DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baragaba et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0038486 A1, hereinafter Baragaba).
As per claim 1, Baragaba teaches the limitations as claimed, including a computer-implemented method for reconciling moved workloads for a management component in a computing environment, the method comprising:
enqueuing a remediation entry for a workload that has moved within the computing environment in a remediation queue (Paragraph [0046]);
dequeuing the remediation entry for the workload from the remediation queue for processing (Figure 3, Element 397 shows entries leaving the remediation queue to begin the remediation phase);
executing a remediation service on the remediation entry for the workload from the remediation queue to update metadata for the workload in the management component (Paragraphs [0061] and [0062] show a remediation procedure occurring which updates maturity scores, wherein the maturity scores correlate to the claimed metadata); and
storing a processing status of the remediation entry for the workload at the management component (Paragraph [0062], “update the associated maturity score”).
As per claim 2, Baragaba teaches adding the remediation entry back into the remediation queue for another remediation attempt when the remediating service on the remediation entry results in a retriable error (Figure 4, Element 470, “NO” shows looping back up).
As per claim 3, Baragaba teaches storing the processing status of the remediation entry for the workload as trying when the remediating service on the remediation entry results in the retriable error (Figure 4, Element 470, “NO” shows the workload being returned to the queue, which by definition suggests that is it trying to be corrected).
As per claim 5, Baragaba teaches making an asynchronous request for the remediation service on the remediation entry for the workload (Figures 3 and 4).
As per claim 6, Baragaba teaches detecting the workload that has moved within the computing environment prior to enqueuing the remediation entry for the workload the remediation queue (Figure 4 shows processing steps occurring before determining the remediation needs).
As per claims 9-11, 13, and 14, they are medium claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claims 17-19, they are system claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baragaba in view of Lin et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0068622 A1, hereinafter Lin).
As per claim 4, Baragaba does not expressly teach storing the processing status of the remediation entry for the workload as error when the remediating service on the remediation entry results in a non-retriable error.
However, Lin teaches storing the processing status of the remediation entry for the workload as error when the remediating service on the remediation entry results in a non-retriable error (Paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lin with those of Baragaba in order to allow for Baragaba’s method to ensure that workloads that are easily corrected are shown, which could increase trust in the method, thereby potentially increasing buy-in among prospective users.
As per claim 12, it is a medium claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baragaba in view of Mendonca et al (U.S. Pat. No. 11509520 B1, hereinafter Mendonca).
As per claim 8, Baragaba does not expressly teach that the workload is a virtual machine.
However, Mendonca teaches that the workload is a virtual machine (Col. 16, Lines 13-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mendonca with those of Baragaba in order to allow for Baragaba’s method to take advantage of known technologies, which could increase trust in the method, thereby potentially increasing buy-in among prospective users.
As per claim 16, it is a medium claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights