CTFR 17/740,540 CTFR 81814 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandopadhyay et al. (U.S. 2018/0225311) (Hereinafter Bandopadhyay) in view of Jain et al. (U.S. 2016/0330277) (Hereinafter Jain), further in view of Salman, Tamer (U.S. 2023/0088034) (Hereinafter Salman), further in view of Doyle, SR., John David (U.S. 2008/0306986) (Hereinafter Doyle, SR.), further in view of Hayward et al. (U.S. 2012/0192182) (Hereinafter Hayward – art made of record), and further in view of Nelson, Michael (U.S. 7,484,208) (Hereinafter Nelson – art made of record) . As per claim 1, Bandopadhyay discloses a method for migrating applications from a first platform to a second platform (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that the is a computing environment management architecture with entities that include virtual machines and applications; paragraph [0046] . Entities are migrated from a source computing environment to a target computing environment; paragraph [0107] ), the method comprising: receiving, with one or more processors, data for identifying one or more applications of the first platform (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that information identifying portions of data that makes up virtual machines is shared; paragraph [0072] . Further, information identifying entities is received by traversing entities of the source environment, in the form of annotations; paragraphs [0093]-[0095] . Components used for implementing the system described include a processor; paragraph [0137] ); creating, with the one or more processors, a graph representation of the first platform based on the received data, the graph representation comprising a plurality of nodes representing assets of the first platform (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that a construct is made in the form of a graph, representing entities (i.e. assets) of the platform as nodes of the graph; paragraph [0036] . The graph construct is made from the extracted entity information identifying the entities; paragraph [0107] ); calculating, with the one or more processors, connections between the nodes based on logical relationships between the assets, the graph representation further comprising a plurality of edges between nodes representing the connections (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that relationships between entities are represented on the graph as edge links between entity nodes; paragraph [0036] ); identifying, with the one or more processors, the applications based on the connections between the nodes (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that identifying of entities occurs through a traversal process that begins with identifying relationships between entity nodes stored in edges; paragraph [0120] ); and migrating, with the one or more processors, the identified applications from the first platform to the second platform (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that entities are migrated from a source computing environment to a target computing environment; paragraph [0107] . Migration occurs to a server that has the resources specified by the graph nodes that meet the resource and additional need requirements, considering relationships identified (i.e. migration to the second platform is based on the calculated connections); paragraphs [0047], [0125] ). Although Bandopadhyay discloses a method for migrating applications from a first platform to a second platform, the method comprising: receiving, with one or more processors, data for identifying one or more applications of the first platform…, identifying, with the one or more processors, the multi-asset applications based on the connections between the nodes, and migrating, with the one or more processors, the identified multi-asset applications from the first platform to the second platform, Bandopadhyay does not explicitly teach that applications are multi-asset applications. However, Jain discloses that applications are multi-asset applications and assets within each of the identified multi-asset applications (see for example Jain, this limitation is disclosed such that a composite application composed of a plurality of software components is migrated; clm.1 and associated text, paragraphs [0003], [0015] ). Bandopadhyay in view of Jain is analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, system management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Bandopadhyay by managing migration of composite applications as taught by Jain because it would enhance the teaching of Bandopadhyay with an effective means of migrating and provisioning containers that include a plurality of services, modules, and software components (as suggested by Jain, see for example paragraphs [0003], [0049] ). Although Bandopadhyay in view of Jain discloses that applications are multi-asset applications and assets within each of the identified multi-asset applications (see for example Jain, this limitation is disclosed such that a composite application composed of a plurality of software components is migrated; clm.1 and associated text, paragraphs [0003], [0015] ), Bandopadhyay in view of Jain does not explicitly teach creating, with one or more processors, policies based on identified applications and assets within each of the identified multi-asset applications and a graph representation including a plurality of nodes and connections between the nodes. However, Salman discloses creating, with one or more processors, policies based on identified applications and a graph representation including a plurality of nodes and connections between the nodes (see for example Salman, this limitation is disclosed such that context-aware security policies are generated (i.e. creating policies) using a graph associated with a computing system, having graph nodes and connections between the nodes (i.e. creating policies based on a graph representation including a plurality of nodes and connections between the nodes); paragraph [0003] . Generating context-aware security policies further includes using an application manager configured to identify scopes and relationships of application in the computing systems (i.e. polices are created based on identified applications); paragraph [0048] ). Bandopadhyay in view of Jain is analogous art with Salman because they are from the same field of endeavor, system management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Bandopadhyay in view of Jain by generating policies using an application manager, and a graph of nodes and connections, as taught by Salman because it would enhance the teaching of Bandopadhyay in view of Jain with an effective means of improving contextual recommendations and providing for identifying the scope and relationship of applications based on identified applications (as suggested by Salman, see for example paragraph [0027] ). Although Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman discloses that applications are multi-asset applications and assets within each of the identified multi-asset applications (see for example Jain, this limitation is disclosed such that a composite application composed of a plurality of software components is migrated; clm.1 and associated text, paragraphs [0003], [0015] ), Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman does not explicitly teach deploying, with one or more processors, policies on a second platform; and migrating, with the one or more processors, identified applications from the first platform to the second platform based on the policies. However, Doyle, SR. discloses deploying, with one or more processors, policies on a second platform (see for example Doyle, SR., this limitation is disclosed such that target rules (i.e. policies) are deployed on a business rules engine which is contained in a target application; paragraph [0079] . The target application is on a [target] SAP server (i.e. deploying polices occurs on a second platform) that is migrated to; paragraph [0081]. The environment is implemented by systems enabled by a CPU (i.e. methods disclosed are by one or more processors); paragraph [0226] ); and migrating, with the one or more processors, identified applications from a first platform to the second platform based on the policies (see for example Doyle, SR., this limitation is disclosed such that a legacy application (i.e. identified application) corresponding to programs and data sources is migrated to the designated [target] application on the SAP server (i.e. second platform); paragraph [0026] . The legacy application has its components migrated and processed by the target application in concert with the rules (i.e. migrating based on the policies); paragraph [0084] . Migration is from a source server (i.e. migrating is from a first platform to the second platform); paragraph [0168] ). Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman is analogous art with Doyle, SR. because they are from the same field of endeavor, migration management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman by deploying rules on a target and migrating while using the rules as taught by Doyle, SR. because it would enhance the teaching of Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman with an effective means of facilitating migration while reducing disruption to operation (as suggested by Doyle, SR., see for example paragraphs [0004]-[0005] ). Although Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR. discloses creating, with the one or more processors, policies based on the identified multi-asset applications and the graph representation including the plurality of nodes and the connections between the nodes, and migrating, with the one or more processors, the identified multi-asset applications…from the first platform to the second platform…based on the policies, and wherein applications are identified multi-asset applications, Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR. does not explicitly teach policies comprising a migration order for applications; and migrating…applications in the migration order… However, Hayward discloses policies comprising a migration order for applications and migrating…applications in the migration order… (see for example Hayward, this limitation is disclosed such that VMs (i.e. applications) are migrated in order from least dependent to most dependent (i.e. a policy defines migration in order from least dependent to most dependent); paragraph [0033] ). Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR. is analogous art with Hayward because they are from the same field of endeavor, migration management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR. by migration using an order as taught by Hayward because it would enhance the teaching of Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR. with an effective means of ensuring least dependent VMs (applications) are migrated first (as suggested by Hayward, see for example paragraph [0030] ). Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view of Hayward does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the…applications run on a second platform during the migration. However, Nelson discloses the limitation wherein the…applications run on a second platform during the migration (see for example Nelson, this limitation is disclosed such that for VMs (i.e. applications) being migrated from a source server (i.e. first platform) to a destination server (i.e. second platform), the VM is still running during the migration; col.7 lines {41}-{49} . This includes executing the destination VM from transferred non-memory source VM state while retransferring to the destination VM units of the source VM memory that have been modified since they were previously transferred from the source VM to the destination VM (i.e. the VM is running on the destination while migration is still occurring); clm.4 and associated text ). Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view of Hayward is analogous art with Nelson because they are from the same field of endeavor, migration management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view of Hayward by running on a target during migration as taught by Nelson because it would enhance the teaching of Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR. further in view of Hayward with an effective means of providing transparent migration of a VM while the VM remains running (as suggested by Nelson, see for example col.7 lines {41}-{49} ). As per claim 4, Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view Hayward, further in view of Nelson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the policies comprise network and security policies (see for example Doyle, SR., this limitation is disclosed such that rules includes parameters for security ( paragraph [0132] , i.e. security policies) and a namespace declared as an http address ( paragraph [0116] , i.e. network policies)). As per claim 5, Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view Hayward, further in view of Nelson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising mapping, with the one or more processors, the calculated connections to resources of the second platform (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that entities and their relationships are mapped to the target system (i.e. second platform); paragraphs [0107], [0110] ). As per claim 6, Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view Hayward, further in view of Nelson discloses the method of claim 5, wherein mapping the calculated connections comprises one of configuring the second platform to reflect infrastructure in the first platform or configuring the multi-asset applications to reflect the second platform (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that the system records migration contact points on the target data center for entity relations; paragraphs [0093]-[0100] ). As per claim 7, Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view Hayward, further in view of Nelson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the received data comprises one or more of asset information uniquely identifying one or more assets , network connection information identifying one or more connections between assets, or process information identifying functions of one or more assets (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that for each selected entity, a determination is made as to whether the selected entity has already had its entity information collected. If the selected entity’s information has not yet been collected, the entity information for the selected entity is collected and stored in associated with the node on the graph representing the selected entity (i.e. received data uniquely identifies assets); paragraph [0118] . Further, entities are annotated with the operations possible on them (i.e. process information identifying functions of one or more assets); paragraph [0086] ). As per claim 8, Bandopadhyay in view of Jain, further in view of Salman, further in view of Doyle, SR., further in view Hayward, further in view of Nelson discloses the method of claim 1, Bandopadhyay further disclosing the limitation wherein two nodes connected by an edge represent an application (see for example Bandopadhyay, this limitation is disclosed such that nodes connected by edge links represent entities; paragraph [0036] ). Although Bandopadhyay discloses the limitation wherein two nodes connected by an edge represent an application, Bandopadhyay does not explicitly teach that applications are multi-asset applications. However, Jain discloses that applications are multi-asset applications (see for example Jain, this limitation is disclosed such that a composite application composed of a plurality of software components is migrated; clm.1 and associated text, paragraph [0003] ). Regarding claim 9, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 5. Regarding claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 6. Regarding claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 7. Regarding claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 8. Regarding claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 19, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 5. Regarding claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 6 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman , 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Lastly, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current rejection, Jain is used to disclose assets within each of the identified multi-asset applications (see paragraph 0015 of Jain which discloses the assets of the software components). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 Arpan P. Savla whose telephone number is (571)272-1077. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-6PM ET. 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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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. /Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 2 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 3 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 4 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 5 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 6 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 7 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 8 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 9 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 10 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 11 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 12 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 13 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 14 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 15 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 17/740,540 Page 16 Art Unit: 2137
Prosecution Insights