DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 27 November 2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US 2012/0198279 A1), in view of Jacobi et al. (US 6,996,818 B2), and further in view of Verburg et al. (US 2023/0015477 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schroeder discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory operable to store: communication device information associated with one or more communication devices, and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to: perform automated testing using networked test servers and mobile devices. The test server stores reported device parameters and uses those parameters to identify devices suitable for requested tests (FIG. 1, test servers 104–108 and devices 110–118; FIG. 3, operations 304–310).
Schroeder teaches establish a first communication link with a first communication device, by connecting the mobile device to a network and subsequently communicating with the test server (FIG. 2, operation 202 and subsequent server communications).
Schroeder teaches the model-identification portion of determine first communication device information associated with the first communication device comprising a first manufacture year and a first model, through device registration reporting manufacturer, model, and operating-system information.
Schroeder further teaches installing platform-specific testing software and executing selected tests on a selected device (FIG. 2, operation 204; FIG. 3, operation 312, paragraph [0098]). Its test runner translates test instructions into device-platform-specific instructions. Supported operations include retrieving and executing scripts and measuring memory and radio signal strength (description of the test runner and supported test operations).
Schroeder does not expressly disclose selecting and installing a plurality of testing services according to the model, or determine whether corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation; in response to determining that corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation, install the corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services into the first communication device.
Jacobi discloses a handset communicating model information and hardware/software version numbers to a server. The handset queries whether update packages are available; the server receives notifications when updates or new services become available; and an update agent installs updates for a plurality of software applications, individually or together (FIG. 1, handset 107, server 109, update agent 115, and update store 149; accompanying description). Jacobi explains that new versions are released to correct software bugs and introduce features.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Jacobi’s model/version reporting and multiple-application updating into Schroeder’s device preparation. Specifically, the server would select compatible testing software using the reported model and install the testing applications and script-execution support needed for the selected operations. This modification would implement determine a first plurality of services configured to execute the first plurality of hardware testing operations on the first communication device based on the first model. Selecting software compatible with the identified model would permit the selected tests to access that model’s hardware capabilities using executable platform-specific instructions, consistent with Schroeder’s testing architecture.
It further would have been obvious to check for and install the latest available compatible releases of those services before testing. Applying Jacobi’s release checking to Schroeder’s testing software would incorporate available bug corrections and functionality improvements and reduce failures attributable to outdated testing software. Selecting the latest compatible available release, rather than retaining an earlier release, would be a predictable application of Jacobi’s update mechanism for that purpose.
Schroeder and Jacobi do not expressly disclose the manufacture-year portion of each communication device information comprising a corresponding manufacture year and a corresponding model, the manufacture-year portion of determine first communication device information associated with the first communication device comprising a first manufacture year and a first model, or determine a first plurality of hardware testing operations based on the first manufacture year configured to evaluate a first plurality of performance parameters in the first communication device.
Verburg discloses obtaining system configuration and manufacturer component data, including manufacturing year, version number, and failure modes, and selecting hardware test cases using that information. FIG. 2 illustrates systems with identified component types and manufacturing dates receiving different test cases and test steps according to manufacturing vintage (FIGS. 1–2 and accompanying description).
It would have been obvious to incorporate Verburg’s manufacturing-vintage information and test-selection approach into the modified Schroeder system by recording the DUT’s manufacture year alongside its model and using that year to select tests addressing hardware characteristics and failure modes associated with the corresponding production vintage. This applies Verburg’s component-vintage approach at the assembled-device level: the model identifies the device configuration, while the manufacture year identifies its production vintage. The reason for doing so would be to target hardware tests to relevant failure risks and improve test coverage without indiscriminately performing every available test.
Finally, Schroeder teaches installing the test runner and subsequently using the established communication connection for server-directed testing (FIG. 2, operation 204 and subsequent operations; FIG. 3, operation 312). In the combined system, completing installation of the selected updated testing services before enabling that testing phase would implement in response to installing the first plurality of services into the first communication device, release the first communication link with the first communication device to a testing platform. This mapping follows the instant specification’s explanation that releasing to the testing platform may refer to transitioning from installation operations to evaluation operations (instant specification, FIG. 4, operation 446). Conditioning that transition on completed installation would ensure that the services needed to execute the selected tests are present before testing begins.
Regarding claim 2, establish a second communication link with a second communication device; determine second communication device information associated with the second communication device comprising a second manufacture year and a second model; determine a second plurality of services based on the second model; determine a second plurality of hardware testing operations based on the second manufacture year and the second plurality of services configured to evaluate a second plurality of performance parameters in the second communication device; install the second plurality of services into the second communication device; and in response to installing the second plurality of services into the second communication device, release the second communication link with the second communication device to the testing platform, Schroeder teaches preparing and testing multiple mobile devices, including selecting multiple devices for a test (FIG. 1; FIG. 2, operations 202–220; FIG. 3, operations 304–312). Applying the preparation workflow established for claim 1 to a second selected device would have been obvious to extend automated testing to additional devices. Using that device’s model and manufacture year would select compatible services and vintage-appropriate tests. Further selecting tests executable by the selected services would avoid assigning operations unsupported by the installed testing software. Each device would proceed to server-directed testing after its services were installed, under the interpretation of “release” explained for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, determine a second plurality of hardware testing operations to be performed on the one or more communication devices configured to evaluate a second plurality of performance parameters in the one or more communication devices; determine a second plurality of services configured to execute the second plurality of hardware testing operations on the one or more communication devices; determine a second manufacture year based on the second plurality of hardware testing operations; determine a second model based on the second plurality of services; determine a second communication device information based on the second manufacture year and the second model; determine a second communication device of the one or more communication devices associated with the second communication device information; establish a second communication link with the second communication device; install the second plurality of services into the second communication device; and in response to installing the second plurality of services into the second communication device, release the second communication link with the second communication device to the testing platform, Schroeder teaches identifying device-selection parameters for a requested test and selecting a matching device (FIG. 3, operations 302–310).
The combination applied to claim 1 establishes associations between manufacturing vintage and suitable hardware tests, and between device model and compatible testing services. It would have been obvious to use those associations to select a device for a requested set of tests: identify the services needed to execute the tests, identify a model compatible with those services, identify a manufacturing year associated with the targeted tests, and select a device matching the resulting year/model criteria. This is a proposed use of the established associations in the reverse selection direction, rather than an assertion that Verburg expressly performs every recited determination. The reason would be to select hardware appropriate for the requested evaluation and software capable of carrying it out. Preparing the selected device using the connection, installation, and transition-to-testing workflow of claim 1 would predictably make that device available for execution of the requested tests.
Regarding claim 4, in conjunction with determining whether the corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation, determine a reference release version of the first plurality of services; receive a manufacturer release version of the first plurality of services from an access interface; determine whether the reference release version of the first plurality of services is equal to the manufacturer release version of the first plurality of services; and in response to determining that the reference release version of the first plurality of services is not equal to the manufacturer release version of the first plurality of services, determine that the manufacturer release version comprises latest release versions, Jacobi teaches retaining software-version information, querying a server for available updates, and retrieving update information and associated metadata (FIG. 1 and accompanying description of handset 107, server 109, update store 149, and request-processing module 159).
Official Notice is taken that comparing a stored software-version identifier with a remotely supplied software-version identifier for equality is a well-known technique for determining whether the identified versions differ. This is a basic comparison of identifiers whose equality or inequality is directly and unquestionably demonstrable.
It would have been obvious to implement Jacobi’s update-availability inquiry by retaining a reference release-version identifier and comparing it with the release-version identifier received through an interface supplying the manufacturer’s current release. The reason would be to determine whether the reference version differs from the currently released version and avoid redundant installation when the identifiers match. Because the interface supplies the manufacturer’s current release, an unequal identifier would indicate that the reference differs from that latest manufacturer release. The latest status follows from the selected source of the version information, rather than from inequality alone.
Regarding claim 5, the communication device information is updated periodically over time, Schroeder teaches device registration and reporting device parameters to the test server. It would have been obvious to repeat that reporting and refresh the stored device information periodically so that device selection and service installation use current information. A recurring refresh would account for newly available devices and changes in reported software or configuration, preventing selection decisions based on stale records. The manufacture year and model need not themselves change for the associated device-information record to be refreshed.
Regarding claim 6, determine a second plurality of hardware testing operations to be performed on the one or more communication devices configured to evaluate a second plurality of performance parameters in the one or more communication devices; determine a second plurality of services configured to execute the second plurality of hardware testing operations on the one or more communication devices; determine one or more manufacture years based on the second plurality of hardware testing operations; determine a second model based on the second plurality of services; determine a second communication device information based on a second manufacture year and the second model; determine a second communication device of the one or more communication devices associated with the second communication device information; establish a second communication link with the second communication device; determine a third communication device information based on a third manufacture year and the second model; determine a third communication device of the one or more communication devices associated with the third communication device information; establish a third communication link with the third communication device; install the second plurality of services into the second communication device and the third communication device; in response to installing the second plurality of services into the second communication device, release the second communication link with the second communication device to the testing platform; and in response to installing the second plurality of services into the third communication device, release the third communication link with the third communication device to the testing platform, Verburg teaches evaluating similar system configurations having different manufacturing vintages and arranging testing of multiple systems using shared test cases (FIG. 2 and accompanying description).
It would have been obvious to apply the test-driven selection described for claim 3 to multiple devices of the same model having manufacturing years associated with the requested tests. Holding the model constant would permit selection of a common compatible set of testing services, while selecting devices by manufacturing vintage would permit evaluation of production-related performance differences. Schroeder’s multiple-device testing provides the reason to select additional matching devices for comparative evaluation. Applying the claim 1 preparation workflow to each selected device would establish its connection, install the common services, and transition that connection to testing after installation. patents.google.com
Regarding claim 7, determine a second plurality of hardware testing operations to be performed on the one or more communication devices configured to evaluate a second plurality of performance parameters in the one or more communication devices; determine a second plurality of services configured to execute the second plurality of hardware testing operations on the one or more communication devices; determine a second manufacture year based on the second plurality of hardware testing operations; determine one or more models based on the second plurality of services; determine a second communication device information based on the second manufacture year and a second model; determine a second communication device of the one or more communication devices associated with the second communication device information; establish a second communication link with the second communication device; determine a third communication device information based on the second manufacture year and a third model; determine a third communication device of the one or more communication devices associated with the third communication device information; establish a third communication link with the third communication device; install the second plurality of services into the second communication device and the third communication device; in response to installing the second plurality of services into the second communication device, release the second communication link with the second communication device to the testing platform; and in response to installing the second plurality of services into the third communication device, release the third communication link with the third communication device to the testing platform, Schroeder teaches testing multiple devices to identify differences between device models and selecting devices that satisfy requested testing criteria (FIG. 3, operations 304–312 and accompanying description). Google Patents
It would have been obvious to apply the selection approach described for claim 3 to devices sharing a manufacturing year but having respective models compatible with the selected services. Holding manufacturing year constant would permit comparison of model-related performance within a common production-year cohort. Selecting models that support the same testing services would permit execution of the common requested tests on both devices. The same services need not be incompatible merely because the devices have different models; this modification selects models on which those services can execute. Preparing each selected device using the claim 1 workflow would establish its communication link, install the services, and transition to testing upon completion of installation.
Regarding claim 8, establishing a first communication link with a first communication device; determining first communication device information associated with the first communication device comprising a first manufacture year and a first model; determining a first plurality of hardware testing operations based on the first manufacture year configured to evaluate a first plurality of performance parameters in the first communication device; determining a first plurality of services configured to execute the first plurality of hardware testing operations on the first communication device based on the first model; determining whether corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation; in response to determining that the corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation, installing the corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services into the first communication device; and in response to installing the first plurality of services into the first communication device, releasing the first communication link with the first communication device to a testing platform, these limitations recite the method counterparts of the processor operations of claim 1 and are taught or rendered obvious by the same disclosures and modifications discussed above. Schroeder expressly presents its device preparation and server-directed testing as methods (FIGS. 2–4). Jacobi supplies update-availability checking and installation, and Verburg supplies manufacturing-vintage-based hardware test selection, with the reasons for combining stated for claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, these claims recite the method and computer-readable-medium counterparts, respectively, of the additional second-device operations recited in claim 2. The limitations are unpatentable for the reasons stated for claim 2. Schroeder teaches preparing and testing multiple devices (FIGS. 1–3), and applying the combined model- and manufacture-year-based preparation workflow to a second device would permit automated evaluation of additional devices using compatible services and appropriate hardware tests.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, these claims recite the method and computer-readable-medium counterparts, respectively, of the test-driven device-selection operations recited in claim 3. The limitations are unpatentable for the reasons stated for claim 3. Schroeder selects devices matching parameters associated with requested tests (FIG. 3, operations 302–310). Using the combined associations between tests and manufacturing vintage, and between services and compatible device models, to identify a matching device would permit selection and preparation of a device suitable for the requested evaluation.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites the method counterpart of the release-version comparison operations recited in claim 4 and is unpatentable for the reasons stated for claim 4. Jacobi teaches software-version information, update-availability queries, and retrieval of update information and associated metadata (FIG. 1 and accompanying description). Comparing a retained reference version against the manufacturer’s current release would identify whether the reference differs from the latest manufacturer release and whether installation of that release is appropriate.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, these claims recite the method and computer-readable-medium counterparts, respectively, of the periodic device-information updating recited in claim 5 and are unpatentable for the reasons stated for claim 5. Periodically refreshing Schroeder’s reported device information would maintain current records for device selection and software preparation and avoid decisions based on stale information.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, these claims recite the method and computer-readable-medium counterparts, respectively, of the multiple-device selection and preparation operations recited in claim 6. The limitations are unpatentable for the reasons stated for claim 6. Verburg teaches testing similar configurations having respective manufacturing vintages and scheduling multiple systems using shared test cases (FIG. 2 and accompanying description). Applying that approach to Schroeder’s multiple-device testing would permit selecting devices of a common model and respective manufacturing years, installing compatible common testing services, and evaluating production-vintage-related performance.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the method counterpart of the multiple-device selection and preparation operations recited in claim 7 and is unpatentable for the reasons stated for claim 7. Schroeder teaches testing multiple devices to identify model-related differences (FIG. 3 and accompanying description). Selecting compatible models within a common manufacturing year would permit comparison of model-related performance within a common production-year cohort using the selected testing services.
Regarding claim 15, Schroeder discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to: perform automated device preparation and testing, through its computer-implemented test servers and device applications, including the installed test runner and executable testing instructions (FIGS. 1–4 and the description of computer implementation and storage).
The limitations establish a first communication link with a first communication device; determine first communication device information associated with the first communication device comprising a first manufacture year and a first model; determine a first plurality of hardware testing operations based on the first manufacture year configured to evaluate a first plurality of performance parameters in the first communication device; determine a first plurality of services configured to execute the first plurality of hardware testing operations on the first communication device based on the first model; determine whether corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation; in response to determining that the corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are available for installation, install the first plurality of services into the first communication device; and in response to installing the first plurality of services into the first communication device, release the first communication link with the first communication device to a testing platform, correspond to the operations addressed for claim 1 and are taught or rendered obvious by the same disclosures and modifications. Claim 15 requires installing the services in response to determining that latest versions are available, without expressly requiring that the installed services be those latest versions. The proposed installation of the latest available compatible services described for claim 1 satisfies this broader installation limitation.
It would have been obvious to implement the combined operations as processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, consistent with Schroeder’s software-based test server and test runner, Jacobi’s software update agent, and Verburg’s computer-implemented test controller, so that the combined preparation and testing workflow can be executed automatically.
Regarding claim 18, in conjunction with determining whether the corresponding latest release versions of the first plurality of services are not available for installation, determine a reference release version of the first plurality of services; receive a manufacturer release version of the first plurality of services from an access interface; determine whether the reference release version of the first plurality of services is equal to the manufacturer release version of the first plurality of services; and in response to determining that the reference release version of the first plurality of services is not equal to the manufacturer release version of the first plurality of services, determine that the manufacturer release version comprises latest release versions, these limitations correspond to the release-version comparison addressed for claim 4 and are unpatentable for the reasons stated therein.
The phrase “determining whether … are not available” recites an inquiry into unavailability, rather than requiring a determination that the latest versions are unavailable. Jacobi’s update-availability inquiry determines whether an update is available or unavailable. Implementing that inquiry by comparing a retained reference version with the version supplied by a manufacturer’s current-release interface would identify whether an updated manufacturer release exists. Where the interface supplies the manufacturer’s current release, a mismatch would identify that release as differing from the reference and comprising the latest release. Storing instructions for this comparison on the computer-readable medium of claim 15 would automate the release check using the same implementation rationale stated for claims 4 and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Elledge (US 6,367,073 B1) discloses centralized, automated installation of software products. Hashimoto (US 11,202,213 B2) discloses distributing software updates to communication devices through base stations according to a determined distribution sequence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30 AM - 6:30 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on 571-27. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights