DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant amended clams 1, 7, and 13 in the amendment filed on 07/03/2026.
The claims 1-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argue that the cited prior art does not disclose wherein the recommended budget is based at least in part on a number of assets to be migrated, a division of labor among client staff and partners, and an estimated project duration.
In reply, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Iyoob discloses recommendation information includes, but are not limited to, budget,
deployment time, information quantifying cost of migration, savings from migrating, and time to
implement migration according to the selected application (paragraph 0065; 0110; 0111; Fig.
10). Inherently, a migration budget is based in part on the number assets to be migrated, the staffing, and different resources for the migration. Accordingly, Iyoob discloses the recommended budget (recommended budget, Fig. 10) is based at least in part on a number of assets to be migrated (Database server), a division of labor among client staff and partners (IT headcount), and an estimated project duration (deployment time).
B. Applicant argue that the cited prior art does not disclose identifying one or more
inefficiencies or gaps in the migration plan based on the readiness of the source local computer
network application.
In reply, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Vukovic discloses assessing risk measures such as expected application failures due to risk of version mismatches at the target. The migration plans are dynamically adjusted based on the assessed risk measures in the migration plan (paragraph 0021). Accordingly, the
cited prior art discloses the argued claim limitations.
C. Applicant argue that the cited prior art does not disclose "adjust the migration plan based on the identified inefficiencies or gaps, the recommended budget, the time and labor hours, and the client resources".
In reply, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Vukovic discloses assessing risk measures such as risk of fewer resources than required at the target. The migration plans are dynamically adjusted based on the assessed risk measures in the migration plan (paragraph 0021). Accordingly, the cited prior art discloses the argued claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No support is provided or the added claim limitation "adjusting the migration plan based on the identified inefficiencies or gaps, the recommended budget, the time and labor hours, and the client resource”. The cited paragraphs provide in applicant's remarks disclose clients using budget and resource estimates, a recommended budget, and a computation of labor in man hours to provide support for adjusting the plan but do not recite adjusting the migration plan based on the identified inefficiencies or gaps, the recommended budget, the time and labor hours, and the client resources.
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian (US Publication No. 2014/0122577 A1) in view of Bijani et al (US Publication No. 2017/0017505 A1), further in view of Iyoob et al (US Publication No. 2015/0341240 A1), and further in view of Vukovic et al (US Publication No. 2020/0264919 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Balasubramanian teaches a computer-based method for migrating source local computer network application of an organization to a target cloud operating environment using an automated migration planning and assessment application (Abstract), comprising: assessing, via one or more processors, a readiness of the source local computer network application for a migration to the target cloud operating environment at least in part via the automated migration planning and assessment application (paragraph 0005; 0012; 0014; 0052 disclose assessing current enterprise applications for readiness for migrating to target cloud); discovering, via one or more processors, the source local computer network application that may qualify for the migration to the target cloud operating environment (paragraph 0032-0040; 0079; 0018-0116 disclose looking or evaluating the application landscape to reference applications to be migrated); based on the discovering, creating a suitable target cloud architecture for one or more selected applications for the migration (paragraph 0052; 0057; Fig. 2 disclose create one or more cloud architectures for an application reference architecture to how applications will eventually look and work on the target cloud platform); prior to the migration, performing a planning analysis to create a migration plan to facilitate a successful migration to the created target cloud architecture (paragraph 0005; 0052; 0057; 0083-0084; 0114; Fig. 2 disclose analysis to provide a roadmap on how and when each application of the current applications is updated to this reference architecture for an efficient and a factory oriented migration); and migrating, via one or more processors, the selected applications to the target cloud computing environment based on the migration plan (paragraph 0005; 0052; 0057; 0083-0084; 0114; Fig. 2 disclose analysis to provide a roadmap on how and when each application of the current applications is updated to this reference architecture for an efficient and a factory oriented migration).
Balasubramanian does not explicitly disclose determining, via one or more processors, a financial and resource readiness for the migration including a cost of the migration and one or more client resources required for a desired result.
However, Bijani teaches determining, via one or more processors, a financial and resource readiness for the migration including a cost of the migration and one or more client resources required for a desired result (Table 1; paragraph 0058; 0062; 0063 disclose recommendations for applications migration to the cloud based on business value, cost, and hardware resources) in order to provide an efficient analysis of the migration (Abstract). Therefore, based on Balasubramanian in view of Bijani, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Bijani to the system of Balasubramanian in order to provide an efficient analysis of the migration.
Balasubramanian and Bijani do not disclose determining, via one or more processors, a financial and staffing resource readiness that includes at least: (i) computing and outputting a recommended budget for one or more migration tasks corresponding to the migration, and (ii) analyzing time and labor hours for client staff to accomplish the migration, wherein the recommended budget is based at least in part on a number of assets to be migrated, a division of labor among client staff and partners, and an estimated project duration.
However, Iyoob teaches determining, via one or more processors, a financial and staffing resource readiness (paragraph 0110) that includes at least: (i) computing and outputting a recommended budget for migration tasks (paragraph 0065; 0110; 0111 disclose recommendation information including, but are not limited to, budget, deployment time, information quantifying cost of migration, savings from migrating, and time to implement migration), and (ii) analyzing time and labor hours for client staff to accomplish the migration (paragraph 0065; 0110; 0111 disclose recommendation information including, but are not limited to, budget, deployment time, information quantifying cost of migration, savings from migrating, and time to implement migration), wherein the recommended budget is based at least in part on a number of assets to be migrated, a division of labor among client staff and partners, and an estimated project duration (paragraph 0065; 0110; 0111 disclose recommendation information including, but are not limited to, budget, deployment time, information quantifying cost of migration, savings from migrating, and time to implement migration) in order to provide an efficient assessment of the application (Abstract).
Therefore, based on Balasubramanian in view of Bijani, and further in view of Iyoob, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Iyoob to the system of Balasubramanian and Bijani in order to provide an efficient assessment of the application.
Balasubramanian, Bijani, and Iyoob do not disclose identifying one or more inefficiencies or gaps in the migration plan based on the readiness of the source local computer network application; adjusting the migration plan based on the identified inefficiencies or gaps, the recommended budget, the time and labor hours, and the client resources.
However, Vukovic teaches identifying one or more inefficiencies or gaps in the migration plan based on the readiness of the source local computer network application (paragraph 0021 disclose risk measures (e.g., expected application failures due to risk of version mismatches at the target, risk of fewer resources than required at the target, etc.) can be assessed based on different migration patterns, and the risk measures can be factored in by the AI planner by, for example, using the risk factors as constraints or conditions to avoid); adjusting the migration plan based on the identified inefficiencies or gaps, the recommended budget, the time and labor hours, and the client resources (paragraph 0021 disclose the migration plans that are generated can be dynamically adjusted based on user feedback, or user input in real-time while the AI planner is creating the migration plans. In addition, risk measures (e.g., expected application failures due to risk of version mismatches at the target, risk of fewer resources than required at the target, etc.) can be assessed based on different migration patterns, and the risk measures can be factored in by the AI planner by, for example, using the risk factors as constraints or conditions to avoid) in order to efficiently generate a pattern-based migration plan.
With respect to claim 2, Balasubramanian discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above except wherein migrating the selected applications to the target cloud computing environment is based, at least in part on artificial intelligence.
However, Vukovic teaches wherein migrating the selected applications to the target cloud computing environment is based, at least in part on artificial intelligence (paragraph 0019; 0098; 0099; 0088 disclose pattern-based AI planner generating plan for migrating applications to a target/cloud environment) in order to efficiently generate a pattern-based migration plan (Abstract). Therefore, based on Balasubramanian in view of Vukovic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Vukovic to the system of Balasubramanian in order to efficiently generate a pattern-based migration plan.
With respect to claim 3, Balasubramanian discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above except wherein migrating the selected applications to the target cloud computing environment is accomplished, at least in part, in waves.
However, Vukovic teaches wherein migrating the selected applications to the target cloud computing environment is accomplished, at least in part, in waves (paragraph 0059-0061; 0088; 0099 disclose wave plan for migrating applications to a target/cloud environment) in order to efficiently generate a wave-based migration plan (Abstract). Therefore, based on Balasubramanian in view of Vukovic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Vukovic to the system of Balasubramanian in order to efficiently generate a wave-based migration plan (Abstract).
With respect to claim 4, Balasubramanian teaches wherein migrating the selected applications to the target cloud computing environment is accomplished, at least in part, through grouping or stacking (paragraph 0032; 0041; 0085 disclose migrating applications from the current applications based on categories for application score depending on reference architecture).
With respect to claim 5, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the target cloud architecture is optimized based on a review process before the migration is substantially complete (paragraph 0032; 0041; 0085 disclose migrating applications from the current applications based on review for what is needed and not).
With respect to claim 6, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the readiness assessment is based on the organization as a whole (paragraph 0052).
The limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEIKH T NDIAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-3914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, JOON H HWANG can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/CHEIKH T NDIAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights