DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 11/25/2025. In the application,
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-19 are pending and being considered.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12 and 15-17 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 18 and 19 have been added.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are independent.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-19 are rejected.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections for claims 7-8 and 10 have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102: Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 11/25/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. In particular, independent claims have been amended to recite limitation “the plurality of tests including at least one test applied to the visual report;” which requires further consideration and search. Therefore, the arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejections outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
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 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray”) in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 2013/0054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”).
Regarding claim 1, Ray teaches A computer-method for data analytics, the method comprising (Ray in Abstract discloses a method to provide collection and analysis of athletic and other human performance and related environmental data.):
dynamically and automatically: - obtaining one or more datasets (Ray in para. [0007] discloses automatic collection and certification of human performance data, and/or as further disclosed in Fig. 20 and para. [0080-81], processor captures data from different sensors. Such as, performance data is captured with performance sensors 50-60, video analysis data is captured with video cameras 70, and environmental data is captured with environmental sensors 74, as depicted in Fig. 5), and a visual report generated based on the one or more datasets (Ray in para. [0083] discloses that the processor displays the various captured data. The display may include generation of onscreen or paper reports that include tabular, graphical, or a combination of presentations. For example, the illustrative performance display 1200 shown in FIG. 11C. Other illustrative examples include FIGS. 14A-19. In particular, Fig. 19 illustrates the tabular display (report) of performance data captured with performance sensors 50-60, video analysis data captured with video cameras 70, and environmental data captured with environmental sensors 74 (as also depicted in Figs. 5 & 20));
- applying a plurality of tests each to a subject element among the one or more datasets (Ray in para. [0067], discloses that the processor determines the standardized test for which data will be collected. For example, the official may select the test from a menu or the processor may automatically determine the type of test, and as disclosed in para. [0082], the processor can analyze various aspects of the data collected for the test. Such as, disclosed in para. [0041], the system processor may identify collected data, for example, performance data such as timing (e.g., a subject element among the one or more datasets), as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., a plurality of tests) are satisfied, and/or as disclosed in para. [0006], the timing and environmental data (herein, the timing and environmental data collectively represents a subject element among the visual report and/or one or more data sets) collected by the processor may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., plurality of tests) are satisfied, and/or as disclosed in para. [0053], the displacement and force data (herein, the displacement and force data collectively represent a subject element among the visual report and/or one or more data sets) collected by the processor 46 may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., a plurality of tests) are satisfied); and
- computing a level of certification for the visual report based on a number of tests providing a positive result (Ray in para. [0007] discloses automatic collection and certification of human performance data. Such as, disclosed in para. [0006], the timing and environmental data collected by the processor may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters are satisfied (e.g., a number of tests providing a positive result), and/or as disclosed in para [0041], the system processor may identify collected data, for example, performance data such as timing, as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters are satisfied (e.g., a number of tests providing a positive result). In order to protect the integrity of certified data, the data may only be automatically determined by the system 40 and may not be manually manipulated, and/or as disclosed in para. [0053], the displacement and force data collected by the processor 46 may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters are satisfied (e.g., a number of tests providing a positive result), and as disclosed in para. [0083] the processor displays the various test or event data, including the performance data, certification status, and any normalized data. The display may also include generation of onscreen or paper reports that include tabular, graphical, or a combination of presentations. For example, the illustrative performance display 1200 shown in FIG. 11C illustrates data certification status field
PNG
media_image1.png
16
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as a textbox message); the method further comprising:
during user-interaction with a computer system: - accessing, by a user, the visual report (Ray in para. [0050], discloses that, by referring to FIGS. 4A-B, an illustrative block diagram of the illustrative embodiments of the systems 40, 140, and 170, depicts the components show in FIGS. 5, 7, and 8 as well as additional components that may comprise the illustrative systems 40, 140, and 170. For example, the processor 46 includes a CPU 180 and associated precision athletic data analysis (PADA) software 300 for controlling the collection and analysis of performance and other data. The processor 46 may also include a local database 182 so that data may be stored for later transmission to the remote database 84 or for later viewing and analysis. The processor 46 also includes user interface devices, such as a display 184 and a keyboard 186. The display 184 includes a graphical user interface and processor 46 may also incorporate features advantageous to field use, for example a touch sensitive display 184. The processor 46 also includes a wired or wireless communication interface, such as a network interface 187 for accessing the remote resource 80 that collects and analyze the data associated with the local database 182 and/or the remote database 84); - displaying, by the computer system, a graphical representation of the level of certification of the visual report; and - displaying, by the computer system, the visual report (Ray in para. [0083] discloses that the processor displays the various test or event data, including the performance data, certification status, and any normalized data. The display may include generation of onscreen or paper reports that include tabular, graphical, or a combination of presentations. For example, the illustrative performance display 1200 shown in FIG. 11C illustrates graphical representation of data certification status field as a
PNG
media_image1.png
16
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
textbox message displayed at the same time the data report is being displayed).
Although, as described above, Ray teaches for “applying a plurality of tests each to a subject element among the one or more datasets”. However, Ray fails to explicitly disclose but Sharaf teaches the plurality of tests including at least one test applied to the visual report (Sharaf in para. [0024], discloses that the performance analysis and testing tools 20 can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices. Fig. 4 (with associated paragraphs) and/or claim 17, discloses the process that begins by providing a performance testing web portal for rendering on a display element. The web portal includes or is otherwise associated with one or more web pages, screens, or GUI elements that accommodate user entries, user commands, and the like. For this example, the web portal provides a GUI element or web page that is designed, arranged, and formatted to record a use case for performance testing, such as, the GUI accommodating user designation of one of a plurality of use cases to be supported, and further accommodating user-defined performance testing parameters. The process obtains a designated use case and user-defined performance testing parameters from the GUI that accommodates them. In response to obtaining the designated use case and the user-defined performance testing parameters from the GUI, the process executes an automated performance test to obtain performance test results for the designated use case, and provides at least some of the performance test results for rendering on the display element, and as disclosed in para. [0044], a use case will typically be associated with at least some user interaction, and will typically require the rendering and display of multiple web pages. For example, a use case may be associated with the processing of a user-entered search query and the display of one or more search results pages); and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Ray’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide enhanced performance analysis and testing tools that can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices. The performance analysis and testing tools, thus, can detect and resolve the performance issues while executing performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like. Thus, one ordinary skilled in the art would also realize and conclude that the automated performance testing would solve the problem of low efficiency and low accuracy of manually monitoring of data in the existing technology; Sharaf in para. [0024, 0056].
Regarding claim 3, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray further teaches the plurality of tests comprises one or more tests each applied to a respective subject element among the one or more datasets (Ray in para. [0067], discloses that the processor determines the standardized test for which data will be collected. For example, the official may select the test from a menu or the processor may automatically determine the type of test, and as disclosed in para. [0082], the processor can analyze various aspects of the data collected for the test. Such as, disclosed in para. [0041], the system processor may identify collected data, for example, performance data such as timing (e.g., a subject element among the one or more datasets), as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., one or more tests) are satisfied, and/or as disclosed in para. [0006], the timing and environmental data (herein, the timing and environmental data collectively represents a subject element among the visual report) collected by the processor may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., one or more tests) are satisfied, and/or as disclosed in para. [0053], the displacement and force data (herein, the displacement and force data collectively represents a subject element among the visual report) collected by the processor 46 may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., one or more tests) are satisfied), and
Although, as described above, Ray teaches “wherein the plurality of tests comprises one or more tests each applied to a respective subject element among the one or more datasets and/or the visual report”. However, Ray fails to explicitly disclose but Leitner teaches one or more results of applying a filtering to the respective subject element (Sharaf in para. [0046], discloses that upon completion of the performance test(s), the process generates a report or other suitable output that summarizes the performance test results. In certain implementations, task 306 simplifies, condenses, or filters the performance test results into a format that is easy to read, interpret, and understand. The report can be provided as a hypertext markup language document (e.g., a web page) for rendering at the client device (task 308).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Ray’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide enhanced performance analysis and testing tools that can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices. The performance analysis and testing tools, thus, can detect and resolve the performance issues while executing performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like. Thus, one ordinary skilled in the art would also realize and conclude that the automated performance testing would solve the problem of low efficiency and low accuracy of manually monitoring of data in the existing technology; Sharaf in para. [0024, 0056].
Regarding claim 5, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray further teaches the graphical representation of the level of certification of the visual report is displayed simultaneously to and/or before the displaying of the visual report (Ray in para. [0083] the processor displays the various test or event data, including the performance data, certification status, and any normalized data. The display may include generation of onscreen or paper reports that include tabular, graphical, or a combination of presentations. For example, the illustrative performance display 1200 shown in FIG. 11C illustrates graphical representation of data certification status field
PNG
media_image1.png
16
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
displayed at the same time the data report is being displayed).
Regarding claim 6, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray further teaches the graphical representation of the level of certification of the visual report is one of: [[- a badge, - an icon, - a stamp, - a sticker, -a watermark,]] -a text box message (Ray in para. [0083] discloses that the processor displays the various test or event data, including the performance data, certification status, and any normalized data. The display may include generation of onscreen or paper reports that include tabular, graphical, or a combination of presentations. For example, the illustrative performance display 1200 shown in FIG. 11C illustrates graphical representation of data certification status field
PNG
media_image1.png
16
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as textbox message); [[- a notification stemming from a custom extension such as an API, - a notification stemming from a native certification flagging feature, - a notification stemming from a process such as email, an instant messaging application or a support ticket system, and - a notification stemming from a Browser extension]].
Regarding claim 8, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray further teaches the method further comprises storing a record and/or a result of each application of a respective test (Ray in para. [0050] discloses that the processor 46 may also include a local database 182 so that data may be stored for later transmission to the remote database 84 or for later viewing and analysis, and/or as disclosed in para. [0041] the collected data, for example, performance data such as timing, may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters (e.g., tests) are satisfied. If certified, the data may then be encrypted and uploaded to the remote database 84 for storage).
Regarding independent claim 11, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory medium and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 12, the claim is drawn to a system and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 1.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the claims are drawn to the system and recite substantially similar subject matter as of method claims 5 and 6, respectively. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claims 5 and 6, respectively.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 20130054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”), and further in view of Carroll et al. (US 2025/0238354 A1; hereinafter “Carroll”; filed in Jan. 24, 2024).
Regarding claim 2, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray further teaches the plurality of tests comprises one or more of: - a data quality test, - a metadata test (Ray in para. [0006], discloses that the timing and environmental data collected by the processor may be identified as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters are satisfied (e.g., represents both a data quality test and metadata test)), - a functional or user-interaction test (Ray, in para. [0052-0053], FIG. 9 shows a system 200 that is one illustrative embodiment for collecting and analyzing strength tests of an athlete 242 on a gym weight apparatus 244. The processor may collect and identify displacement and force data as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters are satisfied (e.g., represents as a functional or user interaction test)), [[- a security test, - an accessibility or design test, - a regression test,]] and - a performance test (Ray in para [0041], discloses that the system processor may identify collected data, for example, performance data such as timing, as "certified" if certain predetermined parameters are satisfied (e.g., represents performance test)).
Although, as described above, Ray teaches “wherein the plurality of tests comprises one or more of: - a data quality test, - a metadata test, - a functional or user-interaction test, and - a performance test”. However, Ray as modified by Sharaf fails to explicitly disclose but Carroll teaches wherein the plurality of tests comprises one or more of: - a security test, - an accessibility or design test, - a regression test (Carroll in para. [0089 and 0117-0125] describes an automated testing process. The tests may include, but are not limited to: Regression Tests, Accessibility Tests, Performance Tests, Security Tests, Design Specification and User Experience Tests, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ray-Sharaf’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Carroll, such modification would provide an efficient and effective means to facilitate automated testing of applications within data platforms; Carrol in para. [0012].
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to the system and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray”) in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 20130054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”), and further in view of Currin et al. (US 20150310360 A1; hereinafter “Currin”).
Regarding claim 7, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray further teaches the method further comprises securing access to the visual report to authorized users and validating the integrity of data for the authorized users, the securing of access comprising restricting access to data based on actors, [[security roles and/or settings]] (Ray in para. [0041], discloses that in order to protect the integrity of certified data, the data may only be automatically determined by the system 40 and may not be manually manipulated, and as disclosed in para. [0066], In step 506, the processor 46 obtains data relating to the group, if applicable. For example, the processor 46 can obtain the identity and associated permissions and keys licensed for the system 40 from the group data fields 408 of the data structure 400. Additionally or alternatively, the processor 46 may receive manual input relating to the group data, for example from the keyboard 186, or another input device such as a magnetic card or other security device. In step 508, the processor obtains data relating to a group or event official, if applicable. For example, in step 508, identity of an official entered via the keyboard 186 may be verified with data stored in the group data field 408 of the data structure 400, or verified with data stored in the remote database 84. In step 510, the processor 46 determines the permissions and keys authorized by the combination of the group and official (e.g., actors). For example, permissions may include which events are licensed and/or authorized, and the key may include encryption keys for communicating data with the remote resource 80.).
Although, as described above, Ray teaches “securing access to the visual report to authorized users and validating the integrity of data for the authorized users, the securing of access comprising restricting access to data based on actors”. Ray as modified by Sharaf, however, fails to explicitly disclose but Currin teaches the securing of access comprising restricting access to data based on security roles and/or settings (Currin in para. [0132], discloses that the user account may be associated with security settings (e.g., roles and/or permissions), which govern the data and/or resources which the user may access. These security settings may be established and/or modified by an administrator and/or automatically established and/or modified by the system (e.g., in response to a selected or default account type). For example, security settings may include, without limitation, an access restriction to infrastructure data in one or more layers of infrastructure, an access restriction to infrastructure data in one or more geographical regions (e.g., user-defined or system-defined geographical regions), an access restriction to a particular selection of one or more infrastructure assets (e.g., user-defined or system-defined selection), etc. Accordingly, a user may log in using the illustrated authentication user interface by supplying his or her credentials in the inputs provided. An authentication module of the web application receives the supplied credentials, and compares the supplied credentials against stored credentials to authenticate the user. If authentication is successful, the user may be provided the level of access to data and/or resources of server platform 110 that is permitted by his or her associated security settings (e.g., roles and permissions).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ray-Sharaf’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Currin, such modification would provide users the level of access to data and/or resources according to their associated security settings (e.g., roles and permissions) in an efficient manner and prevent unauthorized access to the data; Currin, para. [0132].
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray”) in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 20130054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”), and further in view of Mitros; Piotr F. (US 20180144656 A1; hereinafter “Mitros”).
Regarding claim 9, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray fails to explicitly disclose but Sharaf further teaches further comprising: - applying a performance test to at least one of a displaying, loading and/or interaction of the visual report (Sharaf in para. [0024], discloses that the performance analysis and testing tools 20 can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices 16. In certain embodiments, the performance analysis and testing tools 20 carry out load testing, obtain test results, generate a suitable output (such as a report) that includes the test results, analyze the test results, etc. Fig. 4 (with associated paragraphs) and/or claim 17, discloses the process that begins by providing a performance testing web portal for rendering on a display element. The web portal includes or is otherwise associated with one or more web pages, screens, or GUI elements that accommodate user entries, user commands, and the like. For this example, the web portal provides a GUI element or web page that is designed, arranged, and formatted to record a use case for performance testing, such as, the GUI accommodating user designation of one of a plurality of use cases to be supported, and further accommodating user-defined performance testing parameters. The process obtains a designated use case and user-defined performance testing parameters from the GUI that accommodates them. In response to obtaining the designated use case and the user-defined performance testing parameters from the GUI, the process executes an automated performance test to obtain performance test results for the designated use case, and provides at least some of the performance test results for rendering on the display element, and as disclosed in para. [0044], a use case will typically be associated with at least some user interaction, and will typically require the rendering and display of multiple web pages. For example, a use case may be associated with the processing of a user-entered search query and the display of one or more search results pages); and
- computing a performance score based on a result of the performance test (Sharaf in para. [0024/0057], discloses that the test results may be provided to the client devices 16 in any human-readable format, such as a graph of response time versus elapsed time, a chart that indicates the number of http requests associated with the tested use case, a grade or score (e.g., numerical scores or letter grades) assigned to the tested use case, or the like.); and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Ray’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide enhanced performance analysis and testing tools that can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices. The performance analysis and testing tools, thus, can detect and resolve the performance issues while executing performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like. Thus, one ordinary skilled in the art would also realize and conclude that the automated performance testing would solve the problem of low efficiency and low accuracy of manually monitoring of data in the existing technology; Sharaf in para. [0024, 0056].
However, Ray as modified by Sharaf fails to explicitly disclose but Mitros teaches - updating the level of certification of the visual report based on the result of the performance test (Mitros in para. [0035-0037] discloses that the system may collect data based on whether students after a given period successfully completed a problem (e.g., performance test). In an example, the users receive review material from the review material distribution module 102 (e.g., via email, through a portal associated with the content review system 100, or via the postal service) with a time limit to complete the review material for a particular course within a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 1 week). When a user completes review material for a course, an indication (e.g., an email or another suitable message) is sent to the certificate update module 104 which updates the user's certificate for the particular course to an ‘up-to-date’ state. Any users who do not complete the review material for a particular course within a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 1 week) will have their certificates for the particular course changed to an out-of-date′ state. In some examples, a user's answers provided in response to review material are scored and the score is used to determine whether the user's certificate is updated to ‘up-to-date’ (i.e., for a passing score) or ‘out-of-date’ (i.e., for a failing score).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ray-Sharaf’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Mitros, such modification would recertify the capability of the reviewer to successfully review/complete the assigned task within a given amount of time; Mitros in para. [0035].
Regarding claim 17, the claim is drawn to the system and recites substantially similar subject matter as of method claim 9. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for the method claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray”) in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 20130054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”), and further in view of Mitchel et al. (US 2018/0075410 A1; hereinafter “Mitchel”).
Regarding claim 10, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray as modified by Sharaf fails to explicitly disclose but Mitchel teaches the method further comprises obtaining a certification date associated with the level of certification computed for the visual report (Mitchel in para. [0040 & 0043], discloses that the certification interface 38 of the certification module 30 (best shown in Fig. 3) also runs software for creating the human-readable certification form and for commanding the copy processor 36 of the certification module 30 to incorporate the certification form into the digital image copy (that is obtained from a digitizer 32 of the certification module 30 that can include a scanner or digital camera or any digitization device known in the art to convert a paper document into a digital image, see para. [0035]). Preferably, the certification form is incorporated by superimposing it onto the digital image copy, for example by commanding the copy processor 36 to paste the certification form onto a blank portion of the copied digital image by means of the image editing software. The digital image copy can include a blank frame to receive the certification form. Alternatively, the digital image copy and certification form can be included on separate pages of a single document. For example, the digital image copy and certification form can be inserted by the copy processor 36 onto successive pages of a PDF or Microsoft Word document, with the document immediately saved in a permanently locked “read only” format. The certification interface 38 also populates the human-readable certification form with required information such as the unique identifiers of the original document and of the copy, the date and time of certification, and a signed statement that the signer has certified the electronic image copy as an exact copy having all of the same attributes and information as the original document. The certification interface 38 can additionally populate the human-readable certification form with any information required for the maintenance of an audit trail, including but not limited to the identity of the originator of data in the document, the date and time of origination and of copying, and the date and time of certification. The certification interface 38 can draw this information automatically from the central data server 14 or other storage device. Alternatively, the information can be entered manually via the GUI of the certification interface 38, or by a combination of automatic transfer and manual entry.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ray-Sharaf’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Mitchel, such modification to incorporate the human readable certification form including the date and time of certification is that it makes audit trail and certification immediately visible to auditors when a digital image copy of a source document is displayed at a remote access interface; Mitchel in para. [0040].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray”) in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 20130054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”), and further in view of Mitros; Piotr F. (US 20180144656 A1; hereinafter “Mitros”).
Regarding claim 18, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray fails to explicitly disclose but Sharaf further teaches the at least one test applied to the visual report comprises a performance test (Sharaf in para. [0024], discloses that the performance analysis and testing tools 20 can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices 16. In certain embodiments, the performance analysis and testing tools 20 carry out load testing, obtain test results, generate a suitable output (such as a report) that includes the test results, analyze the test results), the application of the performance test being based on at least one of: a measured time to load the visual report, a result of an evaluation of the behavior of the visual report when accessed simultaneously by a large quantity of users, or a determination of specific actions on the visual report, the actions comprising at least one of clicking buttons displayed on the visual report or changing filters displayed with the visual report (Sharaf in par. [0019] discloses that the GUI provides the following capabilities, without limitation: [...] (3) a button to start recording the user interaction with the website; (4) a simple portal to configure load testing parameters, e.g., number of concurrent users and duration of time; and (5) a button to generate charts/graphs to display performance results and recommendations. In certain implementations, as disclosed in para. [0046] filters the performance test results (reports) into a format that is easy to read, interpret, and understand. And/or as disclosed in para. [0054], discloses that the GUI 700 includes a field 702 that accommodates entry of a number of concurrent users to be simulated during the performance testing. The field 702 enables the user to specify the loading conditions to be simulated during the performance analysis. The illustrated embodiment of the GUI 700 also includes a field 704 that accommodates entry of a duration for the performance testing. The GUI 700 also includes a checkbox element 706 that allows the user to select whether or not the test results are generated on a dashboard (or other GUI element) of the web portal. Although not shown in FIG. 7, the GUI 700 may include any number of alternative or additional fields, dropdown menus, checkboxes, or the like, for purposes of obtaining additional user-defined testing parameters to be applied to the recorded use case. After the desired testing parameters have been designated, the user may activate a "Start Load Test" button 708 to initiate the performance test.);
the method further comprising: computing a performance score based on a result of the performance test (Sharaf in para. [0024/0057], discloses that the test results may be provided to the client devices 16 in any human-readable format, such as a graph of response time versus elapsed time, a chart that indicates the number of http requests associated with the tested use case, a grade or score (e.g., numerical scores or letter grades) assigned to the tested use case, or the like.); and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Ray’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Sharaf, such modification would provide enhanced performance analysis and testing tools that can execute automated performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like, in response to instructions received from the client devices. The performance analysis and testing tools, thus, can detect and resolve the performance issues while executing performance tests on certain user-defined or user-designated use cases, work flows, web pages, or the like. Thus, one ordinary skilled in the art would also realize and conclude that the automated performance testing would solve the problem of low efficiency and low accuracy of manually monitoring of data in the existing technology; Sharaf in para. [0024, 0056].
Although, Ray as modified by Sharaf fails to explicitly disclose but Mitros teaches updating the level of certification of the visual report based on the result of the performance test (Mitros in para. [0035-0037] discloses that the system may collect data based on whether students after a given period successfully completed a problem (e.g., performance test). In an example, the users receive review material from the review material distribution module 102 (e.g., via email, through a portal associated with the content review system 100, or via the postal service) with a time limit to complete the review material for a particular course within a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 1 week). When a user completes review material for a course, an indication (e.g., an email or another suitable message) is sent to the certificate update module 104 which updates the user's certificate for the particular course to an ‘up-to-date’ state. Any users who do not complete the review material for a particular course within a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 1 week) will have their certificates for the particular course changed to an out-of-date′ state. In some examples, a user's answers provided in response to review material are scored and the score is used to determine whether the user's certificate is updated to ‘up-to-date’ (i.e., for a passing score) or ‘out-of-date’ (i.e., for a failing score).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ray-Sharaf’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Mitros, such modification would recertify the capability of the reviewer to successfully review/complete the assigned task within a given amount of time; Mitros in para. [0035].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray; Gregory (US 2008/0269644 A1, hereinafter “Ray”) in view of Samuel Sharaf (US 20130054792 A1; hereinafter “Sharaf”), and further in view of CURRY et al. (US 20080086342 A1; hereinafter “Curry”).
Regarding claim 19, Ray as modified by Sharaf teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ray as modified by Sharaf fails to explicitly disclose but Curry teaches the level of certification is comprised among a range of numerical values (Curry in para. [0089] discloses that the levels of certification may be defined based on ranges of possible numeric values).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Ray-Sharaf’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Curry, such modification would reduce fraud by assessing and reducing the risk of fraud, and by deterring, and/or detecting, and/or mitigating fraud occurring within an organization; Curry in para. [0001].
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PractiTest Testing Data Visualization (July 11, 2023)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjgC5zO8g7k (2:53)
Dashboards and Reports | PractiTest Special Live Training (Oct 17, 2023)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=txmOLCPEMJc (51:52)
PractiTest Testing and Execution Modules (Jun 6, 2023)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFQCUUNHi4 (8:18)
Automation | PractiTest Special Live Training (Oct 17, 2023) www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-TTUoLS3EU (53:51)
PractiTest Test Automation Management – (Mar 21, 2022)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkLH__Zs98E (2:56)
Easily Automate Functional Testing For Your Tableau Dashboards – (May 25, 2021) www.youtube.com/watch?v=27nURA5yBcc (21:18)
LIANG, Zheng-you (CN 117323647 A; hereinafter “Sharaf”), describes an automatic detection system ... based on artificial intelligence, comprising: a processing module to obtain the evaluation report of the athlete to be tested, a communication module that is used for transmitting the obtained evaluation report to the display module and the database updating module. The display module is used for displaying the evaluation report and the sports data of the athlete to be tested. (Abstract/Claim 1).
Lee (US 20050027479 A1) discloses a performance test system.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose telephone number is 571-272-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM (EST) Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights