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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Santangelo et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0193060, hereinafter “Santangelo”).
In regard to claim 1, Santangelo teaches a system (Santangelo Fig. 1 and abstract teach a testing system) comprising:
a chassis configured to hold a device under test (Santangelo Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020] teaches a testing frame 102 (chassis) configured to hold a device under test (DUT) 120);
a computing device attached to the chassis, and wherein the computing device (Santangelo Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020] teach a testing computing device 108 in a control cabinet attached to the testing frame chassis) is configured to:
receive an input indicative of content being displayed on a user interface of the device under test (Santangelo paragraphs [0007] and [0032] teach the computing device receiving a status input of whether a display is operating correctly, where the status is indicative of whether a camera-captured image of a user display interface of the DUT matches an expected image);
determine, according to a predefined workflow, an instruction for the device under test based on the input (Santangelo Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0058] and [0061]-[0069] teach determining a next test step instruction out of a predefined workflow (see predefined sequence of tests in Fig. 5) for the DUT based on receiving a status input, such as from the testing of the display); and
provide the determined instruction to the device under test (Santangelo paragraph [0028] teaches providing the determined instruction to execute a next test to the DUT), wherein the determined instruction is usable by the device under test to interact with a portion of the user interface in a specified way (Santangelo paragraph [0038] and [0056] and claim 10 teach using the instruction to trigger a later test operation that causes the computing DUT to interact with a touchpad or screen portion of the user interface in a specified way (such as using a robotic arm to physically engage the surface)).
In regard to claim 2, Santangelo teaches the system, wherein the device under test comprises a mobile computing device or a tablet computing device (Santangelo paragraph [0022] teaches where the DUT comprises a mobile computing laptop or a tablet).
In regard to claim 3, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the predefined workflow comprises one or more actions defined within a distributed computing system (Santangelo Fig. 5 teaches where the workflow comprises one or more actions such as testing the DUT speaker, DUT microphone, DUT display, etc., out of many components within a distributed computing system).
In regard to claim 4, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the computing device providing the determined instruction to the device under test comprises transmitting the determined instruction to the device under test over a wired communication channel (Santangelo paragraph [0025] teaches where providing an instruction to the DUT by the computing device comprises transmitting instructions over a wired communication channel).
In regard to claim 5, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the wired communication channel comprises one or more universal serial bus (USB) cables (Santangelo paragraph [0017] teaches connections between the computing device and DUT through a universal serial bus (USB) cable).
In regards to claim 6, Santangelo teaches the system further comprising a camera configured to capture an image of the user interface of the device under test, wherein the computing device receiving the input indicative of content being displayed on the user interface of the device under test comprises receiving the image of the user interface of the device under test from the camera (Santangelo paragraphs [0007], [0023], and [0032] teach the system comprising a camera configured to capture the image displayed by the DUT, wherein the computing device uses the camera-captured image to determine a status input indicative of the content displayed on the user interface display of the DUT).
In regard to claim 7, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the camera is attached to the chassis (Santangelo paragraph [0005] teaches where the camera is secured to the testing cabinet by a first bracket).
In regard to claim 8, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the computing device receiving the input indicative of content being displayed on the user interface of the device under test comprises receiving the input over a wired communication channel (Santangelo Fig. 3 and paragraph [0041] teaches where the testing computing device (having a processor 301) receives an input from the display with user interface 305 over a wired data bus 312 communication channel).
In regard to claim 9, Santangelo teaches the system, wherein the wired communication channel comprises a high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI) cable coupled to an output of the device under test (Santangelo paragraph [0026] teaches an HDMI cable to serve as a wired communication link between the DUT and the computing device, including receiving outputs from the DUT).
In regards to claim 10, Santangelo teaches the system further comprising a power supply port coupled to the computing device and attached to the chassis, wherein the computing device is configured to receive electrical power from the power supply port when a power supply is connected to the power supply port (Santangelo Fig. 2A and paragraphs [0022] and [0055] teach a power port coupled to the computing device and chassis in order to allow for a power cable to connect to the computing device and provide power).
In regards to claim 11, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the power supply port comprises a universal serial bus (USB) port (Santangelo Fig. 2A Items 206 teaches a USB port, where a USB port provides power when connected).
In regards to claim 12, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the power supply port is coupled to the device under test (Santangelo Fig. 2A teaches where the power supply port 206 is coupled to the computing DUT 120), and wherein the device under test is configured to receive electrical power from the power supply port when a power supply is connected to the power supply port (Santangelo Fig. 2A and paragraphs [0022] and [0055] teach where the DUT is configured to receive electrical power from the connected power cable (power supply) when the power cable is connected to the power supply port).
In regards to claim 14, Santangelo teaches the system wherein interacting with the portion of the user interface in the specified way comprises a screen touch, a swipe gesture, a keystroke, or a button press (Santangelo paragraphs [0016] and [0023] teach where the system allows for interacting with the portion of a user interface on a touchscreen by a robotic arm configured to engage (screen touch) the screen).
In regards to claim 15, Santangelo teaches the system wherein interacting with the portion of the user interface in the specified way: causes an application on the device under test to be installed, to launch, to quit, or to be moved to a background of the user interface; or addresses or deletes a notification displayed on the user interface (Santangelo paragraph [0038] teaches where the touching of the user interface causes an addressed message to the testing computing device identifying that the surface of the DUT was engaged).
In regards to claim 17, Santangelo teaches the system wherein interacting with the portion of the user interface in the specified way results in data being extracted from an application, data being entered into an application, a message being composed, a message being read, a message being deleted, an email being composed, an email being read, an email being deleted, a BLUETOOTH connection being enabled, a BLUETOOTH connection being disabled, a WIFI connection being enabled, a WIFI connection being disabled, mobile data usage being enabled, mobile data usage being disabled, or backing up data in the device under test into an external storage or cloud storage (Santangelo paragraph [0038] teaches where interacting with a portion of the user interface results in a data series of received key-presses being entered into an application for comparison to key presses that were commanded to be engaged).
In regards to claim 18, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the computing device comprises a wireless connection or a wireline connection to a wide area network (Santangelo paragraph [0017] teaches a wired cable network or wireless Wi-Fi network), and wherein the computing device is configured to receive at least a portion of the predefined workflow from an authorized user via the wide area network (Santangelo Fig. 3 Item 307B and paragraph [0045] teach where the computing device processor is configured to receive user-selected portions of the predefined test workflow from a user interacting with a GUI over the network).
In regards to claim 19, Santangelo teaches a method (Santangelo Fig. 5 and abstract teaches a method carried out by testing system) comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, an input indicative of content being displayed on a user interface of a device under test (Santangelo paragraphs [0007] and [0032] teach a computing device receiving a status input of whether a display is operating correctly, where the status is indicative of whether a camera-captured image of a user display interface of a device under test (DUT) matches an expected image), wherein the device under test is held by a chassis (Santangelo Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020] teaches a testing frame 102 (chassis) configured to hold a device under test DUT 120), and wherein the computing device is attached to the chassis (Santangelo Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020] teach a testing computing device 108 in a control cabinet attached to the testing frame chassis);
determining, by the computing device according to a predefined workflow, an instruction for the device under test based on the input (Santangelo Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0058] and [0061]-[0069] teach determining a next test step instruction out of a predefined workflow (see predefined sequence of tests in Fig. 5) for the DUT based on receiving a status input, such as from the testing of the display); and
providing, by the computing device, the determined instruction to the device under test (Santangelo paragraph [0028] teaches providing the determined instruction to execute a next test to the DUT), wherein the determined instruction is usable by the device under test to interact with a portion of the user interface in a specified way (Santangelo paragraph [0038] and [0056] and claim 10 teach using the instruction to trigger a later test operation that causes the computing DUT to interact with a touchpad or screen portion of the user interface in a specified way (such as using a robotic arm to physically engage the surface)).
In regards to claim 20, Santangelo teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executable by a processor to perform a method (Santangelo paragraph [0008] teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions executable by a processor to carry out operations) comprising:
determining, according to a predefined workflow, an instruction for a device under test based on an input (Santangelo Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0058] and [0061]-[0069] teach determining a next test step instruction out of a predefined workflow (see predefined sequence of tests in Fig. 5) for the DUT based on receiving a status input, such as from the testing of the display) indicative of content being displayed on a user interface of the device under test, wherein the input indicative of content being displayed on the user interface of the device under test is receivable by the processor (Santangelo paragraphs [0008] and [0032] teach the processor receiving a status input of whether a display is operating correctly, where the status is indicative of whether a camera-captured image of a user display interface of the DUT matches an expected image), and wherein the non-transitory, computer-readable medium and the processor are attachable to a chassis (Santangelo Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0008] and [0020] teach where the non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor are part of a testing computing device 108 in a control cabinet that is attached to a testing frame chassis) configured to hold the device under test (Santangelo Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020] teaches the testing frame 102 (chassis) configured to hold a device under test DUT 120); and
providing the determined instruction to the device under test (Santangelo paragraph [0028] teaches providing the determined instruction to execute a next test to the DUT), wherein the determined instruction is usable by the device under test to interact with a portion of the user interface in a specified way (Santangelo paragraph [0038] and [0056] and claim 10 teach using the instruction to trigger a later test operation that causes the computing DUT to interact with a touchpad or screen portion of the user interface in a specified way (such as using a robotic arm to physically engage the surface)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0193060) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huang (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0368791).
In regards to claim 13, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the device under test comprises an Apple computer (Santangelo paragraphs [0022] and [0055]). Santangelo fails to expressly teach the system wherein the device under test comprises an IPHONE, wherein the system further comprises a LIGHTNING adapter connected to a port of the IPHONE, and wherein the input indicative of content being displayed on a user interface of the device under test is received from the device under test or the determined instruction is provided to the device under test via the LIGHTNING adapter.
Huang abstract is directed towards an analogous endeavor of inspecting mobile devices, and paragraph [0225] teaches using a camera to capture what is happening on the display of the device. Huang paragraphs [0151] and [0221] teaches where the device under test may be an iPhone, and paragraph [0217] teaches where the device may be inserted into a drawer and connected via an Apple lightning cable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify where the device under test comprises an IPHONE as Santangelo allows for the device under test to be any type of computer, tablet, or suitable computing device including Apple computers (see Santangelo paragraphs [0022] and [0055]), and an IPHONE is a known type of mobile computing device made by Apple that functions as a mobile Apple computer. Therefore it would be well within the level of ordinary skill to further specify the use of a LIGHTNING adapter as this is the device-specific type of cable needed for communications of content or instructions to and from the IPHONE.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0193060) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kiley et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0198266, hereinafter “Kiley”).
In regards to claim 16, Santangelo teaches the system wherein the computing device comprises a processor configured to execute instructions stored on a memory to determine the instruction for the device under test based on the input (Santangelo paragraph [0008] teaches at least one processor for executing instructions stored in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (memory), and Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0058] and [0061]-[0069] teach determining a next test step instruction out of a predefined workflow (see predefined sequence of tests in Fig. 5) for the DUT based on the received status input). Santangelo fails to expressly teach wherein the instructions comprise instructions in HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), and wherein the instructions in HTTP and JSON can be triggered in response to requests received by an Application Programming Interface (API).
Kiley paragraph [0028] teaches a peer-to-peer connection between a source Web-enabled device and a target Web-enabled device, where native instructions, commands and/or requests of a Web browser or scripting application may be transported via a public network from a source Web-enabled device to a target Web-enabled device via a tunneling protocol to remotely control, monitor or otherwise interact with the target Web-enabled device. Kiley paragraph [0009] teaches where a program or script includes one or more calls to an application programming interface (API), and the native web browser commands are caused to be carried out (triggered) by the Web browser by transmitting the API calls to the target web-enabled device via an HTTP tunnel through a network to which both the first device and the target Web-enabled device are coupled. Kiley paragraph [0029] teaches where the commands (instructions) of the scripting app are written via Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) and other scripting languages such as JavaScript, where those skilled in the art will recognize alternative protocol stacks can be used.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Kiley because Santangelo teaches an embodiment where the testing computing device may communicate with the DUT over a wireless network (see Santangelo paragraph [0017]), and thus it may be necessary for peer-to-peer communications using instructions and commands written in HTTP or JavaScript to enable remote controlling or monitoring between the computing device and the DUT. Therefore it would only be a matter of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the use of application programming interface (API) to trigger web browser based commands to be transmitted between the computing device and DUT, as is used in wireless communication applications.
Pertinent Art
7. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
D. Wang et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0308450) discloses Computer-Implemented Method, Computer Program Product and Computing System, including disclosures on remotely accessing a Device-Under-Test from a local computing device (see Wang abstract).
E. Sadasivam (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0378878) discloses a Method and System for Analyzing Collected Data, including disclosures on interpreting the display of a device under test (see Sadasivam abstract).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights