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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “determining a service peak period corresponding to each to-be-migrated application, data corresponding to each to-be migrated application is service peak period data”. However, Bello discloses these limitations in at least col. 30:5-40, col. 13:45-67, col. 18:1-5, col. 19:1-30, col. 30:5-40. These portions describe determining peak service periods for applications and disclose the implementation of cloud migration readiness technology that considers service peak periods in facilitating application migration processes.
Applicant argues against the propriety of incorporating Bello with Miyamura. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The motivation for including the teachings of Bello is that the teachings of Bello would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating migration readiness, migration cost identification, cost reduction and suitability determinations in migrations operations (Bello, col. 7:5-40, col. 13:45-67, col. 18:1-5, col. 19:1-30, col. 30:5-40).
Applicant’s further arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200103620 to Miyamura in view of US 11,394,770 to Bello in view of US 20130152076 to Patel.
Regarding claim 1,
Miyamura teaches an application migration method, comprising:
determining a to-be-migrated application comprised in a to-be-maintained server and all candidate servers that receive the to-be-migrated application (¶ 135, determination of application to be migrated; ¶ 135-136, determination of candidate servers);
for each to-be-migrated application, determining an application container configured to maintain the to-be-migrated application (¶ 57, 247-248, claim 5, application containers);
determining a migration constraint between all to-be-migrated applications and all the candidate servers (¶ 137-145, determining access speed constraints for candidate servers);
for each to-be-migrated application, determining a mutually exclusive application corresponding to the to-be-migrated application based on data corresponding to each to-be migrated application (¶ 127-137, determining mutually exclusive applications corresponding to application to be migrated);
determining a service constraint between all the to-be-migrated applications based on mutually exclusive applications corresponding to all the to-be-migrated applications (¶ 127-137, determining service constraint such as I/O load between applications to be migrated and corresponding mutually exclusive applications); and
determining, from all the candidate servers when the migration constraint and the service constraint are satisfied and a quantity of servers configured to receive the to-be-migrated application meets a preset requirement, a server that receives each to-be-migrated application, and for each to-be-migrated application, migrating an application container of the to-be-migrated application to a server corresponding to the to-be-migrated application (¶ 135-147, determination of constraint satisfaction for servers and migration to server; ¶ 57, 247-248, claim 5; see also ¶ 127-134).
Miyamura fails to teach, but Bello teaches:
determining a service peak period corresponding to each to-be-migrated application, data corresponding to each to-be migrated application is service peak period data (col. 30:5-40, determining peak service periods for applications; col. 13:45-67, col. 18:1-5, col. 19:1-30, col. 30:5-40, cloud migration readiness technology that considers service peak periods in facilitating application migration processes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Bello. The motivation for including the teachings of Bello is that the teachings of Bello would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating migration readiness, migration cost identification, cost reduction and suitability determinations in migrations operations (Bello, col. 7:5-40, col. 13:45-67, col. 18:1-5, col. 19:1-30, col. 30:5-40).
Miyamura fails to teach the to-be-migrated application and the mutually exclusive application corresponding to the to-be migrated application are to be migrated to different servers.
However, Patel teaches migrating a to-be-migrated application and a mutually exclusive application corresponding to the to-be-migrated application are to be migrated to different servers (Patel, ¶ 47, application migration to different server destinations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Patel. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Patel would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating network access control policies (Patel, ¶ 47, 10-11).
Regarding claim 2,
Miyamura teaches:
wherein the determining each candidate server that receives the to-be-migrated application comprises: determining, as the candidate server that receives the to-be-migrated application, a server that matches a server configuration of the to-be-maintained server (¶ 135, matching servers to candidate server(s) for migration).
Regarding claim 3,
Miyamura teaches:
wherein the determining a migration constraint between all to-be-migrated applications and all the candidate servers comprises: for each to-be-migrated application, determining, based on configuration information of each candidate server as a mutually exclusive server corresponding to the to-be-migrated application, a candidate server that does not match the to-be-migrated application; and determining the migration constraint between all the to-be-migrated applications and the candidate servers based on the mutually exclusive server corresponding to the to-be-migrated application (¶ 135-147, exclusion/inclusion of candidate servers based on constraint matching).
Regarding claim 6,
Miyamura teaches:
wherein the determining, from all the candidate servers when the migration constraint is satisfied and a quantity of servers configured to receive the to-be- migrated application meets a preset requirement, a server that receives each to-be-migrated application, and for each to-be-migrated application, migrating an application container of the to-be- migrated application to a server corresponding to the to-be-migrated application comprises: determining some to-be-migrated applications from all the to-be-migrated applications as target applications (¶ 135-147, process for selecting application to be migrated, list of applications to be migrated; claim 5, ¶ 247-248);
when the migration constraint is met, determining a candidate server that receives the target application, and migrating, to the candidate server corresponding to the target application, an application container in which the target application is located, to minimize a quantity of servers configured to receive the target application (¶ 135-147, determining server to receive application; see claim 5 and ¶ 247-248 regarding application container for migrated applications); and
continuing to determine some to-be-migrated applications from the remaining applications in the to-be-migrated applications and use the some to-be-migrated applications as new target applications, and when the migration constraint is met, determining a candidate server that receives the target application, and migrating an application container of the target application to a candidate server corresponding to the target application, to minimize a quantity of servers configured to receive the target application, until all the to-be-migrated applications are migrated to the candidate servers (iterative process of figs. 11-12 and ¶ 125-147; see claim 5 and ¶ 247-248 regarding application container for migrated applications).
Claims 7-8 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights