DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claims 2, 5, 11, and 14, actions are undertaken in the event that it is determined the first host environment is isolated from the host network. However, the specification contains no explanation or clarification of the notion of what is meant by “isolated.” 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. Claims 2, 5, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Each of claims 2, 5, 11, and 14 describe that receiving an identifier is in response to a determination that the host environment is isolated from the host network. However, there is no explanation in the specification of this at all. In fact, outside of the claims, no form of the work “isolated” is located in the specification at all. What does it mean to for the environment and network to be isolated? 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, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0085374 A1 ) . As per claim 1 , Chen teaches the limitations as claimed, including an information handling system, the information handling system comprising: a first host environment coupled to a host network, the first host environment having a first storage device that is identified by a first unique identifier (Figure 1); and a first baseboard management controller (BMC) coupled to a management network (Paragraph [0007]), the first BMC being configured to receive the first unique identifier, to provide the first unique identifier to a key management server (Paragraph [0030], “the key request can include a unique identifier for the requesting self-encrypting drive…that needs to be unlocked”), to receive a first encryption key based on the first unique identifier from the key management server (Paragraph [0030], “The service controller can consequently transmit the authentication key to a self-encrypting drive”), and to unlock the first storage device with the first encryption key (Paragraph [0030], “to unlock it”). As per claim 3 , Chen teaches that receiving the first unique identifier is in response to receiving a mapping of the first storage device to a first virtual machine instantiated by the first host system (Paragraph [0030]) . As per claim 4 , Chen teaches that the first BMC is further configured to receive a second unique identifier that identifies a second storage device from a second BMC via the management network, to provide the second unique identifier to the key management server, to receive a second encryption key based on the second unique identifier from the key management server, and to transmit the second encryption key to the second BMC via the management network (Paragraph [0030] teaches all the above steps which could occur any number of times – it would make no sense for these steps to only occur a single time for a single key and never again) . As per claim 6 , Chen teaches that the first BMC provides the unique identifier to the key management server and receives the first encryption key from the key management server via the management network (Paragraph [0030]) . As per claims 10, 12, 13, and 1 5 , they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. As per claim 19 , it is a network claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is 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. Claim s 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of James et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0333957 A1, hereinafter James ) . As per claim 7 , Chen does not expressly teach that the first BMC provides the unique identifier to the key management server and receives the first encryption key from the key management server via a side band network different from the management network. However, James teaches that the first BMC provides the unique identifier to the key management server and receives the first encryption key from the key management server via a side band network different from the management network (Paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of James with those of Chen in order to allow for Chen’s system to more efficiently and security transfer data, which could lead to greater trust in the system and therefore to greater buy-in from prospective users. As per claim 16 , it is a method claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. Claim s 8, 9, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dambal et al ( U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0350501 A1, hereinafter Dambal ) . As per claim 8 , Chen does not teach that the first encryption key is a key encryption key. However, Dambal teaches that the first encryption key is a key encryption key (Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Dambal with those of Chen in order to allow for Chen’s system to take advantage of known and trusted technologies, which could increase buy-in for the system. As per claim 9 , Dambal teaches that the KEK unlocks a master encryption key stored on the first storage device (Paragraph [0004]) . As per claims 17 and 18 , they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. As per claim 20 , it is a network claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7762 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bradley Teets can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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