DETAILED ACTION
Per direction of management, independent claims are rejected with US 9003513 and US 6915436. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13, and 15-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 12-15, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, “a test application”, ll5 should be “a test application from the test applications”. “the test”, ll12 should be “the performed test”.
As per claim 2, “a test application, ll2 should be “the test application from the test applications”. “a test platform”, ll2 should be “the test platform.
As per claim 12, “test application, phone home service, test controller, and test results and analysis server”, ll1-2 should be “the test application from the test applications, the phone home service, the test controller, and the test results and analysis node”.
As per claim 13, “a secure tunnel”, ll2 should be “a secure tunnel from the first secure tunnel and the second secure tunnel.
As per claim 14, see objection on claim 1.
As per claim 15, “the test application is one of a plurality of test applications” ll1-2 should be “the test application from the test applications is one of a plurality of test applications from another set of test applications”.
As per claim 18, see objection on claim 12.
As per claim 20, see objection on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houtchens et al (US 9003513) (hereinafter Houtchens) in view of Booth et al (US 6915436) (hereinafter Booth).
As per claim 1, Houtchens teaches:
A method of a test controller securely controlling a test platform to run test applications, wherein an authenticated connection exists between the test platform for the test controller has been obtained…” (Houtchens, Col. 1, lines 25-34, 50-56);
“…the test controller transmitting an instruction, for loading and preparing a test application, to the test platform over an initiated between the test platform and the test controller;” (Houtchens, Col. 1, lines 25-34, 50-56)
“…the test controller controlling the test platform requesting performance of a requested test using the test application, the requested test using, at least, an established between (i) the test platform and (ii) the test controller, wherein results of the performed test are relayed to a test results and analysis node;” (Houtchens, Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 54-60);
“…the test controller receiving a confirmation of execution of the test from the test platform.” (Houtchens, Col. 4, lines 54-56) (Booth, Abstract)
Houtchens does not expressly teach:
and a phone home service through which secure tunnel information;
first secure tunnel;
second secure tunnel;
However, Booth discloses:
a phone home service through which secure tunnel information (Booth, Abstract, Col. 11, lines 65-67 provides first secure tunnel);
first secure tunnel (Booth, Abstract, Col. 11, lines 65-67 provides first secure tunnel);
second secure tunnel (Booth, Abstract, Col. 11, lines 65-67 provides second secure tunnel);
Both Booth and Houtchens pertain to the art of system testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Booth’s secure tunnels because it is well-known in the art that there is a notable advantage of IP tunneling: the possibility to exchange packets with private IP addresses between two intranets over the public Internet, which requires globally unique addresses . . . As globally unique IP addresses are becoming a scarce resource, this interconnection method gains importance (Booth, col 3, ll8-16).
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0042126 teaches a method for reporting the results of the self-test to the orchestrator server. US 2009/0013398 teaches a method of storing test results of the agent in the proxy server. A request is then sent to the proxy server to retrieve any test results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198