DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 – 6, 11 – 15, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carteri et al. (hereinafter Carteri, US 2013/0219368) in view of Shavro et al. (hereinafter Shavro, US 2018/0004640).
Regarding claim 2, Carteri discloses:
a system in a proxy server (Fig. 1 and 2 and ph. [0013] – [0016] disclose such a system where the test system described acts as the proxy for the web server and the client device, note the layering of the testing system in wrapped around the browser and web client application of Fig. 2, (where the client is shown as a separate system between the Web Application server in Fig. 1)), the system comprising:
a processor (the system as described in at least Fig. 1 and 2 and ph. [0013] – [0017] may only function with at least one processor, as is common and well known among computing systems); and
a memory device that stores program code structured to cause the processor, (the system as described in at least Fig. 1 and 2 and ph. [0013] – [0017] may only function with at least one processor that executes such code stored on such a memory, so structured to instruct/cause at least one processor to perform execution of the functions and features disclosed throughout the reference):
determine, in response to interception of an upload request query from a client device, (see at least ph. [0013] – [0014] for a client that uses the test suite to test system actions, which include the testing of instructions that include the examples (that include) uploads) and if the test system receives such test requests from the originating client, then they intercepted the request to perform the test and then responds by performing the test and these request to perform tests include system functions such as the upload function of at least ph. [0026]) instructions for generating a mock upload event to a service provider server from the client device, (the instructions in at least ph. [0013] – [0017] disclose the simulated (i.e. mock) test events generated by the system (which requires instructions to be so performed) as part of the handling of the service between the client and the Web Application server), wherein the instructions are determined based on upload policies as applied to the upload request query from the client device, causing the client device to generate the mock upload event (see at least ph. [0018] – [0042] that disclose various examples of different system events that the system can generate including corresponding system event tests, which include the uploading of files as per at least ph. [0026] that would originate from request from the client and such related computing code instructions); and
Carteri does not disclose, however, Shavro discloses:
intercept function calls (see at least ph. [0083] that discloses passing code only when tests are passed).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Carteri, by the teachings of Shavro in order to capture function calls important for the application code to perform its functions.
Claim 11 is a method version of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 is a physical hardware computer-readable medium version of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 21, the rejections of claims 2, 11 and 20 are incorporated and Carteri discloses:
generating a mock data transfer object for the mock upload event based on the upload policy as applied to the upload request query from the client device (see at least ph. [0018] – [0042] for the various data transfer objects that are tested including the upload test object that will carry its associated data for the uploading test of at least ph. [0026] for its viability).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the rejections of claims 2 and 11 are incorporated and Carteri discloses:
the instructions determined for generating a mock upload event to a service provider server from a client device is based on information about one or more files (see at least ph. [0026] where the file upload will be based on the uploading of at least one file), one or more directories, or one or more files and one or more directories that is indicated in the upload event query received from the client device.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, the rejections of claims 2 and 11 are incorporated and Carteri discloses:
determine the instructions based on one or more files (see at least ph. [0026] where the file upload and its corresponding simulated test event and object as per at least ph. [0013] – [0017] will be based on the uploading of at least one file), one or more directories, or one or more files, and one or more directories included in the upload event query intercepted from the client device.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the rejections of claims 2 and 11 are incorporated and Carteri discloses:
the upload policy indicate at least one of criteria for taking certain actions or how to treat certain files or directories for the generating of the mock upload event to the service provider server from the client device (see at least ph. [0026] where the file upload is specified with type (i.e. type of file), where such file type then is provided from the client when passing the file to the service for its processing and facilitating of the upload request that then is handled by the simulated testing of system events as per at least ph. [0013] – [0017]).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated and Carteri discloses:
indicate to individually deny or allow upload of one or more files, one or more directories, or one or more files of a directory (see at least ph. [0026] for the example of the upload function which allows for the uploading of files, including individual files and therefore when doing so the system allowed for the uploading of said individual (i.e. specific at that time) file).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carteri in view of Shavro and further in view of Coelho (US 10,110,569).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the rejections of claims 2 and 11 are incorporated and Carteri and Shavro do not expressly disclose, however, Coelho discloses:
specify for one or more of modifying file content, encrypting file content, renaming a file, or denying transmission of certain types of files or directories (see at least col. 4 ln. 45 – 57 for the uploading of files with an encryption key that can be used for the encrypting and decrypting process as part of the uploading function and subsequent handling of the upload and its related functions with the uploaded file).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Carteri, as modified by Shavro, by the teachings of Coelho in order to facilitate a means for an uploading receiver to work the actual encrypted file.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 10 and 17 - 19 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
Other References Cited Not Relied Upon
Davis et al. (US 6,901,438) discloses sending request history to better simulate a user’s path.
Boyd et al. (US 20019/0278438) discloses an experiment system to execute variation tests responsive to client-side snippet instructions/code.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG C DORAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00pm.
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 5712724215. 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.
/CRAIG C DORAIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights