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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated US 20200159609 A1 (Korotaev et. al) and further in view of US 20170024260 A1 (Chandrasekaran et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Korotaev teaches, the computer-implemented method comprises: creating an access node within a destination virtualized cloud environment, wherein the access node comprises a virtual server agent, wherein the virtual server agent manages and initiates backup operations of virtual machines within the destination virtualized cloud environment (paragraph 24, and 26 a backup service on a cloud service, for VMs within the remote system, see paragraph 27, and 55); restoring one or more virtual machines (VMs) to a destination cloud datastore to create one or more restored VMs; and for each of the one or more restored VMs: mounting an operating system (OS) disk of respective restored VM to the access node, wherein the OS disk is mounted as a data disk (paragraph 26, creating a copy of the operating system, using that in restoring a backup, paragraph 45).
However, Korotaev fails to teach, A computer-implemented method to migrate virtual machines from one hypervisor to another using an access node.
Likewise, Korotaev fails to teach, determining drivers to be injected or configured within the OS disk of the respective restored VM, wherein determining is based on type of destination hypervisor and type of operating system of the respective restored VM; inject the determined drivers into the OS disk of the respective restored VM; and unmount the OS disk of the restored VM.
However, Chandrasekaran teaches, A computer-implemented method to migrate virtual machines from one hypervisor to another using an access node (paragraph 47 and 48, the cloud platform serving as the access node that allows migration between hypervisors).
Further, Chandrasekaran teaches, determining drivers to be injected or configured within the OS disk of the respective restored VM, wherein determining is based on type of destination hypervisor and type of operating system of the respective restored VM; inject the determined drivers into the OS disk of the respective restored VM; and unmount the OS disk of the restored VM (paragraph 56, 64, 77, copying drivers from the image processing entity, selecting drivers associated with the target OS, and copying them to the new provisioned VM).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the backup management of VMs taught by Korotaev with the modification techniques of VMs by Chandrasekaran, as it would allow the hypervisor to modify the VM to be ran in a new cloud location.
Further, it would be obvious before the filing date of this application that the image processing entity would then unmount the VM image after injecting the drivers, as it would allow the VM to have control over its storage.
Regarding claim 2, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: provisioning a new virtual machine with the destination hypervisor; and attaching the OS disk and data disk of a restored VM to the provisioned new virtual machine to create a migrated VM (paragraph 26, creating a copy of the operating system, using that in restoring a backup, paragraph 45, for a migration).
Regarding claim 3, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the restoring of the one or more VMs is performed as part of a recovery operation (paragraph 24, 44, 45 restoring a VM for a recovery process using the disaster recovery policy).
Regarding claim 4, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the restoring of the one or more VMs is performed as part of a migration operation (p paragraph 44, 45, 50 restoring a VM for a recovery process through migrating the VM to another server location).
Regarding claim 5, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: obtaining the determined drivers from a source outside the destination virtualized cloud environment (paragraph 26, external device drivers stored in a backup archive, away from the set virtualized cloud environment, stored in cold storage, paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 6, Chandrasekaran teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a copy of the determined drivers is stored within the access node (paragraph 64 and 77, the drivers are stored within the cloud environment serving as the access node to the new VM, which is this copied from the cloud to the new location).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the backup management of VMs taught by Korotaev with the modification techniques of VMs by Chandrasekaran, as it would allow the hypervisor to modify the VM to be ran in a new cloud location.
Regarding claim 7, Chandrasekaran teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: locating the determined drivers within the OS disk and copying the determined drivers to boot image of the OS disk (paragraph 56, 64, 77, copying drivers from the image processing entity, selecting drivers associated with the target OS, and copying them to the new provisioned VM).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the backup management of VMs taught by Korotaev with the modification techniques of VMs by Chandrasekaran, as it would allow the hypervisor to modify the VM to be ran in a new cloud location.
Regarding claim 8, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual server agent initiates backup operations on virtual machines within the destination virtualized cloud environment (paragraph 27 and 48, backup techniques being done on the cloud).
With regards to Claim 11, Korotaev teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. The system of Claim 11 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 1, and Claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Korotaev.
With regards to Claim 12, Korotaev teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. The system of Claim 12 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 2, and Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Korotaev.
With regards to Claim 13, Korotaev teaches the method of Claim 3 as referenced above. The system of Claim 13 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 3, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Korotaev.
With regards to Claim 14, Korotaev teaches the method of Claim 4 as referenced above. The system of Claim 14 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 4, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Korotaev.
With regards to Claim 15, Korotaev teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. The system of Claim 15 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 5, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Korotaev.
With regards to Claim 16, Korotaev and further in view of Chandrasekaran teaches the method of Claim 6 as referenced above. The system of Claim 16 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 6, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Korotaev and further in view of Chandrasekaran.
With regards to Claim 17, Korotaev and further in view of Chandrasekaran teaches the method of Claim 7 as referenced above. The system of Claim 17 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 7, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7 by the teachings of Korotaev and further in view of Chandrasekaran.
With regards to Claim 18, Korotaev teaches the method of Claim 8 as referenced above. The system of Claim 18 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 8, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 by the teachings of Korotaev.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200159609 A1 (Korotaev et. al) and US 20170024260 A1 (Chandrasekaran et. al), as applied to claims 1-8, 11-18 above, and further in view of US 20150106611 A1 (Cao et. al).
Regarding claim 9, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Korotaev does not teach, the computer-implemented method further comprising: assigning an information management policy to the restored VM upon completion of the injecting the determined drivers.
Cao teaches, the computer-implemented method further comprising: assigning an information management policy to the restored VM upon completion of the injecting the determined drivers (paragraph 84, figure 4, and figure 11, assigning policies to the VM as part of the image code, after the resources are injected into the image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the policy management of Cao to the backup restoration technique of Korotaev, as it allows for ensuring that the security policies of the VM remain active.
With regards to Claim 19, Korotaev and further in view of Cao teaches the method of Claim 9 as referenced above. The system of Claim 19 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 9, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 9 by the teachings of Korotaev and further in view of Cao.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200159609 A1 (Korotaev et. al) as applied to claims 1-8, 11-18 above, and further in view of US 20210271565 A1 (Bhavanarushi et. al).
Regarding claim 10, Korotaev teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Korotaev does not teach, the computer-implemented method further comprising: configuring key registry values within the OS disk.
Bhavanarushi teaches, the computer-implemented method further comprising: configuring key registry values within the OS disk (paragraph 71, copying over registry values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the registry modification of Bhavanarushi to the backup restoration technique of Korotaev, as it allows for ensuring the VM is properly configured.
With regards to Claim 20, Korotaev, Chandrasekaran and further in view of Bhavanarushi teaches the method of Claim 10 as referenced above. The system of Claim 20 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 10, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 10 by the teachings of Korotaev, Chandrasekaran and further in view of Bhavanarushi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 PM.
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, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199