidth ). As per claim 3 , Zhang teaches wherein identifying the predicted value comprises identifying the predicted value based on the actual result value of the resource usage status in a running application of the same type as the type of the application to be added ([0016] prediction, resource usage, historical information is assessed and adjusted to create predictions [0052] generating predicted time-series data based on assessing historical time-series data) . As per claim 4 , Zhang teaches wherein identifying the predicted value comprises identifying predicted values for respective period types ([0011] predictions, future time periods , one or more years, months or years [0101] time periods, days and/or month-of-year ) , and wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on the predicted values for the respective period types ( [0011] predictions, execution related capacity, future time period, months, years [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 [0101] time periods, days and/or month-of-year ) . Iwasa teaches remaining claim elements of levelling ([0017] load leveling). As per claim 5 , Zhang teaches wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in the case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, a variation in the predicted values for the respective period types on the each of the plurality of execution platforms ( [0011] predictions, execution related capacity, future time period, months, years [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 [0101] time periods, days and/or month-of-year ) , and wherein determining comprises determining , based on smallness of the variation indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ([0105] determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range [0090] deviating, mean/midpoint, threshold, standard deviation [0024] automatically governing dynamic program execution capacity modifications based on predicted information, manage amount of work handled by each computing node [0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425 [0042] c omputing systems to select for executing particular programs [0043] particular computing node is selected to execute one or more programs ) . Iwasa teaches remaining claim elements of smallness of the variation ([0116] standard deviation of these loads, load bias is larger than the predetermined reference standard deviation ). As per claim 6 , Zhang teaches wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in the case in which the application has been constructed on the each of the plurality of execution platforms, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the predicted values for the respective period types on the each of the plurality of execution platforms ([0011] predictions, execution related capacity, future time period, months, years [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 [ 0101] time periods, days and/or month-of-year ) , and wherein determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the difference indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ( [0105] determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range [0090] deviating, mean/midpoint, threshold, standard deviation [0024] automatically governing dynamic program execution capacity modifications based on predicted information, manage amount of work handled by each computing node [0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425 [0042] c omputing systems to select for executing particular programs [0043] particular computing node is selected to execute one or more programs ). Iwasa teaches remaining claim elements of smallness of the difference ([0116] standard deviation of these loads, load bias is larger than the predetermined reference standard deviation ). As per claim 7 , Zhang teaches w herein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying, for each of the plurality of the execution platforms, the leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been arranged on the each of the plurality of the execution platforms, a variation in the predicted values of the resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms ( [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 ) , and wherein determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the variation indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ( [0024] automatically governing dynamic program execution capacity modifications based on predicted information, manage amount of work handled by each computing node [0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425 [0042] c omputing systems to select for executing particular programs [0043] particular computing node is selected to execute one or more programs [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 ) . Iwasa teaches remaining claim elements of smallness of the difference ([0116] standard deviation of these loads, load bias is larger than the predetermined reference standard deviation ). As per claim 8 , Zhang teaches wherein identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying, for each of the plurality of execution platforms, the leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application has been arranged on the each of the plurality of the execution platforms, a total sum of absolute values of differences between the predicted values of the resource usage statuses on the respective plurality of execution platforms and a predetermined value ( [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 [0026] total computing resources and program capacity of the group [0027] aggregate amount of one or more types of computing resources e.g. amounts of memory, hard drive space, CPU, network bandwidth [0022] predicted, capacity, above current, capacity, specified threshold ) , and wherein determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the total sum of the absolute values of the differences indicated by the leveling index value, the one of the plurality of execution platforms on which the application is to be constructed ([0024] automatically governing dynamic program ex ecution capacity modifications based on predicted information, manage amount of work handled by each computing node [0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425 [0042] c omputing systems to select for executing particular programs [0043] particular computing node is selected to execute one or more programs [0105] upper and lower bounds for some or all predicted capacity usage amounts; uncertainty; deviation of the predicted data from actual data, tracked, determine the width of the prediction range, predicted value, varied, reflect type of software program e.g. standard deviation, percentile, uncertainty range; fig. 8 835 840 ) . Iwasa teaches remaining claim elements of smallness of the difference ([0116] standard deviation of these loads, load bias is larger than the predetermined reference standard deviation ). As per claim 9 , Zhang teach e s the operations further comprise constructing the application on the determined one of the plurality of execution platforms ( [0034] selection of various different computing nodes, choose for executing program; fig. 4 405 425 [0042] c omputing systems to select for executing particular programs [0043] particul