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 .
This action is responsive to application filed on 2/27/23. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Statutory subject matter: Computer program product claim 15 comprises at least one non-transitory computer readable storage media in view of par. 37, Publication. As such, the claim is statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (USPN. 2023/0359596) in view of Macfarlane et al (USPN. 2022/0342697).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 19, Venugopal (herein after “Venu”) discloses a program, system comprising a processor and memory, and a computer-implemented method comprising (fig. 1):
generating source inventory data representative of information technology assets associated with a source site, the source site comprising information technology infrastructure of an enterprise, the information technology assets comprising a source application database and a source peripheral entity associated with the source application database (fig. 1, items 116, 118 and 120, enterprise 102, par. 10, moving previously implemented tool from a source deployment to a cloud environment. A legacy business intelligence (BI) tool comprises visualizations of business related data from databases. Pars. 22, 23 and 26, generate reports based on plurality of databases, describe business parameters, par. 30, source application are indicated by at least one analytics report. Note that data stored on DBs in Venu system has multiple structures of data from an enterprise such as business parameters, as defined by Applicant in par. 20 wherein entities are associated with source application database);
(Note: Applicant uses an AUDE to collect and utilize source landscape data, par. 22, Publication. Similarly, Venu uses source analytics 114 that uses one or more BI tool to collect and utilize source infrastructure for the same purpose, to migrate to cloud, pars. 22 and 30, Venu).
determining a target platform for migrating the source application database (fig. 1, pars. 27-28, Analytics 142, comprises BI tools for migrating);
determining compatibility between the source peripheral entity and the target platform (figs. 1 and 5, pars. 14 and 45, new relationships may be discovered from source data and how it applies to the user 158 on target platform 104, note that cost of a cost center is analyzed, Venu). Venu does not explicitly teach determining a “degree of compatibility”. However, Macfarlane teaches a degree of compatibility (fig. 5, pars. 254 and 255, analyzes the conflicts, and conflict resolver, “ In step (5035), the WIAT checks for conflicts or exceptions that need to be resolved before the “what-if” migration can be successful. If there are no conflicts (“no” branch of 5035 decision), the process proceeds to step (5060)”, Macfarlane). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate and implement the conflict resolver 5040 of Macfarlane in Venu migrating system (figs. 1 and 2, Venu). One would have been motivated to determine whether the target architecture may handle the source architecture migration (fig. 5, conflict resolved Yes or No, Macfarlane).
Venu in view of Macfarlane teach,
creating, by a processor-based migration management system, a migration plan defining characteristics of a migration of the source application database from the source site to the target platform (fig. 1, migration tool 105, pars. 36 and 54, migrating on analytics tool using machine learning model, Venu, integrated with Macfarlane, fig. 3, pars. 215-219, templates used for transitioned model based on configurations and data from source and target), with wherein the target platform is selected from among a plurality of candidate target platforms (fig. 5 par. 252, selects a target deployment architecture by making a selection from a library of available migration targets comprising templates, Macfarlane), based at least in part on the degree of compatibility between the source peripheral entity and the target platform (fig. 5, par. 116-119 and 255, target and source functionality is verified, Macfarlane).
2. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach, method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the source inventory data comprises (fig. 1, items 102, 106, 114 and 116, Venu): issuing a database command to the source application database; receiving a response to the database command from the source application database; extracting, from the response, characteristic data indicative of a characteristic of the source application database; and appending the characteristic data to the source inventory data (pars. 36-39, queries are provided to DBS and source metadata responsive to said queries is provided and added to report 106, Venu).
3. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach, method according to claim 1, wherein the source peripheral entity is a source infrastructure platform, and wherein the generating of the source inventory data comprises (fig. 1, Venu): extracting characteristic data indicative of the source infrastructure platform from an output of an infrastructure discovery utility; and appending the characteristic data to the source inventory data (fig. 1, pars. 19, 20 and 26, platform deployment, computing infrastructure, geographic area for a first business unit is discovered and written to report 106, Venu, see also pars. 84-91, discovery of components and characteristics, Macfarlane).
4. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach, method according to claim 1, wherein the source peripheral entity is a source data storage system hosting the source application database, and wherein the generating of the source inventory data comprises (fig. 1, Venu): issuing a system command to the source data storage system; receiving a response to the system command from the source data storage system; extracting, from the response, characteristic data indicative of a characteristic of the source data storage system; and appending the characteristic data to the source inventory data (fig. 1, pars. 19, 20 and 26, platform deployment, computing infrastructure, geographic area for a first business unit is discovered and written to report 106, Venu, see also fig. 1, item 1100, pars. 84-91, discovery of components and characteristics, Macfarlane).
5. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach, method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the source inventory data comprises (fig. 1, reports 106-112, Venu): issuing a system command to a source data storage system hosting the source application database (fig. 1, Source Deployment, items 116, 118 and 120, enterprise 102, par. 10, moving previously implemented tool from a source deployment to a cloud environment, par. 36, query issued to Source databases, par. 75, Storage system is part of the Source, Venu, further in view of figs. 1B and 2, par. 107, Storage system comprising DB is used for migration, Macfarlane); receiving a response to the system command from the source data storage system; extracting, from the response, characteristic data indicative of a characteristic of the source peripheral entity; and appending the characteristic data to the source inventory data pars. 36-39, queries are provided to DBS and source metadata responsive to said queries is provided and added to report 106, Venu).
6. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach, method according to claim 5, wherein the source peripheral entity is selected from the group consisting of a data security system, a database administration system, a development and operations (DevOps) system, a database application, an extract, transform, and load (ETL) system, a database monitoring system, a database high-availability system, and a database backup system (par. 55, requirements selected from security compliance, Macfarlane).
7. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to read a configuration file, and wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the configuration file (par. 133, configuration file and their content is accessed, Macfarlane).
8. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to read a log file, and wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the log file (fig. 1, par. 93 and Table 1, legacy deployment characteristics, Macfarlane).
9. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the response comprises at least one process running on the source data storage system (fig. 1, analytics 114 running on DB116, Venu).
10. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to read a system hosts file, and wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the hosts file (pars. 257-258, target DNS information and identity, Macfarlane).
11. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to read a system catalog table, and wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the system catalog table (fig, 1, items 126 and 128, par. 26, table views are part of report, Venu).
12. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to detect licensing information for a license associated with the peripheral entity, wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the licensing information, and wherein the characteristic data indicates whether the license is an open source license (par. 259, DHCP server lease expiration time information, Macfarlane).
13. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to perform a search of a source code repository, and wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the source code repository returned responsive to the search (fig, 1, items 126 and 128, par. 26, table views are part of report in response to query, Venu).
14. Venu in view of Macfarlane teach method according to claim 5, wherein the system command is part of a script configured to perform a search of a continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline, and wherein the response comprises at least a portion of the CI/CD pipeline returned responsive to the search (par. 36, API send request and manage communication between different components of systems and retrieve response as source metadata, Venu).
Claims 16-18 and 20 comprise substantially the same subject matter as rejected method claims 2-14 and are therefore rejected on the merits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCIN R FILIPCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-4019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
April 16, 2026
/MARCIN R FILIPCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153