DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 01/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Acknowledgement
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are amended.
In light of amendments of the claims, the 35 USC 112 (b) rejections made against claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Claim interpretation
Claims use the term “testing mechanism”. The term has not been defined or described in the original disclosure. In literal sense “mechanism” means procedure, process, system, operation, method, etc. As such, “testing mechanism” has been interpreted as a “testing method” or “testing process”. Prior art of record, Veerappa recites in [0032] “A test case is the most fundamental part of an application testing process. The test case may include a certain set of conditions (or test steps) that need to be checked to test an application or a component thereof.” This shows that a “test case” or a “test” is equivalent to a “testing mechanism” mentioned in the claims.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejection, which relies upon prior arts made of record Veerappa et al. (Pub. No.: US 2025/0112848) and Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang, Pub. No.: US 2018/0270130). Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerappa et al. (hereinafter Veerappa, Pub. No.: US 2025/0112848) in view of Boss et al. (hereinafter Boss, Pub. No.: US 2014/0376385) in view of Allen et al. (hereinafter Allen, Pub. No.: US 2014/0379894) and further in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang, Pub. No.: US 2018/0270130).
As per claim 1, (Currently amended) Veerappa teaches,
A method for testing connectivity, comprising:
invoking, by one or more computing devices, a connectivity testing mechanism
among a plurality of connectivity testing mechanisms responsive to a request to initiate a connectivity test, (Veerappa recites in [0007] starting at line 7, “Further, the method may include user device via a web-based application, input data for executing one or more test scripts to test one or more functions on one or more devices in the network. The processor-executable instructions, on execution, may further cause the processing circuitry to parse the input data, select an execution module from a plurality of execution modules, for executing the one or more test scripts on the one or more devices based on the parsed input data,”. This shows selecting one test among a plurality test in response to user input. Veerappa recites in [0055] “The execution module 310 may determine whether to re-execute the failed test cases based on the type of failure of the test cases. The types of failure may be telnet failure, SSH failure, authentication issue, Wi-Fi signal noise, IP connectivity failure, and the like.” This shows connectivity testing is performed.)
the connectivity test performed as a point-to-point test or a service-to-service test; (It has been shown above that Veerappa performs an “IP connectivity” testing. IP connectivity testing is a point-to-point test. [Please refer to attached document “Kordz” which recites on page 2 line 3, “IP connectivity refers to the cabling infrastructure and network design that enable the seamless transmission of data between devices using the Internet Protocol (IP). IP is the fundamental communications protocol that governs how data packets are relayed across network boundaries, allowing the exchange of information between different systems and networks.”])
Veerappa teaches point-to-point connectivity testing. Veerappa does not explicitly teach, “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a location of a connectivity issue based on the connectivity test;”. However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Boss teaches,
displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a location of a connectivity issue based on the connectivity test; and (Boss recites in [0004] last sentence “The results are analyzed to determine one or more locations of network connectivity failure.” This shows that locations of the connectivity failure have been determined. Boss recites in [0037] “Display 440 provides a mechanism to display data to a user and may be, for example, a computer monitor, laptop screen or smart phone display.” This shows data is displayed. Since “locations of network connectivity failures” are data, these will be displayed on display 440.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Veerappa of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a location of a connectivity issue based on the connectivity test;” of Boss. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of identifying the location and cause of a connectivity failure so that a user can remedy the issue.
Veerappa and Boss teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly mention, “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a next step to solve the connectivity issue based on the connectivity test,” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing Allen teaches,
displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a next step to solve the connectivity issue based on the connectivity test, (Allen recites in [0022] “Unlike typical monitoring solutions, connectivity manager 26 can provide results 150 directly to the user experiencing the connectivity issue. The determined root cause and
other information may be displayed on connectivity issue display 125. The results 150
provide guidance to the user on how to correct the connectivity issue. For example, results 150 may provide steps to correct the connectivity issue or inform the user that the connectivity issue should be addressed by an administrator or a call to the online service 105 should be made.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Veerappa and Boss of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a next step to solve the connectivity issue based on the connectivity test,” of Allen. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of displaying a connectivity issue and will need help in resolving the issue.
Veerappa, Boss and Allen teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly mention, whereby the connectivity testing mechanism is automatically utilized for performing connectivity testing for services running across platforms.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing Wang teaches,
whereby the connectivity testing mechanism is automatically utilized for performing connectivity testing for services running across platforms. (Wang recites in [0013] “Illustrated in FIG. 1 is a network architecture 100 in which a self-driven testing platform 101 is implemented. ….. For the proper functioning of the networks, IC network 1, IC network 2 and IC network n must maintain interoperability, adjacent network compatibility and service chain connectivity. This is particularly important whenever new IC networks are deployed.” This shows that the connectivity testing is performed automatically. Wang recites in [0005] starting at line 10, “One general aspect
includes a method including: identifying a first integrated cloud, testing the interoperability of the first integrated cloud with a plurality of other integrated clouds, creating a service chain to verify a service chain path connectivity between the
first integrated cloud and the plurality of other integrated clouds, determining a service chain performance of the service chain, determining whether the service chain performance meets a benchmark requirement, …”. This teaches that services are running across multiple platforms and clouds.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Veerappa, Boss and Allen of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “whereby the connectivity testing mechanism is automatically utilized for performing connectivity testing for services running across platforms.” of Wang. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of performing connectivity testing of different services running across multiple platforms and execute the tests automatically to catch any issue before users face the issue.
As per claim 8, this is medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
As per claim 15, this is system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20 and are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Boss and Allen as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 in view of Klima et al. (hereinafter Klima, “A Testing Tool for IoT Systems Operating with Limited Network Connectivity”, 2021, arXiv).
As per claim 2, (Currently amended) Davis, Boss and Allen teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein, in response to determining the connectivity test is service to service, the initiating the connectivity test comprises performing a decision tree test to determine the connectivity issue.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Klima teaches,
wherein, in response to determining the (Klima Fig. 1 shows a model of a connectivity test where “functions” are services. Here test is a service-to-service test. This shows a decision tree.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis, Boss and Allen of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “wherein, in response to determining the connectivity test is service to service, the initiating the connectivity test comprises performing a decision tree test to determine the connectivity issue.” of Klima. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of service-to-service connectivity testing, when a service is needed to be performed from a distributed service provider.
As per claim 4, (Currently amended) Boss teaches,
further comprising performing, the connectivity test from a service among a plurality of services on [[the]] a source side. (Boss recites in [0012] bottom 10 lines, “In one example, an end user troubleshoot connectivity problems with the end user's device associated to a particular network resource by crowd sourcing multiple connectivity requests to other users or devices nearby. These neighboring devices can then perform localized connectivity tests, as well as remote node test(s) and return the test results back to the device associated with the end user or a central system to correlate results and narrow down a particular problem or source of connectivity loss.” This shows that localized connectivity tests are performed either local node, which is a source or a remote node which is destination.)
As per claim 5, (Currently amended) Boss teaches,
further comprising performing, the connectivity test to a service among a plurality of services on [[the]] a destination side. (Boss recites in [0012] bottom 10 lines, “In one example, an end user troubleshoot connectivity problems with the end user's device associated to a particular network resource by crowd sourcing multiple connectivity requests to other users or devices nearby. These neighboring devices can then perform localized connectivity tests, as well as remote node test(s) and return the test results back to the device associated with the end user or a central system to correlate results and narrow down a particular problem or source of connectivity loss.” This shows that localized connectivity tests are performed either local node, which is a source or a remote node which is destination.)
As per claim 6, (Original) Boss teaches,
wherein when the connectivity test fails and a connectivity issue is determined to exist, a plurality of parameters are determined based on details of the connectivity test and a second connectivity test is performed to narrow down the issue. (Boss recites in [0012] bottom 10 lines, “In one example, an end user troubleshoot connectivity problems with the end user's device associated
to a particular network resource by crowd sourcing multiple connectivity requests to other users or devices nearby. These neighboring devices can then perform localized
connectivity tests, as well as remote node test(s) and return the test results back to the device associated with the end user or a central system to correlate results and narrow
down a particular problem or source of connectivity loss.” This shows that localized connectivity tests are performed to narrow down the problem. A plurality of localized connectivity tests are performed.)
As per claim 9, 11, 12 and 13 these medium claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 2, 4, 5 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
As per claim 16, 18, 19 and 20 these are system claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claim 2, 4, 5, and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Boss, Allen and Klima as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim, Pub. No.: WO/2018/097345).
As per claim 3, (Original) Davis, Boss, Allen and Klima teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the next step to solve the connectivity issue is determined based on the decision tree test.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Kim teaches,
wherein the next step to solve the connectivity issue is determined based on the decision tree test. (Kim teaches service connectivity tests. Kim recites in [9] “One embodiment of the present invention provides a distributed computing-based application object analysis method that can be variably allocated a service flow branch according to the test state of the application through at least one mobile terminal.” Please note that a service flow branch means the branch is chosen depending on a decision tree. When flow takes different branches, a particular branch is chosen depending on a condition of a decision tree. Kim recites in [50] “The application object analysis server 130 can be connected to the service flow monitor terminal 110 over the network and transmit the test results for the corresponding service flow branch that constitutes the test application target to the service flow monitor terminal 110. The application object analysis server 130 can perform an ADB (Android Debug Bridge) connection with the service flow monitor terminal 110.” Here Android Debug Bridge provides debugging capability including steps for debugging.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis, Boss, Allen and Klima of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “wherein the next step to solve the connectivity issue is determined based on the decision tree test.” of Kim. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of solving a connectivity issue is by testing the branch which causes the issue. The branch is decided by a decision tree.
As per claim 10, this is medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
As per claim 17, this is system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Boss and Allen as applied to claims 1 and 8 in view of Balachandran et al. (hereinafter Balachandran, Patent No.: US 9,565,085).
As per claim 7, (Original) Davis, Boss and Allen teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly teach “wherein the connectivity test is performed periodically.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Balachandran teaches,
wherein the connectivity test is performed periodically. (Balachandra recites in column 4 starting bottom line “For example, tool 204 may monitor the wireless network connection for changes in wireless network connectivity by periodically running one
or more connectivity tests that test the ability of communication apparatus 206 to send and receive network traffic 226 using a default gateway, network address, DNS server, target host, and/or other components and/or attributes of wireless network 208.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis, Boss and Allen of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “wherein the connectivity test is performed periodically.” of Balachandran. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Balachandran of performing connectivity testing periodically to detect any issues quickly and fix the issues to keep the network functional.
As per claim 14, this is medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
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.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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 Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights