DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poddar et al. (hereinafter PODDAR) (US 2023/0409381 A1) in view of Savov et al. (hereinafter SOVOV) (US 2020/0296008 A1).
As to claim 1, PODDAR teaches an Information Handling System (IHS) (Distributed Computing Platform 102, and/or Node 206(1), etc.) (Figs 1-3) comprising:
a multi-cloud platform comprising a first and second clouds each supported by a first and (Distributed Computing Platform 102, and/or Node 206(1), etc.), a second server (Node 206(n), Node (2) 132, and/or Node (3) 136) (Figs 1-3), respectively, that are heterogeneous relative to one another (across various computing environments, such as within cloud computing environments of various cloud providers, etc.) ([0014]; Fig. 6); and
at least one memory (Computer readable medium 908 and/or Memory 302) coupled to at least one processor (Processor(s) 300), the at least one memory having program instructions (Storage Operating System 312, FileSystem Module 318, Storage Driver 314, and/or Computer instructions 904) stored thereon that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the instructions to (Figs 3 and 9):
receive, by a common workflow service, a request to copy storage data (backup job, restore job, replication operations, etc.) from the first server to the second server, wherein the common workflow service is agnostic to the specific procedures used by the first and second servers (utilizing first set of infrastructure services 634, specifically job manager and workflow engine and scheduler; or job manager 804, workflow engine 806, and scheduler 802; implementing an architecture to provide functionality that is cloud provider agnostic) ([0017];[0020]-[0022]; [0037]; [0121]; Figs 6 and 8);
communicate, by the common workflow service, with the first server to obtain the storage data from the first server ([0097]; [0123]; [0118]; [0097]; Fig. 8); and
communicate, by the common workflow service, with the second server to store the obtained storage data in the second server.
PODDAR does teach database plugin 822, storage service 818, etc., which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, could be interpreted as server specific adapter services.
However, PODDAR does not explicitly teach a first server specific adapter service and a second server specific adapter service used by the common workflow service.
However, SAVOV teaches registered endpoint adapters associated with particular endpoints/clouds/backends, where the management host uses a provisioning service endpoint adapter registry including metadata to determine how to call each adapter, which relates to server specific adapter services used by a workflow subscription service, which serves as a common workflow service ([0032]; [0075]; [0086]-[0088]; [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to modify PODDAR’s workflow system with SAVOV’s registered endpoint adapters so PODDAR’s common workflow services could execute storage-data copy workflows across heterogeneous cloud/server environments without changing the platform code base and restarting the virtual platform (SAVOV - [0033]; Abstract).
As to claim 2, PODDAR ([0046]-[0048]; [0056]; [0070]-[0076]) in view of SAVOV ([0085]-[0091]; [0125]-[0127]; [0133]-[0134]) teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause IHS to store, by the second server specific adapter service, the storage data in a storage type that is different than a storage type stored in the first server.
As to claim 3, PODDAR teaches the IHS of claim 2, wherein the storage type comprises at least one of a block storage, a file storage, or an object storage type ([0061]; [0067]; [0071]; [0076]; [0056]).
As to claim 4, PODDAR ([0048]; [0097]; [0121]-[0123]) in view of SAVOV ([0125]-[0127])teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause IHS to perform, by the second server specific adapter service, one or more procedures on the second server that is different than that performed on the first server, the one or more procedures comprising at least one of a snapshot management routine, a volume management routine, or a copy management routine.
As to claim 5, PODDAR ([0116]-[0123]; [0020]-[0022]; [0106]) in view of SAVOV ([0085]-[0091]; [0126]-[0127]) teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the first and second server specific adapter services are each agnostic to the overall mobility orchestration steps performed by the common workflow service.
As to claim 6, SAVOV teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the first and second server specific adapter service is each unaware of whether the first and second servers are homogeneous or heterogeneous systems (adapters are registered by endpoint type, have their own API/contract/protocol/metadata, run as separate processes/VMs, and are invoked by the platform host using registry information) ([0085]-[0088]; [0091]; [0127]).
As to claim 7, PODDAR ([0016]-[0017]; [0093]-[0096]; [0106]) in view of SAVOV ([0086]-[0088]; [0091]-[0093]; [0173]; [0178]) teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause IHS to execute each of the common workflow service and the first and second server specific adapter services in a Kubernetes POD.
As to claim 8, PODDAR ([0117]-[0019]) in view of SAVOV ([0127]) teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause IHS to provide communication between the common workflow service and the first and second server specific adapter services using a Google Remote Procedure Call (gPRC) framework.
As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejections of claims 2-3.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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.
/KENNETH TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights