CTFR 18/485,423 CTFR 86543 Detailed Action 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicants have filed a formal response dated March 23 rd , 2026 in response to the December 30 th , 2025 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-20. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 8 and 15 are in independent form and these claims (1-20) are subject to following rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in the following Office Action below. Response to the Amendments 3. (A). Regarding Non-statutory Double Patenting rejection : In pursuant to the previous rejections under non-statutory double patenting to the claims 1-20 Applicants have indicated in the during recent interview that Terminal Disclaimer (TD) will be filled based on the outcome of the prosecution. Therefore, rejections to initial non-statutory doble patenting will be held in abeyance until an official indication of patentability would be determined. (B). Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection : Applicant's amendment appropriately addressed the rejection to the claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The rejection to the claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn. (C). Objection to the Specification : Due to proper amendments to the specification previously applied objection to the specification has been withdrawn. (D). Regarding art rejection : In regards to claims 1-20 Applicants arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicants' amendment necessitated same grounds; however, modified version of rejections presented in the following art rejection. 07-40 AIA (E). Finality : Applicant's arguments filed March 23 th , 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Further, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103 07-20-aia AIA 4. 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim s 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0139812 A1 -herein after Cai) in view of Ozcan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0277374 A1 herein after Ozcan) . Per claim 1: Cai discloses: A computer-implemented method (At least see ¶[0003] - a method for testing an application on a GUI is provided), comprising: determining, by one or more processors, that a first frame of test video images and a second frame of application video images are different (At least see ¶[0029] - the number of screenshots in the baseline video may not correspond directly to the screenshots in the testing video); generating, by one or more processors, a user interface (UI) comprising the second frame on the user device based on application video data (At least see ¶[0015] GUI automation program 104 operates to run test script for an application on a GUI and create a baseline video of the test script); receiving, by one or more processors, user inputs for a first duration (At least see ¶[0019] - User interface 114 further operates to receive user input from a user via the provided user interface); capturing, by one or more processors, replacement test video images based on the user inputs for the first duration (At least see ¶[0024] - … baseline video comprises the GUI screenshots and corresponding test script. In some embodiments, a timestamp is added to each screenshot. For example, to indicate the length of time the test script was running when the screenshot was taken). Cai sufficiently discloses the method as set forth above, but Cai does not explicitly disclose: modifying, by one or more processors, the test video images by replacing the first frame of the test video images with the replacement test video images. However, Ozcan discloses: modifying, by one or more processors, the test video images by replacing the first frame of the test video images with the replacement test video images (At least see ¶[0043] - test platform 240 can run all of the scenarios against the production program to generate a new plurality of baseline screenshots that replace the previous version of baseline screenshots). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ozcan into Cai’s invention because Ozcan’s teaching provides a visual parity analysis run to detect a visual regression, wherein visual regression is a difference between the production version of a user interface and the test version of the user interface, which upon detecting a visual regression, an error message can be generated and the updated program module can be prevented from entering production if the visual regression is the result of a programming bug or error (please see ¶[0022]). Per claim 3: Cai also discloses: wherein the user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to click one or more user-selectable icons (At least see ¶[0015] - inputting characters, clicking buttons, and interacting with menus are valid statements. Invalid statements are script that do not cause a change in the GUI). Per claim 4: Cai also discloses: wherein the user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to enter text characters into one or more fields (At least see ¶[0015] - inputting characters, clicking buttons, and interacting with menus are valid statements. Invalid statements are script that do not cause a change in the GUI). Per claim 5: Cai also discloses: user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to visually verify one or more UI icons (At least see ¶[0019] -user interacts with GUI testing program 112 in order to test a function of an application in the GUI and record the testing). Per claim 6: Cai also discloses: first duration begins at a first time after the UI is generated and ends at a second time after a period of times has elapsed without user input detection (At least see ¶[0024] - a timestamp is added to each screenshot. For example, to indicate the length of time the test script was running when the screenshot was taken). Per claim 7: Cai also discloses: first time is less than two seconds and the second time is less than two seconds (At least see ¶[0018] - GUI testing program 112 records a video of screenshots for a predetermined time period). Per claim 8: Cai discloses: A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (At least see ¶[0004] - computer program product comprises a computer readable storage medium and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage medium), to perform a computer-implemented method (At least see ¶[0004] - program instructions include program instructions to receive a request to perform a test of an application) comprising: determining that a first frame of test video images and a second frame of application video images are different (At least see ¶[0029] - the number of screenshots in the baseline video may not correspond directly to the screenshots in the testing video); generating a UI comprising the second frame on the user device based on the application video data (At least see ¶[0015] GUI automation program 104 operates to run test script for an application on a GUI and create a baseline video of the test script); reciving user inputs for a first duration (At least see ¶[0019] - User interface 114 further operates to receive user input from a user via the provided user interface); capturing replacement test video images based on the user inputs for the first duration (At least see ¶[0024] - … baseline video comprises the GUI screenshots and corresponding test script. In some embodiments, a timestamp is added to each screenshot. For example, to indicate the length of time the test script was running when the screenshot was taken) . Cai sufficiently discloses the method as set forth above, but Cai does not explicitly disclose: modifying, by one or more processors, the test video images by replacing the first frame of the test video images with the replacement test video images. However, Ozcan discloses: modifying, by one or more processors, the test video images by replacing the first frame of the test video images with the replacement test video images (At least see ¶[0043] - test platform 240 can run all of the scenarios against the production program to generate a new plurality of baseline screenshots that replace the previous version of baseline screenshots). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ozcan into Cai’s invention because Ozcan’s teaching provides a visual parity analysis run to detect a visual regression, wherein visual regression is a difference between the production version of a user interface and the test version of the user interface, which upon detecting a visual regression, an error message can be generated and the updated program module can be prevented from entering production if the visual regression is the result of a programming bug or error (please see ¶[0022]). Per claim 10: Cai also discloses: wherein the user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to click one or more user-selectable icons (At least see ¶[0015] - inputting characters, clicking buttons, and interacting with menus are valid statements. Invalid statements are script that do not cause a change in the GUI). Per claim 11: Cai also discloses: user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to enter text characters into one or more fields (At least see ¶[0015] - inputting characters, clicking buttons, and interacting with menus are valid statements. Invalid statements are script that do not cause a change in the GUI). Per claim 12: Cai also discloses: user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to visually verify one or more UI icons (At least see ¶[0019] -user interacts with GUI testing program 112 in order to test a function of an application in the GUI and record the testing). Per claim 13: Cai also discloses: first duration begins at a first time after the UI is generated and ends at a second time after a period of times has elapsed without user input detection (At least see ¶[0024] - a timestamp is added to each screenshot. For example, to indicate the length of time the test script was running when the screenshot was taken). Per claim 14: Cai also discloses: first time is less than two seconds and the second time is less than two seconds (At least see ¶[0018] - GUI testing program 112 records a video of screenshots for a predetermined time period). Per claim 15: Cai discloses: A computer system (At least see ¶[0005] - a computer system) comprising: processor set (At least see ¶[0005] - computer system includes one or more computer processors); one or more computer readable storage media (At least see ¶[0005] - one or more computer readable storage media); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations (At least see ¶[0005] - program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors) comprising: determining that a first frame of test video images and a second frame of application video images are different (At least see ¶[0029] - the number of screenshots in the baseline video may not correspond directly to the screenshots in the testing video); generating a UI comprising the second frame on the user device based on the application video data (At least see ¶[0015] GUI automation program 104 operates to run test script for an application on a GUI and create a baseline video of the test script); receiving user inputs for a first duration (At least see ¶[0019] - User interface 114 further operates to receive user input from a user via the provided user interface); capturing replacement test video images based on the user inputs for the first duration (At least see ¶[0024] - … baseline video comprises the GUI screenshots and corresponding test script. In some embodiments, a timestamp is added to each screenshot. For example, to indicate the length of time the test script was running when the screenshot was taken) . Cai sufficiently discloses the method as set forth above, but Cai does not explicitly disclose: modifying, by one or more processors, the test video images by replacing the first frame of the test video images with the replacement test video images. However, Ozcan discloses: modifying, by one or more processors, the test video images by replacing the first frame of the test video images with the replacement test video images (At least see ¶[0043] - test platform 240 can run all of the scenarios against the production program to generate a new plurality of baseline screenshots that replace the previous version of baseline screenshots). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ozcan into Cai’s invention because Ozcan’s teaching provides a visual parity analysis run to detect a visual regression, wherein visual regression is a difference between the production version of a user interface and the test version of the user interface, which upon detecting a visual regression, an error message can be generated and the updated program module can be prevented from entering production if the visual regression is the result of a programming bug or error (please see ¶[0022]). Per claim 17: Cai also discloses: wherein the user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to click one or more user-selectable icons (At least see ¶[0015] - inputting characters, clicking buttons, and interacting with menus are valid statements. Invalid statements are script that do not cause a change in the GUI). Per claim 18: Cai also discloses: wherein the user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to enter text characters into one or more fields (At least see ¶[0015] - inputting characters, clicking buttons, and interacting with menus are valid statements. Invalid statements are script that do not cause a change in the GUI). Per claim 19: Cai also discloses: user inputs correspond to specific instructions executed by a user to visually verify one or more UI icons (At least see ¶[0019] -user interacts with GUI testing program 112 in order to test a function of an application in the GUI and record the testing). Per claim 20: Cai also discloses: first duration begins at a first time after the UI is generated and ends at a second time after a period of times has elapsed without user input detection (At least see ¶[0024] - a timestamp is added to each screenshot. For example, to indicate the length of time the test script was running when the screenshot was taken) . 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0139812 A1 -herein after Cai) in view of Ozcan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0277374 A1 herein after Ozcan), and further in view of Sadasivam et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0286030 A1 herein after Sadasivam) . Per claim 2: Cai modified by Ozcan sufficiently discloses the method as set forth in the independent claim, but Cai modified by Ozcan does not explicitly disclose: determining, by one or more processors, a first score for the first frame and a second score for the second frame; generating, by one or more processors, a first similarity threshold based on a comparison between the first score and the second score; and responsive to the first similarity threshold being less than a predetermined threshold, determining, by one or more processors, that the first frame and the second frame is different. However, Sadasivam discloses: determining, by one or more processors, a first score for the first frame and a second score for the second frame; generating, by one or more processors, a first similarity threshold based on a comparison between the first score and the second score; and responsive to the first similarity threshold being less than a predetermined threshold, determining, by one or more processors, that the first frame and the second frame is different (At least see ¶[0052] - generating a test report corresponding to the target test case based on the comparison of the response time corresponding to the one or more target video frames with one or more predefined threshold values, ¶[0064] and ¶[0072]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sadasivam into Cai modified by Ozcan’s invention because conventional manual testing techniques are error prone due to human error; therefore, visual indicators and display screens in order to enable a user to interact with the electronic device in an efficient manner, which Sadasivam provides an efficient testing technique with special software to control the execution of tests and compare actual outcome with predicted outcome by capturing a sequence of video frames of visual indicators corresponding to the electronic device under test, wherein a response time corresponding to each target video frame from the one or more target video frames, wherein the response time for each target video frame is computed based on a number of video frames between the first video frame (please see ¶[0003] ¶[0008] and ¶[0010]). Per claim 9: Cai modified by Ozcan sufficiently discloses the program product as set forth in the independent claim, but Cai modified by Ozcan does not explicitly disclose: determining a first score for the first frame and a second score for the second frame; generating a first similarity threshold based on a comparison between the first score and the second score; and responsive to the first similarity threshold being less than a predetermined threshold, determining that the first frame and the second frame is different. However, Sadasivam discloses: determining a first score for the first frame and a second score for the second frame; generating a first similarity threshold based on a comparison between the first score and the second score; and responsive to the first similarity threshold being less than a predetermined threshold, determining that the first frame and the second frame is different (At least see ¶[0052] - generating a test report corresponding to the target test case based on the comparison of the response time corresponding to the one or more target video frames with one or more predefined threshold values, ¶[0064] and ¶[0072]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sadasivam into Cai modified by Ozcan’s invention because conventional manual testing techniques are error prone due to human error; therefore, visual indicators and display screens in order to enable a user to interact with the electronic device in an efficient manner, which Sadasivam provides an efficient testing technique with special software to control the execution of tests and compare actual outcome with predicted outcome by capturing a sequence of video frames of visual indicators corresponding to the electronic device under test, wherein a response time corresponding to each target video frame from the one or more target video frames, wherein the response time for each target video frame is computed based on a number of video frames between the first video frame (please see ¶[0003] ¶[0008] and ¶[0010]). Per claim 16: Cai modified by Ozcan sufficiently discloses the program product as set forth in the independent claim, but Cai modified by Ozcan does not explicitly disclose: determining a first score for the first frame and a second score for the second frame; generating a first similarity threshold based on a comparison between the first score and the second score; and responsive to the first similarity threshold being less than a predetermined threshold, determining that the first frame and the second frame is different. However, Sadasivam discloses: determining a first score for the first frame and a second score for the second frame; generating a first similarity threshold based on a comparison between the first score and the second score; and responsive to the first similarity threshold being less than a predetermined threshold, determining that the first frame and the second frame is different (At least see ¶[0052] - generating a test report corresponding to the target test case based on the comparison of the response time corresponding to the one or more target video frames with one or more predefined threshold values, ¶[0064] and ¶[0072]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sadasivam into Cai modified by Ozcan’s invention because conventional manual testing techniques are error prone due to human error; therefore, visual indicators and display screens in order to enable a user to interact with the electronic device in an efficient manner, which Sadasivam provides an efficient testing technique with special software to control the execution of tests and compare actual outcome with predicted outcome by capturing a sequence of video frames of visual indicators corresponding to the electronic device under test, wherein a response time corresponding to each target video frame from the one or more target video frames, wherein the response time for each target video frame is computed based on a number of video frames between the first video frame (please see ¶[0003] ¶[0008] and ¶[0010]). CONCLUSION 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL A. CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-7750. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30PM 6:30PM Monday -Friday. 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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Public Search tool (for all users) – A link to the Patent Public Search Tool is available at www. Uspto.gov/PatentPublicSearch. To find a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, open the Patent Public Search tool by selecting “Start search”. Type the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication number in the “Search” panel without any punctuation and followed by an”.pn.”. Should you have questions on access to the system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ZIAUL A CHOWDHURY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 06/10/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/485,423 Page 2 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/485,423 Page 3 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/485,423 Page 4 Art Unit: 2192
Prosecution Insights