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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0246907 (Reutova).
With regard to claim 1, Reutova discloses a method of device management system migration, the method comprising:
scraping device data and group structure data from a first system, wherein the first system is implemented to at least partially manage a network of managed devices, management of the network is being transitioned from the first system to a second system, and the group structure data is indicative of an arrangement and organization of the managed devices in the network (Reutova: Paragraph [0004]. Identifiers are provided to a migration manager, which then uses the information to migrate the first SD network to the second SD network by converting the first group of components to a second group of two or more logical components.);
identifying device groups of the network based on the group structure data (Reutova: Paragraph [0004] and [0049] to [0051] and Figure 2. As part of the migration, a first group and a second group of logical components are identified.);
building a network model that is representative of the arrangement of the network based on the identified device groups, wherein the network model replicates or substantially replicates the device groups of the network (Reutova: Paragraphs [0006] to [0008] and [0052] to [0056] and Figure 2. The structure/topology of the network is determined.);
populating the second system with the device groups of the network model such that the second system includes two or more migrated device groups that correspond to the identified device groups of the first system (Reutova: Paragraphs [0006] to [0008] and [0052] to [0056] and Figure 2. The destination machine is populated with groups corresponding to the groups of the first system.);
generating an exportable data file based on the device data, wherein the exportable data file includes a device group identifier for each of the managed devices (Reutova: Paragraphs [0080] to [0081] and Figures 11-12. Reutova can provide a file for the deployment, where the mapping output file can then be used as input for the destination.);
communicating the exportable data file to the second system such that the second system organizes the managed devices into the migrated device groups of the second system according to the device group identifiers (Reutova: Paragraphs [0084] to [0093] and Figure 14. The file is provided for the second system.); and
causing a provisioning of the managed devices into the second system such that each of the managed devices establishes communication with the second system and receives management configurations from the second system consistent with the migrated device groups into which the managed device is included (Reutova: Paragraphs [0084] to [0093] and Figure 14. The completion of the migration involves provisioning the components in the second system.).
With regard to claim 2, Reutova discloses wherein: the identified device groups include a first device group that includes a first subset of the managed devices and a first group-specific management configuration that is applied to the first subset and a second device group that includes at a second subset of managed devices and a second group-specific management configuration that is applied to the second subset; the migrated device groups include a first migrated device group that includes the first subset and a second migrated device group that includes the second subset of managed devices; and after the provisioning the managed devices into the second system, the first subset is configured according to the first group-specific management configuration and the second subset of managed devices is configured according to the second group-specific management configuration (Reutova: Paragraphs [0009]-[0010] and [0094]. The different groups include different logical components, where such include different configurations and functions, with the specific configuration being specific to each group. Lacking detail of what constitutes a “management configuration,” any configuration that is used for any management would constitute such a management configuration. Further, such a configuration would only need to be specific to a group, but the instant claim fails to provide how it is specific to a group, where, as above, the specific configuration of the group would be within the broad scope of such group-specific management configuration.).
With regard to claim 5, Reutova discloses parsing one or both of the scraped device data and the scraped group structure data to generate the exportable data file and to identify the device groups; and obtaining credentials from the first system, wherein the parsing the scraped MDM data is performed using the obtained credentials (Reutova: Paragraphs [0085] and [0004]. The credentials of the manager that provides the deployment configuration file is required (credentials from the first system) to perform the migration.).
With regard to claim 7, Reutova discloses wherein the device data include one or more or a combination of: a device name; a device serial number; a device manufacture; a device location; a device asset tag; a device product; and a device record for each of the managed devices (Reutova: Paragraph [0095]. The objects have names, where the objects include devices.).
With regard to claim 8, Reutova discloses identifying one or more group-specific management configurations for each of the identified device groups, wherein the network model includes associations between the group-specific management configurations and the identified device groups; and building updated group-specific management configurations for the second system based on the group-specific management configurations (Reutova: Paragraphs [0006] to [0008] and [0052] to [0056] and Figure 2. The different groups have different configurations, where groups at the destination are built based on these configurations.).
With regard to claims 11-12, 15, and 17-18, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-2, 15, and 17-18, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 20, the instant claim is similar to claim 1, and is rejected for similar 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reutova in view of US 2019/0384895 (Jin).
With regard to claim 3, Reutova fails to disclose, but Jin teaches identifying a first style in which the device groups are organized in the first system; and modifying, in the network model, at least one aspect of the first style such that the network model includes a second style in which the migrated device groups are organized in the second system; wherein the first style includes a folder-structure based organization and the second style includes a tag-based organization (Jin: Paragraph [0123]. Jin teaches that both tag structures and folder structures were known, where when migrating between these types of structures, Reutova would identify such changes and adapt the objects based on the differences (Reutova: Paragraph [0052] to [0056]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to migrate from a folder-based structure to a tag-based structure to improve the efficiency of the structure, such that the destination would be computationally and spatially less memory intensive (Jin: Paragraph [0123]).
With regard to claim 13, the instant claim is similar to claim 3, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reutova.
With regard to claim 4, Reutova discloses the populating the second system includes running an application programming interface (API) against the network model (Reutova: Paragraph [0037]); and causing the provisioning of the managed devices occurs after the managed devices are organized into the migrated device groups (Reutova: Paragraphs [0052] to [0056]).
Reutova fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the group structure data includes file structure data in which each of the device groups is organized into a subfolder of a file structure (More specifically, Official Notice the use of file structures with subfolders representing devices to represent a network was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the group structure data includes file structure data in which each of the device groups is organized into a subfolder of a file structure to provide an efficient and human readable representation of the network.
With regard to claim 6, Reutova discloses that the first system includes an on-premises system deployed at two or more locations (Reutova: Paragraphs [0007] and [0009]. The source/destination could may include a private cloud (on-premises), where the clouds can include multiple physical network components (each separate device would be a different location in as much detail as provided in the instant claim).
Reutova fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, as addressed in claim 4, above, teaches the group structure data includes a first folder related to a first location of the two or more locations and a second folder related to a second location of the two or more locations (More specifically, Official Notice the use of file structures with subfolders representing devices to represent a network was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the group structure data includes file structure data in which each of the device groups is organized into a subfolder of a file structure to provide an efficient and human readable representation of the network.
With regard to claims 14 and 16, the instant claims are similar to claim 4 and 6, and is rejected for similar 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:
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reutova in view of “Mobile Device Management,” posted at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device_management> on 11/26/2023 (Wikipedia).
With regard to claim 9, Reutova teaches that the second system is populated, and the exportable data file is communicated before management of the network by the first system ceases such that the provisioning of the managed devices occurs with substantially no interruption of management of the network (Reutova: Paragraph [0097] to [0098]. Reutova does not appear to explicitly cease the first network, but it does present cleanup tasks to be performed after the migration is complete. Whether the cleanup involves ceasing operations on the first network or not, the migration process would be complete prior to any ceasing of management of the first network.).
Reutova fails to disclose, but Wikipedia teaches the first system includes a first mobile device management (MDM) system and the second system includes a second MDM system (Wikipedia: Page 1. MDM systems were known in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have the first and second system including a first and second MDM system to allow the system to implement the known benefits of MDM, including the efficient administration of mobile devices, such as in an enterprise environment.
Reutova fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the network includes a supply chain management network (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that networks with the intended use of supply chain management were well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, where such would not appear to have any impact on the actual functionality performed by the migration system.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the network include a supply chain management network to allow the migration to be performed for different networks being used for different purposes.
With regard to claim 19, the instant claim is similar to claim 9, and is rejected for similar 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:
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reutova in view of US 2015/0081887 (Kalkunte).
With regard to claim 10, Reutova discloses that the scraping the device data and the group structure data includes remotely implementing a migration tool from a cloud server (Reutova: Paragraph [0039]).
Reutova fails to disclose, but Kalkunte teaches that the building the network model includes: generating a tree structure based on the group structure data; and assigning each of the managed devices to at least one portion of the tree structure (Kalkunte: Paragraph [0018]. The use of a tree for a topology map (model), where such would be used to layout the destination network of Reutova, was known in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, as part of the migration, generate and assign nodes in a tree structure to provide an efficient structure for the network.
Reutova fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the provisioning includes a reboot operation initiated by the managed devices (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the rebooting of devices as part of configuration/provisioning was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the provisioning include a reboot initiated by the managed devices to ensure that any configuration changes are properly performed, in accordance with standard practice, upon the managed device determining that any required changes are completed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444