DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered.
This office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 03/06/2026. As per instant Amendment, Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended; Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent Claims; Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending. This Office Action is made Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marappagounder et al. (“Marappagounder,” US 20210264349, published on 08/26/2021) in view of POORNACHANDRAN et al. (“POORNACHANDRAN,” US 20220365813, published on 11/17/2022), and further in view of SHIVA et al. (“SHIVA,” CN 103827823 A, published on 05/28/2014).
Regarding Claim 1;
Marappagounder discloses an information handling system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory (par 0029; analytic engine that is operable to perform various analysis on a computer infrastructure system [] a data collection module or process, a data processing/modeling/analytics module);
wherein the at least one processor implements a data edge client that is configured to migrate data from a source system to a target system by: performing validation prior to the migration (par 0050; the analytic engine may automatically validate the compatibility of the destination infrastructure and the selected migration type. The analytic engine may further create migration wave groups based on specified rules. The analytic engine further automatically validates all the required information before migration begins);
receiving data prioritization logic indicating that a first data is prioritized for migration over a second data (par 0051; automatically checks for compatibility of the mapping from source to destination, and also validates the mapping according to industry best practices and customer-specific specifications. An intelligent migration method is then selected and recommended for the migration process. An option is to prioritize supported migration methods based on the business need, recommended method is chosen based on the priority and business impact. The analytic engine further performs a migration readiness validation by validating the provisioning of the destination infrastructure components);
transferring the data from the source system to the target system in accordance with the prioritization logic, including transferring the first data from the source system to the target system prior to transferring the second data from the source system to the target system (par 0051; automatically checks for compatibility of the mapping from source to destination, and also validates the mapping according to industry best practices and customer-specific specifications. An intelligent migration method is then selected and recommended for the migration process. An option is to prioritize supported migration methods based on the business need, recommended method is chosen based on the priority and business impact. The analytic engine further performs a migration readiness validation by validating the provisioning of the destination infrastructure components; par 0052; generates additional fields and specifies access control rules for the imported data. The imported data is then linked to the servers, switches, etc. in the source infrastructure system).
Marappagounder discloses receiving data prioritization logic indicating that a first data is prioritized for migration over a second data; transferring the data from the source system to the target system in accordance with the prioritization logic as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose portion of the data; transferring the first data from the source system to the target system prior to transferring the second data from the source system to the target system.
However, in an analogous art, POORNACHANDRAN discloses scheduling an execution system/method that includes:
portion of the data (POORNACHANDRAN: par 0028; the processing circuitry configured to pipeline the data transfer such, that the first portion of the data transfer related to the second compute kernel is started before the data transfer of the second portion of the data transfer).
transferring the first data from the source system to the target system prior to transferring the second data from the source system to the target system portion of the data (POORNACHANDRAN: par 0028; the processing circuitry configured to pipeline the data transfer such, that the first portion of the data transfer related to the second compute kernel is started before the data transfer of the second portion of the data transfer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of POORNACHANDRAN with the method/system of Marappagounder to include portion of the data; transferring the first data from the source system to the target system prior to transferring the second data from the source system to the target system portion of the data. One would have been motivated to pipeline a data transfer related to the execution of the two or more compute kernels to the one or more computing devices via the interface circuitry (POORNACHANDRAN: abstract).
The combination of Marappagounder and POORNACHANDRAN disclose migrate data as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose monitoring for threats during the transferring; and in response to detecting a threat, performing a remedial action.
However, in an analogous art, SHIVA discloses migrating virtual machine system/method that includes:
monitoring for threats during the transferring (SHIVA: par 0036; capacity monitor the capacity data is transferred to the migration processor for analysis; par 0026; determine the virtual machine one of any 114 and 124 should be transferred to the host unit 110. virtual machine manager 130 then determines a virtual machine 114 having a relatively low security risk (such as less security risk of the first threshold security risk), and virtual machine 124 has a relatively high security risk [] determining a virtual machine having a relatively low security risk
114 should be transferred to the host unit); and
in response to detecting a threat, performing a remedial action (SHIVA: par 0036; capacity monitor the capacity data is transferred to the migration processor for analysis; par 0026; determining a virtual machine having a relatively low security risk 114 should be transferred to the host unit; par 0075; determine whether the reliability rating indication should not transfer corresponding virtual machine (frame 820). if the reliability rating limits the virtual machine is migrated, the migration processor 206 from migration considering removing the virtual machine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of SHIVA with the method/system of Marappagounder and POORNACHANDRAN to include monitoring for threats during the transferring; and in response to detecting a threat, performing a remedial action. One would have been motivated to identify via a processor a first virtual machine to be migrated from a first host to a second host to improve a performance of the first virtual machine, determining that a frequency threshold associated with the first virtual machine will not be exceeded if the first virtual machine is migrated (SHIVA: abstract).
Regarding Claim 4;
The combination of Marappagounder, POORNACHANDRAN, and SHIVA disclose the information handling system of claim 1,
SHIVA discloses wherein the remedial action comprises stopping the migration and/or rolling back the migration (SHIVA: par 0036; capacity monitor the capacity data is transferred to the migration processor for analysis; par 0075; determine whether the reliability rating indication should not transfer corresponding virtual machine (frame 820). if the reliability rating limits the virtual machine is migrated, the migration processor 206 from migration considering removing the virtual machine).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5;
The combination of Marappagounder, POORNACHANDRAN, and SHIVA disclose the information handling system of claim 1,
Marappagounder discloses wherein the data prioritization logic specifies a criticality for each element of data, and wherein data elements having lower criticality are prioritized over data elements having higher criticality (Marappagounder: par 0051; automatically checks for compatibility of the mapping from source to destination, and also validates the mapping according to industry best practices and customer-specific specifications. An intelligent migration method is then selected and recommended for the migration process. An option is to prioritize supported migration methods based on the business need, recommended method is chosen based on the priority and business impact. The analytic engine further performs a migration readiness validation by validating the provisioning of the destination infrastructure components).
Regarding Claim 6;
The combination of Marappagounder, POORNACHANDRAN, and SHIVA disclose the information handling system of claim 1,
SHIVA discloses wherein in response to an occurrence of a warning during the transferring, the information handling system is configured to: transmit the warning to an administrator; and not interrupt the transferring (SHIVA: par 0026; determines to transfer security risk of each virtual machine 114-124. can be made such as client terminal administrator 128 specifies security risk. In the example of FIG. 1, virtual machine manager 130 may determine the virtual machine one of any 114 and 124 should be transferred to the host unit 110. virtual machine manager 130 then determines a virtual machine 114 having a relatively low security risk [] based on the security risk, the virtual machine manager 130 determining a virtual machine having a relatively low security risk 114 should be transferred to the host unit).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 1, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 1, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 4, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 4, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 5, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 5, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 6, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 6, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13;
This Claim recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium that perform the same steps as system of Claim 1, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 1, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16;
This Claim recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium that perform the same steps as system of Claim 4, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 4, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17;
This Claim recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium that perform the same steps as system of Claim 5, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 5, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18;
This Claim recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium that perform the same steps as system of Claim 6, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 6, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 6.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marappagounder et al. (US 20210264349) in view of POORNACHANDRAN et al. (US 20220365813), and further in view of SHIVA et al. (CN 103827823) and ALI et al. (“ALI,” US 20210109735, published on 04/15/2021).
Regarding Claim 2;
The combination of Marappagounder, POORNACHANDRAN, and SHIVA disclose the information handling system of claim 1,
The combination of The combination of Marappagounder, POORNACHANDRAN, and SHIVA disclose all the limitations as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the information handling system is an element of a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system.
However, in an analogous art, ALI hyper-converged infrastructure edge controller system/method that includes:
wherein the information handling system is an element of a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system (ALI: par 0003; Information handling systems are sometimes provided via a Hyper-Converged Infrastructure (HCI) system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ALI with the method/system of The combination of Marappagounder and POORNACHANDRAN, and SHIVA disclose to include wherein the information handling system is an element of a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system. One would have been motivated to identify HCI node components that are included in the HCI nodes in the HCI node system, and retrieve respective software inventory information for each of the HCI node component in the HCI nodes (ALI: abstract).
Regarding Claim 3;
T The combination of Marappagounder, POORNACHANDRAN, SHIVA, and ALI disclose the information handling system of claim 2,
ALI discloses wherein the information handling system is an edge deployment of the HCI system (ALI: par 0018; the HCI systems considered edge-based HCI systems due to those HCI systems being located at the edge of a business network and/or including other edge-based HCI characteristics).
The motivation is the same that of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 8;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 2, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 2, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 3, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 3, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14;
This Claim recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium that perform the same steps as system of Claim 2, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 2, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15;
This Claim recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium that perform the same steps as system of Claim 3, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 3, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6644. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Luu Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/C.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights