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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections, necessary amendments have been made, and thus, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejections. Additional details can be found in the corresponding section below in the Office Action.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang (CN 110515804 A). By adding more details in regards to the reference test completion time and by adding more details in regards to what is entailed in the verification process (such as from [0051] of the Specification), claim 1 may be in a better position of being considered an allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8; 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Per claim 1,
Step 1 is satisfied because method steps are processes.
At step 2a prong 1, an abstract idea is recited: steps of the claim could be performed as a mental process. The step “comparing the plurality of test results with a plurality of expected results to create a plurality of comparison results;” can be done through analyzing the test results against that of the expected results.
At step 2a prong 2, additional elements that integrate into judicial exception into a practical application is not recited.
The following limitation are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“retrieving a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database”
“generating a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results”
The following limitation are considered additional element that amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
“executing each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results”
“terminating the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and a test completion time recorded at a controller associated with the server”
At step 2b, additional elements that integrate into judicial exception into significantly more is not recited.
The following limitation are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“retrieving a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database”
“generating a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results”
The following limitation are considered additional element that amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
“executing each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results”
“terminating the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and a test completion time recorded at a controller associated with the server”
Per claim 2, (step 2a prong 2) no additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is cited. “Obtaining a server identifier for the server from the controller” and “querying the database using the server identifier to retrieve the plurality of server tests,” is a data gathering activity and is considered additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g)). (step 2b) No additional element that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is recited. “Obtaining a server identifier for the server from the controller” and “querying the database using the server identifier to retrieve the plurality of server tests,” is a data gathering activity and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Per claim 3 and 6, no additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is cited. No additional element that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is recited. Utilization of SNMP requests and responses simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h)).
Per claim 4, “generating a material items report based on comparing the first list of material items installed on the server with the second list of expected material items,” simply adds more specificity to the mental step taught in the parent claim. It is akin to the user examining the two list of material items and mentally generating a list of material items. “retrieving a first list of matieral item installed on the server from the controller associated with the server” is considered an insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception and further, mere data gathering, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “Querying the database using the retrieved server identifier to retrieve a second list of expected material items associated with the server” is a data gathering activity is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. Thus, no additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is recited. And no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is recited.
Per claim 5, the additional element “wherein the material items report comprises inconsistencies between the first list of material items installed on the server and the second list of expected material items, and wherein an exception is generated based on the inconsistencies” simply provides further details on how the mental process is performed but fails to provide additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception that is recited. This step can be done mentally through analyzing the two lists and determining the inconsistencies.
Per claim 7, the limitation “encrypting the test completion status and the test completion time” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Furthermore, “sending a simple network management protocol (SNMP) recordation request to the controller that comprises the encrypted test completion time and the encrypted test completion status” is considered an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, no additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is recited. And no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is recited.
Per claim 8, “comparing the test completion status and the test completion time received from the controller with a reference test completion status and a second test completion time derived from the plurality of test results,” is simply reciting a mental step in which a comparison can be done mentally in a user’s mind. “Terminating the automated testing of the server” is considered an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)). “Retrieving…[…]... the test completion status and the test completion time stored at the controller” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The use of “SNMP command” generically links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, no additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is recited. And no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is recited.
Per claim 10,
Step 1 is satisfied because method steps are processes.
At step 2a prong 1, an abstract idea is recited: steps of the claim could be performed as a mental process. The step “compare the plurality of test results with a plurality of expected results to create a plurality of comparison results;” can be done through analyzing the test results against that of the expected results.
At step 2a prong 2, additional elements that integrate into judicial exception into a practical application is not recited.
The following limitation are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“retrieve a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database”
“generate a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results”
The following limitation are considered additional element that amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
“execute each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results”
“terminate the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and a test completion time recorded at the controller”
The additional elements, “testing system and a controller associated with the server” merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)).
At step 2b, additional elements that integrate into judicial exception into significantly more is not recited.
The following limitation are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“retrieve a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database”
“generate a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results”
The following limitation are considered additional element that amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
“execute each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results”
“terminate the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and a test completion time recorded at the controller”
The additional elements, “testing system and a controller associated with the server” merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)).
Per claims 11-14, they recite similar claim limitations as claims 2-5 and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Per claim 15, no additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is cited. No additional element that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is recited. Utilization of SNMP requests and responses simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h)).
Per claims 16 and 17, they recite similar claim limitations as claims 7 and 8 and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Per claim 18, it is identical to claim 9 and thus is rejected for the same reason.
Per claim 19,
Step 1 is satisfied because method steps are processes.
At step 2a prong 1, an abstract idea is recited: steps of the claim could be performed as a mental process. The step “comparing the plurality of test results with a plurality of expected results to create a plurality of comparison results;” can be done through analyzing the test results against that of the expected results.
At step 2a prong 2, additional elements that integrate into judicial exception into a practical application is not recited.
The following limitation are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“retrieving a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database”
“generating a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results”
The following limitation are considered additional element that amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
“executing each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results”
“terminating the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and a test completion time recorded at a controller associated with the server”
The additional elements, “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processors” merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)).
At step 2b, additional elements that integrate into judicial exception into significantly more is not recited.
The following limitation are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“retrieving a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database”
“generating a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results”
The following limitation are considered additional element that amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
“executing each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results”
“terminating the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and a test completion time recorded at a controller associated with the server”
The additional elements, “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processors” merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)).
As per claim 20, it recites similar claim limitation as claim 2 and thus is rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 117539697 A) from henceforth referred to as Chen in view of Wang (CN 110515804 A) from henceforth referred to as Wang in further view of Yan et al (CN 116795635 A) from henceforth referred to as Yan.
Per claim 1, Chen teaches
A method to perform automated testing of a server, comprising:
retrieving a plurality of server tests associated with the server from a database; (page 13, 3rd paragraph, “the test information corresponding to the test item can be obtained through the BMC management system”; page 17, 2nd paragraph, “The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system, a computer program, and a database. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of operating systems and computer programs in a non-volatile storage medium. The database of the computer device is used for storing the test item of the configuration file and the data related to the test object.”)
executing each server test of the plurality of server tests to generate a plurality of test results; (page 5, a test module executes the server tests)
comparing the plurality of test results with a plurality of expected results to create a plurality of comparison results; (page 10, in step 502, the first test information and the second test information are compared to determine the first initial result; in step 504, the first test information is compared to the preset reference test information to determine the second initial test results; in step 506, the second test information is compared with the preset reference test information to determine the third initial test information)
…
generating a test report based on the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results; and (page 3, test reports are automatically generated)
terminating the automated testing of the server based on verifying the plurality of test results using a test completion status and … recorded at a controller associated with the server. (bottom of page 10, "when all the test results represent that the comparison of the test information is consistent, it is determined that the test result of the test item is passed; page 13, 3rd paragraph, “the test information corresponding to the test item can be obtained through the BMC management system”; top of page 11, if the test item does not pass the test item, the system judges whether to continue with the testing or not)
Chen fails to teach
…. verifying the plurality of test results using… test completion time
However, Wang teaches
…. verifying the plurality of test results using… test completion time (bottom of page 3, test completion timestamp is recorded and used to verify the result of the test)
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Chen with the teaching of Wang because by automatically verifying the test result, the combined invention can reduce the labor cost and error (Wang, bottom of page 3).
Chen in view of Wang fails to teach
storing the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results in the database;
However, Yan teaches
storing the plurality of test results and the plurality of comparison results in the database; (page 11, automatically generate test report and upload it to the database)
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Yan because combining prior art elements such as automated test instruction execution (Chen, page 2, paragraph 10) according to known methods can yield predictable results (i.e., providing known means for automating all processes of a test procedures).
Per claim 2, Chen in view of Wang in view of Yan recites
The method of claim 1, wherein retrieving the plurality of server tests comprises:
obtaining a server identifier for the server from the controller; and (Chen, page 13, 2nd paragraph, “obtaining the physical disk information through the BMC management system”)
querying the database using the server identifier to retrieve the plurality of server tests. (Chen, page 13, 3rd paragraph, “the test information corresponding to the test item can be obtained through the BMC management system”; page 8, “wherein each test item is corresponding to one function test of the storage device to be tested, aiming at the function test of the storage device)
Per claim 10, the claim limitation recites similar claim limitation as claim 1.
It further recites, a system to perform automated testing of a server (Chen, page 2, the test instruction is automatically executed through the related test tool or interface in the BMC management system), the system comprising a testing system (at least Chen, page 2, a testing system) and a controller associated with the server (Chen, page 2, BMC)
Per claim 11, the claim recites similar limitation as claim 2 and thus are rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
Per claim 19, the claim recites similar claim limitation as claim 1.
The claim further recites
A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform automated testing of a server, the computer-readable medium having instructions thereon, which, upon being executed by one or more processors (Chen, page 17, non-volatile storage medium; processor of the computer device for “calculation and control ability”)
Per claim 20, the claim recites similar limitation as claim 2 and thus are rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang in view of Yan in further view of “SNMP Monitoring Overview: Learn about how SNMP monitoring is used to collect status, health, and performance data form network devices,” Knowledge Center, Data Dog HQ, captured by the Wayback Machine on December 9th, 2024 from henceforth referred to as SNMP-NPL.
Per claim 3, Chen in view of Wang in view of Yan teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein the obtaining the server identifier from the controller comprises:
sending [a communication request] to the controller for the server identifier; and
receiving [a communication response] from the controller including the server identifier (Chen, page 13, 2nd paragraph, “obtaining the physical disk information through the BMC management system”)
Chen in view of Wang in view of Yan fails to explicitly teach
Sending a simple network management protocol (SNMP) request; and receiving an SNMP response
However, SNMP-NPL teaches
Sending a simple network management protocol (SNMP) request; and receiving an SNMP response (page 2, “SNMP monitoring provides a standardized way for network engineers and admins to gather information about network equipment, and helps ensure that a company’s network is running smoothly”; page 4, “1. Get, 2. Response”)
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen in view of Wang in view of Yan with that of SNMP-NPL in order to teach using SNMP requests and responses as a way to query and receive information since it is a communication method that is “standardized across all networking equipment” (page 3).
Per claim 12, it recites similar claim language as claim 3 and thus are rejected for similar reason as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 13-17, 21-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, if necessary amendments were made.
Claim 4 recites
querying the database using a server identifier to retrieve a second list of expected material items associated with the server; and
generating a material items report based on comparing the first list of material items installed on the server with the second list of expected material items
The Examiner was unable to find the claim limitations above from a prior art or an obvious combination of prior arts. The most relevant prior art (US 8209666 B1) teaches interface testing in which a customer identifier is produced and the accuracy of the testing criteria is verified by comparing the expected results from the input scenario in the package of data information with the actual result produced by the testing criteria. However, this does not fully capture the scope of the claim limitations.
Per claim 5, the claim would be allowable for similar reason as claim 4 if amendments were made to claim 4 since dependent claims inherit the qualities of its parent claim.
Per claim 6, the claim would be allowable for similar reason as claim 4 if amendments were made to claim 4 since dependent claims inherit the qualities of its parent claim.
Per claims 13-14, the claim would be allowable for similar reasons as claims 4-5 since similar claim limitations are recited.
Per claim 15, the claim would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 14 if amendments were made to claim 14 since dependent claims inherit the qualities of its parent claim.
Per claims 21-22, they recite similar claim limitations as claims 4-5 and thus would be allowable for similar reasons if necessary amendments were made.
Furthermore, Claim 7 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the test completion status and the test completion time are recorded at the controller by:
encrypting the test completion status and the test completion time; and
sending a simple network management protocol (SNMP) recordation request to the controller that comprises the encrypted test completion time and the encrypted test completion status.
Although an NPL that teaches broadly to the importance of encrypting event logs was found (Verma, Pragati (“8 Best Logging Practices to Keep Sensitive Data Out,” Dev, November 12, 2022)), the Examiner was unable to find a prior art or an obvious combination of prior art that speaks the exact specificity of the claim language.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and thus would be allowable similar reasons.
Claim 16 and 17 recite similar claim language as claim 7 and 8 and thus would be allowable for similar reasons as claims 7 and 8 respectively.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYO LISA RUSIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/K.L.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights