DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 - 20 in this application Devisetty et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/663,746, (Filed May 14, 2024).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on May 14, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The references listed therein have been considered and placed in the application file.
It is noted that the majority of references in the IDS appear to be unrelated to the instant Application as they are directed to non-software based subject matter. Applicant is advised to investigate whether the correct IDS and/or the intended references were submitted in this Application.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0200833 (Published July 1, 2021, filed December 27, 2019) (“Sharma”) in view of Zhao et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0095155 (Published March 21, 2024, filed September 21, 2022) (“Zhao”) and Vanderwall et al., United States Patent No. 10,747,651 (Patented August 18, 2020, filed May 31, 2018) (“Vanderwall”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 Sharma teaches the invention as claimed including a system for improving performance of a website, comprising:
a memory configured to store source code associated with a website; and a processor, operably coupled to the memory, and configured to: detect a set of web components that are present on the website, wherein the set of web components comprises at least one of a button, a text field, or a link;… generate a set of test case scripts to emulate various user interactions with the website under various conditions… wherein each of the set of test case scripts indicates a respective user interaction with the website under a respective condition; execute a first test case script from among the set of test case scripts, wherein: executing the first test case script comprises emulating a first user interaction with the website under a first condition; … and the first user interaction with the website comprises an interaction with a first web element on the website; determine that a result of the first test case script does not correspond to an expected output; and in response to determining that the result of the first test case script does not correspond to the expected output, … identifying a first code portion associated with the first web element in the source code of the website; {A map is created of the user interface controls/elements of a website, such as the site’s buttons, links, and web edits, and the controls metadata, where the map is used by testing scripts to perform automation testing on the controls of the website to emulate a user using the site and monitoring the output response of the services of the site and the expected output response. Sharma at ¶¶ 0003, 0004, 0010, 0013, 0039, 0042, 0053; id. at ¶¶ 0076 – 0078 (correcting incorrect service responses after testing); id. at claim 3; id. at fig. 1.}
However, Sharma doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
determine a set of conditional metrics associated with the website, wherein: the set of conditional metrics indicates a range of conditions under which performance of the website is evaluated; and the set of conditional metrics comprises at least one of: a service offered by the website; a timestamp when the website is accessed; a geographical location from where the website is accessed; a user interaction with the website; or a device capability associated with a device from which the website is accessed;… according to one or more of the set of conditional metrics,… the first condition is from among the range of conditions indicated by the set of conditional metrics; … {Zhao does teach this limitation. Zhao teaches that testing a website using user emulation, as taught in Sharma, may include where when website features and uses (conditional metrics), such as services provided by the website like “web browsing, phone calls, TV broadcasts” which involve device and user engagement, are deemed to be of greater importance for testing are weighted higher for selecting the set of test cases that will test the website in order to test the website for functional and traffic load issues. Zhao at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0026, 0030 – 0032, 0048, 0055 – 0057; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0028, and 0041 (metrics include traffic, load, functional, and compatibility issues); id. at ¶ 0073 (using computer vision to identify website elements).
Sharma and Zhao are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to determine test cases for testing a website.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing a website using user emulation, as taught in Sharma with using website metrics to select test cases, as taught in Zhao. Zhao teaches that websites have unique functional requirements that must be tested prior to delivery. Id. at ¶ 0002. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing a website using user emulation, as taught in Sharma with using website metrics to select test cases, as taught in Zhao, for the purpose of using a known method to test particular features of websites with a website that requires testing prior to delivery.}
However, Sharma and Zhao doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
perform a corrective action, wherein the corrective action comprises: …and updating the first code portion to a second code portion that is configured to provide the expected output. {Vanderwall does teach this limitation. Vanderwall teaches that testing a website, as taught in Sharma and Zhao, may include where the tests for a website may be determined using a camera, GUI screenshots, and OCR visual identification techniques, the tests performed, and defects detected during testing may be automatically fixed by a code generator. Vanderwall at Abstract; id. at col. 19 ln. 56 - col. 20 ln. 23 (testing webpages); id. at col. 39 ll. 1 – 41, col. 41 ll. 46 – 48, col. 27 ln. 26 – col. 28 ln. 32, & id. at col. 71 ll. 53 - 63 (visual identification of website features and testing goals); id. at col. 35 ln 46 – col. 36 ln. 27 (defect correction).
Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to determine test cases for testing a website.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing a website, as taught in Sharma and Zhao with correcting the website based on test results, as taught in Vanderwall. Zhao teaches that websites may need correcting based on identified flaws from testing. Id. at ¶¶ 0076 – 0078. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing a website, as taught in Sharma and Zhao with correcting the website based on test results, as taught in Vanderwall, for the purpose of using a known method to test for website flows with a website testing method that corrects identified flaws.}
Claims 2, 9, and 16
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a set of weight values associated with the set of conditional metrics, wherein: each of the set of weight values is associated with a respective conditional metric from among the set of conditional metrics; and a weight value indicates an importance of the respective conditional metric in evaluating the performance of the website. {When website features and uses (conditional metrics), such as services provided by the website like “web browsing, phone calls, TV broadcasts” which involve device and user engagement, are deemed to be of greater importance for testing are weighted higher for selecting the set of test cases that will test the website in order to test the website for functional and traffic load issues. Zhao at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0026, 0030 – 0032, 0048, 0055 – 0057; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0028, and 0041 (metrics include traffic, load, functional, and compatibility issues); id. at ¶ 0073 (using computer vision to identify website elements).}
Claims 3, 10, and 17
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17 Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based at least in part upon the set of weight values, a set of priority levels for the set of test case scripts, wherein: each priority level from among the set of priority levels is for a respective test case script; and a priority level indicates an importance of the respective test case script in evaluating the performance of the website; and execute the set of test case scripts in order of the determined set of priority levels. {When website features and uses (conditional metrics), such as services provided by the website like “web browsing, phone calls, TV broadcasts” which involve device and user engagement, are deemed to be of greater importance for testing are weighted higher for selecting the set of test cases that will test the website in order to test the website for functional and traffic load issues. Zhao at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0026, 0030 – 0032, 0048, 0055 – 0057; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0028, and 0041 (metrics include traffic, load, functional, and compatibility issues); id. at ¶ 0073 (using computer vision to identify website elements).}
Claims 4, 11, and 18
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18 Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein detecting the set of web components that are present on the website is in response to parsing the source code associated with the website. {Zhao at ¶ 0043 (scanning HTML code using natural language processing).}
Claims 5, 12, and 19
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19 Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein detecting the set of web components that are present on the website is in response to: {A map is created of the user interface controls/elements of a website, such as the site’s buttons, links, and web edits, and the controls metadata, where the map is used by testing scripts to perform automation testing on the controls of the website to emulate a user using the site and monitoring the output response of the services of the site and the expected output response. Sharma at ¶¶ 0003, 0004, 0010, 0013, 0039, 0042, 0053; id. at ¶¶ 0076 – 0078 (correcting incorrect service responses after testing); id. at claim 3; id. at fig. 1.}
capturing an image of the website by a camera; and implementing a web element detection algorithm to detect the set of web components that are shown on the captured image. {The tests for a website may be determined using a camera, GUI screenshots, and OCR visual identification techniques, the tests performed, and defects detected during testing may be automatically fixed by a code generator. Vanderwall at Abstract; id. at col. 19 ln. 56 - col. 20 ln. 23 (testing webpages); id. at col. 39 ll. 1 – 41, col. 41 ll. 46 – 48, col. 27 ln. 26 – col. 28 ln. 32, & id. at col. 71 ll. 53 - 63 (visual identification of website features and testing goals); id. at col. 35 ln 46 – col. 36 ln. 27 (defect correction).
Claims 6, 13, and 20
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20 Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein determining the set of conditional metrics is in response to: detecting the user interaction with at least a portion of the set of web components on the website; and determining a user behavior on the website, wherein the user behavior indicates a user traversing through the website based at least in part upon the detected user interaction with at least the portion of the set of web components. {When website features and uses (conditional metrics), such as services provided by the website like “web browsing, phone calls, TV broadcasts” which involve device and user engagement, are deemed to be of greater importance for testing are weighted higher for selecting the set of test cases that will test the website in order to test the website for functional and traffic load issues. Zhao at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0026, 0030 – 0032, 0048, 0055 – 0057; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0028, and 0041 (metrics include traffic, load, functional, and compatibility issues); id. at ¶ 0073 (using computer vision to identify website elements).}
Claims 7 and 14
With respect to claims 7 and 14 Sharma, Zhao, and Vanderwall teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the set of conditional metrics further comprises at least one of: a network performance metric comprising at least one of a website load time, a server response time, a downtime frequency, or a network traffic; a content engagement metric comprising at least one of a click-through rate, a time spent on the website, or an interaction rate with media elements on the website; or a technical device metric comprising at least one of an operating system version or a web browser type. {Types of website features and uses (conditional metrics) are tracked, evaluated, and tested including network traffic, such as traffic load issues or packet loss, and content engagement like “web browsing, phone calls, TV broadcasts.” Zhao at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0026, 0030 – 0032, 0048, 0055 – 0057; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0028, 0041, 0048 (metrics include traffic, load, functional, and compatibility issues); id. at ¶ 0073 (using computer vision to identify website elements).}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
//T.H./ September 19, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights