DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed January 20, 2026. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
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
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090307763 A1 (hereinafter “Rawlins”), in view of US 20150020055 A1 (hereinafter “Nayak”), further in view of “Cloud Testing for Mobile Software Systems” by Starov et. al (hereinafter “Starov”), further in view of US 5991543 A (hereinafter “Amberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Rawlins discloses:
A method comprising:
executing a first program, …, to access a [database] and install in the device (Paragraph [0126], “Client Agent Engine (CAE) 403 is the ‘brain’ of a test device in an automated test management system described herein. It is responsible for interacting with the host operating system, launching test applications, communicating with the server-based TMS, and aggregating results. It also communicates with the PC Build system configuration application shown in FIG. 4B and the Scripting Engine shown in FIG. 4C to provide automated setup and execution of tests on the test device”) [Examiner’s remarks: the Client Agent Engine (first program) may access different systems to setup a device for testing.]…
retrieving, from the [database], a second image to obtain an updated version of a tester program (Paragraph [0032], “The test client application on a device can query the test management database for tests in a test queue or other actions that can be conducted using the device’s current configuration and if any such tests or other actions are found, they can be automatically run on the device…Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device”; Paragraph [0054], “Thus, in an exemplary embodiment, a test suite can be defined so that at runtime, a check can be made to determine which version of the application is running on a device and the appropriate test script to be loaded for a particular environment and set of applications and/or versions is known as a “test configuration”” [retrieving, from the [database], a second image to obtain an updated version of a tester program]) [Examiner’s remarks: From a database, an available test corresponding to the version of the configuration of the device is retrieved. The test is used as the tester program and since it corresponds to an updated version of the configuration, it is an updated version of the tester program.]; and
testing, by the tester program, operation of the device while the device executes the second program (Paragraph [0032], “The test client application on a device can query the test management database for tests in a test queue or other actions that can be conducted using the device’s current configuration and if any such tests or other actions are found, they can be automatically run on the device…Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device [testing, by a tester program, operation of the device while the device executes the second program]”) [Examiner’s remarks: The tester program (the tests from the test queue) is used to test the function of the current configuration of the device which is the second program.].
Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
…, installed in a device during manufacture, to access a cloud service and install in the device an updated version of a second program from a current version of a first image that the cloud service provides;
However, Nayak discloses:
executing a first program, …, to access a [database] and install in the device an updated version of a second program from a current version of a first image that the [database] provides (Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”; Paragraph [0020], “In another embodiment, one of the nodes 200 connected to a testbench 250 and configured to perform tests utilizing the testbench 250 is configured as the master node 410. …The master node 410 may be configured to execute an application that periodically checks a database (DB) 450 to determine if a new version of firmware is available” [executing a first program, …, to access a [database] and install in the device an updated version of a second program from a current version of a first image that the [database] provides]) [Examiner’s remarks: A master node is used to install an updated version of a binary file corresponding to a new version of firmware updated from the current version of firmware on the device. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a master node being a computer, uses a program to complete this task. Combined with the client agent engine of Rawlins used to retrieve and set up devices for testing, one of ordinary still in the art understands that a program capable of communicating with other systems and setting up a device may be used to contact a database and retrieve a new build. Therefore, updating the firmware (second program) of the device and using it to run tests may be combined with the retrieved tests as tester programs taught by Rawlins to achieve the claimed invention.];
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “executing a first program, …, to access a [database] and install in the device an updated version of a second program from a current version of a first image that the [database] provides”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
The combination of Rawlins and Nayak does not explicitly disclose:
- …installed in a device during manufacture…
- “cloud service”
However, Starov discloses “cloud service” (Page 124, “The idea is to create a cloud service that provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remote mobile devices (i.e., smartphones). The proposed framework is based on a heterogeneous networked system that connects operational computers, mobile devices, and databases with applications”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Starov into the combined teachings of Rawlins and Nayak to include use of a “cloud service”. As stated in Starov, growth in system size and required reliability means “adequately testing all of these platforms is too expensive…especially for small resource-constrained mobile development companies”. Using cloud “provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remove mobile devices” and allows for multidirectional testing (page 124). Using cloud allows for access to more shared resources and better information sharing between different companies working on the same project. Cloud based testing gives better access to hardware and software resources, providing better reliability for testing while requiring fewer on-premise resources. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with cloud resources.
The combination of Rawlins, Nayak, and Starov does not explicitly disclose:
- …installed in a device during manufacture…
However, Amberg discloses:
- …installed in a device during manufacture (Column 1, lines 56-59, “It has been known in the industry to install software and to test computer systems during manufacture by performing a fixed procedure before they are shipped to customers” […installed in a device during manufacture]) [Examiner’s remarks: Amberg discloses installing testing software onto a device by a manufacturer to ensure performance. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine device testing with downloading of the tests by a manufacturer.]…
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Amberg into the combined teachings of Rawlins, Nayak, and Starov to include use of a “…installed in a device during manufacture”. As stated in Amberg, growth in system size and required reliability means “adequately testing all of these platforms is too expensive…especially for small resource-constrained mobile development companies”. As stated by Amberg, installation of test software by a device manufacturer is well known in the art and is useful in “increasing the reliability of computer systems prior to shipment” (Column 2, lines 13-14). Test software needs to be installed onto a device in order to use it for testing. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with download of test software by a manufacturer of the device.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- wherein the first program is software or firmware that lacks one or more capabilities needed for the testing of the operation of the device (Paragraph [0126], “Client Agent Engine (CAE) 403 is the ‘brain’ of a test device in an automated test management system described herein. It is responsible for interacting with the host operating system, launching test applications, communicating with the server-based TMS, and aggregating results. It also communicates with the PC Build system configuration application shown in FIG. 4B and the Scripting Engine shown in FIG. 4C to provide automated setup and execution of tests on the test device”) [Examiner’s remarks: The client agent engine (first program) lacks capabilities to test a device and is only able to retrieve and launch retrieved tests.].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated; and Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
- wherein the second program is software or firmware of the device that makes the device functional for the testing of the operation of the device.
However, Nayak discloses:
- wherein the second program is software or firmware of the device that makes the device functional for the testing of the operation of the device (Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”; Paragraph [0020], “In another embodiment, one of the nodes 200 connected to a testbench 250 and configured to perform tests utilizing the testbench 250 is configured as the master node 410. …The master node 410 may be configured to execute an application that periodically checks a database (DB) 450 to determine if a new version of firmware is available”) [Examiner’s remarks: A second program (new version of firmware) enables a device to actually be tested using test cases.].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “wherein the second program is software or firmware of the device that makes the device functional for the testing of the operation of the device”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a developer of the device updating the first image that the cloud service provides so that the first image corresponds to an updated version of the second program.
However, Nayak discloses:
further comprising a developer of the device updating the first image that the cloud service provides so that the first image corresponds to an updated version of the second program (Paragraph [0002], “In addition to hardware changes, developers may develop new firmware (i.e., the software that manages the device) on an ongoing basis, providing the device with new capabilities and working to fix any bugs discovered in previous versions of the firmware”; Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “further comprising a developer of the device updating the first image that the cloud service provides so that the first image corresponds to an updated version of the second program”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- accessing a current version of a second image at the [database] (Paragraph [0054], “Thus, in an exemplary embodiment, a test suite can be defined so that at runtime, a check can be made to determine which version of the application is running on a device and the appropriate test script to be loaded for a particular environment and set of applications and/or versions is known as a “test configuration” [accessing a current version of a second image at the [database]]”); and
- using the current version of the second image to configure test equipment for the testing of the operation of the device (Paragraph [0120], “…Local Scripts Database 413 can copy the specific version of the test script for the test suite and test configuration to be executed on the test device from the Central Scripts Database 307; once the script is copied, the test device uses that copy as stored in Local Scripts Database 413 to execute the tests on the device [using the current version of the second image to configure test equipment for the testing of the operation of the device]”).
The combination of Rawlins and Nayak does not explicitly disclose “cloud service”.
However, Starov discloses “cloud service” (Page 124, “The idea is to create a cloud service that provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remote mobile devices (i.e., smartphones). The proposed framework is based on a heterogeneous networked system that connects operational computers, mobile devices, and databases with applications”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Starov into the combined teachings of Rawlins and Nayak to include use of a “cloud service”. As stated in Starov, growth in system size and required reliability means “adequately testing all of these platforms is too expensive…especially for small resource-constrained mobile development companies”. Using cloud “provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remove mobile devices” and allows for multidirectional testing (page 124). Using cloud allows for access to more shared resources and better information sharing between different companies working on the same project. Cloud based testing gives better access to hardware and software resources, providing better reliability for testing while requiring fewer on-premise resources. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with cloud resources.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated; and Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
- further comprising a developer of the device updating the current version of the first image and the current version of the second image to change the second program and the testing.
However, Nayak discloses:
- further comprising a developer of the device updating the current version of the first image and the current version of the second image to change the second program and the testing (Paragraph [0002], “In addition to hardware changes, developers may develop new firmware (i.e., the software that manages the device) on an ongoing basis, providing the device with new capabilities and working to fix any bugs discovered in previous versions of the firmware”; Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”) [Examiner’s remarks: Nayak discloses a developer updating a current version of a first image (new firmware) and second image (tests in the test protocol) so update the program and tests.].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “further comprising a developer of the device updating the current version of the first image and the current version of the second image to change the second program and the testing”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- further comprising providing test results from the testing to the [server] (Paragraph [0033], “The test results can be compiled and used by the client application to choose what action to take next. Such actions can include re-running the test, for example, if the test is incomplete or the results are inconclusive; sending the results to the test management server for review and analysis by enterprise personnel… [further comprising providing test results from the testing to the [server]]”).
The combination of Rawlins and Nayak does not explicitly disclose “cloud service”.
However, Starov discloses “cloud service” (Page 124, “The idea is to create a cloud service that provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remote mobile devices (i.e., smartphones). The proposed framework is based on a heterogeneous networked system that connects operational computers, mobile devices, and databases with applications”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Starov into the combined teachings of Rawlins and Nayak to include use of a “cloud service”. As stated in Starov, growth in system size and required reliability means “adequately testing all of these platforms is too expensive…especially for small resource-constrained mobile development companies”. Using cloud “provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remove mobile devices” and allows for multidirectional testing (page 124). Using cloud allows for access to more shared resources and better information sharing between different companies working on the same project. Cloud based testing gives better access to hardware and software resources, providing better reliability for testing while requiring fewer on-premise resources. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with cloud resources.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- further comprising a vendor of the device analyzing the test results to monitor manufacturing of the device (Paragraph [0115], “Test results can also include each attempt to execute that test group if retries were reused, and each individual attempt can show full logs from that attempt including test entries, validation criteria, errors, screenshots, file attachments, and other logging entries [further comprising a vendor of the device analyzing the test results to monitor manufacturing of the device]”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090307763 A1 (hereinafter “Rawlins”), in view of US 20150020055 A1 (hereinafter “Nayak”), further in view of “Cloud Testing for Mobile Software Systems” by Starov et. al (hereinafter “Starov”), further in view of US 5991543 A (hereinafter “Amberg”), further in view of US 20160063218 A1 (hereinafter “Nachenberg”).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- further comprising a vendor (Paragraph [0265], “Verification of the vendor’s applications could be performed, using the vendors automated test management process, on customer devices running tests in the customer environment [further comprising a vendor]”) …
Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
- … monitoring downloads from the cloud service to detect unauthorized manufacture of devices.
However, Nayak discloses:
- … manufacture of devices (Paragraph [0002], “Device manufacturers develop and test new designs on a regular basis. For example, a manufacturer may develop a new chip or integrated circuit every year or two. In addition to hardware changes, developers may develop new firmware (i.e., the software that manages the device) on an ongoing basis, providing the device with new capabilities and working to fix any bugs discovered in previous versions of the firmware [manufacture of devices]”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “updating the first image”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
The combination of Rawlins, Nayak, Starov, and Amberg does not explicitly disclose:
- …monitoring downloads from the cloud service to detect unauthorized…
However, Nachenberg discloses:
- …monitoring downloads from the cloud service to detect unauthorized (Paragraph [0022], “For example, and as will be explained in greater detail below, exemplary system 100 may include a subscriber module 104 that enables a subscriber of a brand-protection service to select an action to perform when a fraudulent use of a brand is detected in Internet traffic that is transmitted via any of a plurality of Internet-traffic chokepoints that are managed by the brand-protection service. Exemplary system 100 may also include a monitoring module 106 that monitors, at each of the plurality of Internet-traffic chokepoints, Internet traffic for fraudulent uses of brands [monitoring downloads from the cloud service to detect unauthorized…]”) [Examiner’s remarks: Nachenberg discloses monitoring traffic for unauthorized use of a brand. A person of ordinary skill in the art could extend the same technique to unauthorized downloads of test software to manufactured devices.]…
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nachenberg into the combined teachings of Rawlins, Nayak, Starov, and Amberg to include “… monitoring downloads from the cloud service to detect unauthorized…”. As stated in Nachenberg, “Consequently, unscrupulous and/or malicious parties may use (e.g., by impersonating) the brands with which users identify these products, services, and legitimate entities for various malicious and/or illegitimate purposes (e.g., Internet-based impersonation scams and attacks)” (paragraph [0001]). Allowing unauthorized usage of a brand as a vendor may impact supply, as well as erode trust in the brand. Thus, tracking unauthorized device use when testing devices allows vendors to conveniently monitor the supply of devices. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with monitoring of unauthorized devices.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090307763 A1 (hereinafter “Rawlins”), in view of US 20150020055 A1 (hereinafter “Nayak”), further in view of “Cloud Testing for Mobile Software Systems” by Starov et. al (hereinafter “Starov”).
Regarding claim 10, Rawlins discloses:
A method comprising:
…
configuring test equipment using a second image from the [database] (Paragraph [0032], “If no such tests are found, the device can then query the test management database for the next available test in the test queue. Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device”; Paragraph [0120], “…Local Scripts Database 413 can copy the specific version of the test script for the test suite and test configuration to be executed on the test device from the Central Scripts Database 307; once the script is copied, the test device uses that copy as stored in Local Scripts Database 413 to execute the tests on the device” [configuring test equipment using a second image from the [database]]) [Examiner’s remarks: A second image (test cases) are retrieved and their corresponding necessary system configurations are used to configure the test device (test equipment).]; and
assembling the device and testing … device using the test equipment configured using the second image (Paragraph [0032], “The test client application on a device can query the test management database for tests in a test queue or other actions that can be conducted using the device’s current configuration and if any such tests or other actions are found, they can be automatically run on the device…Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device”; Paragraph [0054], “Thus, in an exemplary embodiment, a test suite can be defined so that at runtime, a check can be made to determine which version of the application is running on a device and the appropriate test script to be loaded for a particular environment and set of applications and/or versions is known as a “test configuration” [assembling the device and testing … device using the test equipment configured using the second image]) [Examiner’s remarks: The test equipment with the configuration of the tests may be run to test the device.].
Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining a first image from a cloud service, the first image defining an updated version of firmware on a device;
… the updated version of the firmware of the…
However, Nayak discloses:
obtaining a first image from a [database], the first image defining an updated version of firmware on a device (Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware [obtaining a first image from a [database], the first image defining an updated version of firmware on a device]”) [Examiner’s remarks: An image is retrieved from a database which corresponds to an updated version of firmware from what is on the test device.];
… the updated version of the firmware of the (Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”) [Examiner’s remarks: An updated version of the firmware may be used to test a device in conjunction with specified test cases for that configuration.]…
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “obtaining a first image from a cloud service, the first image defining an updated version of firmware on a device” and “the updated version of the firmware of the”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
The combination of Rawlins and Nayak does not explicitly disclose “Cloud service”.
However, Starov discloses “cloud service” (Page 124, “The idea is to create a cloud service that provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remote mobile devices (i.e., smartphones). The proposed framework is based on a heterogeneous networked system that connects operational computers, mobile devices, and databases with applications”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Starov into the combined teachings of Rawlins and Nayak to include use of a “cloud service”. As stated in Starov, growth in system size and required reliability means “adequately testing all of these platforms is too expensive…especially for small resource-constrained mobile development companies”. Using cloud “provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remove mobile devices” and allows for multidirectional testing (page 124). Using cloud allows for access to more shared resources and better information sharing between different companies working on the same project. Cloud based testing gives better access to hardware and software resources, providing better reliability for testing while requiring fewer on-premise resources. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with cloud resources.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated; and Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
- further comprises updating the first image.
However, Nayak discloses:
- further comprises updating the first image (Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”) [Examiner’s remarks: The first image is updated (new version of the firmware).].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “further comprises updating the first image”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- obtaining a second image on the [database], the second image defining software or firmware of the device (Paragraph [0032], “The test client application on a device can query the test management database for tests in a test queue or other actions that can be conducted using the device’s current configuration and if any such tests or other actions are found, they can be automatically run on the device…Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device”[obtaining a second image on the [database], the second image defining software or firmware of the device]”); and
- operating the device, during manufacturing, so that the device contacts the [database] and uses the second image to install the software or firmware of the device (Paragraph [0032], “The test client application on a device can query the test management database for tests in a test queue or other actions that can be conducted using the device’s current configuration and if any such tests or other actions are found, they can be automatically run on the device…Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device [operating the device, during manufacturing, so that the device contacts the [database] and uses the second image to install the software or firmware of the device]”).
The combination of Rawlins and Nayak does not explicitly disclose “cloud service”.
However, Starov discloses “cloud service (Page 124, “The idea is to create a cloud service that provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remote mobile devices (i.e., smartphones). The proposed framework is based on a heterogeneous networked system that connects operational computers, mobile devices, and databases with applications”)”.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Starov into the combined teachings of Rawlins and Nayak to include use of a “cloud service”. As stated in Starov, growth in system size and required reliability means “adequately testing all of these platforms is too expensive…especially for small resource-constrained mobile development companies”. Using cloud “provides the ability to run tests on a variety of remove mobile devices” and allows for multidirectional testing (page 124). Using cloud allows for access to more shared resources and better information sharing between different companies working on the same project. Cloud based testing gives better access to hardware and software resources, providing better reliability for testing while requiring fewer on-premise resources. Retrieving images from cloud allows for easier data sharing between discrete business entities. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with cloud resources.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated; and Rawlins further discloses:
- … further comprising updating…the second image (Paragraph [0032], “The test client application on a device can query the test management database for tests in a test queue or other actions that can be conducted using the device’s current configuration and if any such tests or other actions are found, they can be automatically run on the device…Upon allocation of the next available test to the device, the necessary system configuration for that test can be automatically retrieved, installed, and verified by the device”; Paragraph [0054], “Thus, in an exemplary embodiment, a test suite can be defined so that at runtime, a check can be made to determine which version of the application is running on a device and the appropriate test script to be loaded for a particular environment and set of applications and/or versions is known as a “test configuration””) [Examiner’s remarks: The second image (the tests) are updated and selected based on the configuration version of the device. Thus, a test case corresponding to an updated version of the device is an updated test case.].
Rawlins does not explicitly disclose:
- …updating the first image…
However, Nayak discloses:
- …updating the first image… (Paragraph [0012], “The system performs the test protocol automatically based on the presence of a new build. In other words, once a designer has compiled a source code for a new version of the firmware and made the binary file available (e.g., created a record of the new version in a database, stored the binary file in a specific folder on able system, etc.), the master node will locate the binary file, automatically copy the binary file to each of the nodes, and run tests specified by the test protocol on the testbenches loaded with the new version of the firmware”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nayak into the teachings of Rawlins to include use of a “updating the first image”. As stated in Nayak, “All of this activity is performed without the designer's intervention once the file is made available. … However, if bugs aren't discovered, then the designers can allow the tests to continue running, or change the configuration of the tests being run, to improve the duration of testing and ensure better, more stable firmware when compared to prior art techniques.” (Paragraph [0012]). Automation of testing updated firmware without human intervention streamlines the process of debugging code and frees up man hours which would otherwise be needed to monitor tests. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of device testing to combine device testing with automated firmware updates of test systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically in regards to the Amberg reference, Applicant argues:
The Office cites to Amberg, the new reference, for disclosing "[ . . . ] installed in a device during manufacture," citing to Amberg's column 1, lines 56-59. See Final Office Action, p. 4. The Office remarks that "Amberg discloses installing testing software onto a device by a manufacturer to ensure performance." But the claim language recites that the "first program" is "installed in a device during manufacture," not the "tester program" which is recited separately from the "first program." The first program updates the "second program;" it does not test the "second program." That task is done by the "tester program." For at least these reasons, Amberg does not teach the claim elements as discussed herein.
[See Remarks – Pages 6-7]
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A first program being installed in a device for testing is taught by Rawlins and by Nayak. Amberg is used by Examiner to disclose that a program for testing may be installed in a device during the manufacturing process. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that this program may be the first program described in Rawlins. Amberg is not used to disclose installation of a specific tester program as described by Applicant. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN WEIJIA DUAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/V.W.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191