Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 1 8 / 574,073 filed on 12 / 26 /202 3 . Claims 1- 7 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes references to the Figure labels. 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). 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- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 7 each recites a statutory category ( process, machine, manufacture, 2019 PEG Step 1=yes ) i.e., a machine or process that performs the steps of monitoring whether an application…operating on a plurality of virtual machines has become unstable, and determining, in response to detecting that the application has become unstable…whether the at least one process operating on the each of the plurality of virtual machines is unstable . Each of these limitations, alone or in combination, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e., Mental process), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ one or more processors ”, nothing in any of the claim elements precludes the steps/instructions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “ one or more processors ”, the “ monitoring ” and “determining” step s in the context of each of these claims encompass a user manually and/or mental ly observing, tracking, or evaluating a process or situation . If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitations of generic computer components ( e.g., “ one or more processors ”), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping abstract ideas ( 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract Idea Grouping” Yes, Mental Process ). Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application ( 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 2: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/ Abstract idea into a practical application? = No ). In particular, claim 1 only recites one additional element – using one or more processor s to perform the step s . The one or more processor s is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of monitoring and determining ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, each of the claims is still directed to an abstract idea. Each of the claims do not recite any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ( 2019 PEG Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more? Is additional element(s) well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field? ). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processor s to perform both the monitoring and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, for at least these reasons, each of the claims is directed t o an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2 -6 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because of the elements in those claims merely add extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. 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- 5 and 7 FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentes et al. (U.S. P atent No. 8,464,092 B1 , hereinafter “ Gentes ”) in view of Schultz et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 20 17 / 0060718 A1, hereinafter “S chultz” ). Regarding claim 1, Gentes teaches a determination system, comprising one or more processors, the determination system causing at least one of the one or more processors to execute: an application monitoring process of monitoring whether an application which is included in a communication system and which includes processes that are dispersedly operating on a plurality of virtual machines has become unstable (Gentes Col 1 Ln 66 to Col 2 Ln 6, i.e., “ Various embodiments of systems and methods are disclosed for monitoring an application or service group within one cluster as a resource of another cluster. In one embodiment, a method involves detecting an error indication generated by a first cluster (e.g., the error indication can be generated by a cluster controller or service group within the first cluster). The first cluster is implemented on a cluster resource (e.g., a virtual machine) that is monitored by a second cluster. ”. Gentes fails to explicitly teach a process instability determination process of determining, in response to detecting that the application has become unstable, for each of the plurality of virtual machines on which at least one process included in the application is operating, whether the at least one process operating on the each of the plurality of virtual machines is unstable. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schultz teaches a process instability determination process of determining, in response to detecting that the application has become unstable, for each of the plurality of virtual machines on which at least one process included in the application is operating, whether the at least one process operating on the each of the plurality of virtual machines is unstable (Schultz ¶0019, i.e., determine an error conditions associated with at least on particular VM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gentes by incorporating the teachings of Schultz . The motivation would be for using an external event detection for error conditions associated with at least on particular VM, which could be delivered to a remote device and/or user in order to determine the appropriate course of action to take (Schultz ¶0019). As to claim 2, Gentes as modified by Schultz also teaches t he determination system according to 1, wherein, in the application monitoring process, a plurality of monitoring items relating to the application are monitored (Gentes Fig. 5, monitoring error in cluster sources on node or sub-cluster implemented on one of the cluster resources of the VM that the application is executed on) , and wherein, in the process instability determination process, in response to detecting that a result of the monitoring of a given monitoring item among the plurality of monitoring items satisfies a predetermined condition, for each of the plurality of virtual machines on which at least one process included in the application is operating, it is determined whether the at least one process operating on the each of the plurality of virtual machines is unstable ( Schultz ¶0019) . As to claim 3, Gentes as modified by Schultz also teaches t he determination system according to claim 1, wherein the determination system causes the at least one of the one or more processors to execute a cluster monitoring process of monitoring whether a cluster which is included in the communication system and in which a plurality of applications are operating has become unstable (Gentes Fig. 3, i.e., cluster of nodes which communicate to each other, and Fig. 5, i.e., detect error on a cluster resource on which the application is executed) , and wherein, in the application monitoring process, in response to detecting that the cluster has become unstable, monitoring of whether each of the plurality of applications operating in the cluster has become unstable is started (Gentes Col 5 Ln 45 – 67) . As to claim 4, Gentes as modified by Schultz also teaches t he determination system according to claim 1, wherein the determination system causes the at least one of the one or more processors to execute an action execution process of executing, in response to determining that the process is unstable, an action relating to the process (Schultz ¶0019, i.e., generating and sending alert) . As to claim 5, Gentes as modified by Schultz also teaches t he determination system according to claim 4, wherein, in the process instability determination process, in response to determining that the process is unstable, it is determined whether a process which is operating on a hardware resource on which the process is operating and which is operating on a virtual machine different from a virtual machine on which the process is operating is unstable ( Gentes Col 5 Ln 5-25, i.e., an error condition could include hardware error) , and wherein, in the action execution process, an action corresponding to a result of the determination of whether the process operating on the different virtual machine is unstable is executed (Schulz ¶0019, i.e., a user might switch between the VMs to investigate the error condition(s)) . Claim 7 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Claim 6 FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentes in view of Schultz, and further in view of BISSET et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 20 16 / 0328302 A1, hereinafter “ Bissett” ). As to claim 6, Gentes as modified by Schultz teaches t he determination system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the application is a network function. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bissett teaches the application is a network function (Bissett Fig. 1, i.e., fault in a network communication path between FT application running on Host 1 and FT application running on Host 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gentes and Schultz by incorporating the teachings of Bissett . The motivation would be for determining faults in network paths between VMs running the application (Bissett ¶0011). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7127 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST . 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 Charles Rones can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4085 . 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. /ALEXANDER KHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168