Where does the patentability filter fail? By "clearing the bar of novelty beyond prior art" I am referring to both novelty and non-obviousness.
You seem to be implying, by referencing what I can only assume is the Alice Corp case, is that the patent is too abstract. I don't think that's the case. The patent describes a very specific technique for memory management and archetype based inheritance.
I think the technique would be patentable were it an inventive step above the prior art, but it's not novel enough, IMHO, IANAL, BBQ.
We don't care about the "prior art" filter, because the patentability filter already failed.