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 .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is issued in response to the claims filed on 02/20/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claim Objection
3. Claims 6, 10-11, 15, and 17-18 are objected to because they seem to miss a conjunction “and.” Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shang et al. (US 2022/0147429 A1) hereinafter “Shang.”
Regarding claim 1, Shang discloses a method comprising:
receiving, via a browser extension, a request to assess performance of a web page (Fig.3 with associated text: Browser Application 325; paragraphs [0050]-[0052]: selecting a web page to be tested, review results, etc.);
identifying an attribute of the web page (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]: “Web page 320” or “web page 360” are web page identifiers - attribute of webpage);
presenting, via the browser extension, based on the attribute, one or more affordances, wherein each affordance of the one or more affordances is associated with a performance characteristic of the web page (paragraphs [0050]- [0053]: a test is conducted based on input from a user through user interface 330 which include “a number of elements 335-350- performance characteristics of the web page - and some of the elements 340, 345 and 350 can comprise Web Component elements.” Note: interfaces displaying options for selection are affordances);
receiving a request to access data based on a selection of an affordance of the one or more affordances (paragraphs [0050]- [0053]: selected elements for testing); and
providing, via the browser extension, a representation of the data for display (paragraph [0050]: select a webpage to be tested, review results).
Regarding claim 2, Shang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the attribute of the web page is that the web page corresponds to a testing environment; generating a report based on the data and the testing environment (Fig.3 with associated text: selecting a webpage from a provided list for testing and review results-the selected web page is associated with testing environment and the results-report- based on selected data to be tested and the testing environment).
Regarding claim 4, Shang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein generating the report comprises selecting one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the one or more performance characteristics to include in the report (paragraph [0053]: performance metrics- key performance indicators).
Regarding claim 5, Shang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein generating the report comprises selecting a unit of measurement to apply to the one or more performance characteristics (paragraph [0053]: performance metrics include response times- unit of measurement).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16-17, they claim similar subject matters to claims 1-2 respectively; therefore, claims 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected at least for the same reasons as claims 1-2 respectively.
Regarding claims 13-14, they claim similar subject matters to claims 4-5 respectively; therefore, claims 13-14 are rejected at least for the same reasons as claims 4-5 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang et al. (US 2022/0147429 A1) hereinafter “Shang” in view of Tran et al. (US 20260140850 A1), hereinafter “Tran.”
Regarding claim 3, Shang discloses the method of claim 2. Shang does not explicitly disclose exporting the report to one or more external sources. However, sending a testing report to external parties is known in the art and Tran’s teaching is an example (Fig.1 with associated text and paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shang’s teaching of testing and reviewing result of web page performance with Tran’s teaching of sending a testing report to external parties to have an obvious and predictable result of exporting the report to one or more external sources.
Regarding claim 12, it claims similar subject matter to claim 3; therefore, claim 12 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 3.
8. Claims 6-7, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang et al. (US 2022/0147429 A1) hereinafter “Shang” in view of Shukla (US 20210099483 A1), hereinafter “Shukla.”
Regarding claim 6, Shang discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining that the attribute of the web page corresponds to a workflow (paragraph [0053]: steps/process implemented after a web wage is selected to be tested is a workflow associated with the selected web page). Shang does not explicitly disclose generating a stack trace associated with the workflow based on an additional attribute of the web page; providing, via the browser extension, the stack trace for display. However, utilizing stack trace in monitoring web applications is known in the art and Shukla’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shang’s teaching of associating a web page with a workflow with Shukla’s teaching of utilizing stack trace in monitoring web applications to have an obvious and predictable result of generating a stack trace associated with the workflow based on an additional attribute of the web page; providing, via the browser extension, the stack trace for display.
Regarding claim 7, Shang and Shukla disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the stack trace comprises one or more stack frames, and wherein each stack frame of the stack trace comprises a hyperlink corresponding to a portion of code associated with the workflow (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 15, it claims similar subject matter to claim 6; therefore, claim 15 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claims 18-19, they claim similar subject matters to claims 6-7 respectively; therefore, claims 18-19 are rejected at least for the same reasons as claims 6-7 respectively.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang et al. (US 2022/0147429 A1) hereinafter “Shang” in view of Azad (US 20240314169 A1), hereinafter “Azad.”
Regarding claim 8, Shang discloses the method of claim 1. Shang does not explicitly disclose the affordance comprises one or more performance tools configured to improve the respective performance characteristics of the one or more performance characteristics. However, a dashboard displaying security tools for selection to mitigate risk is known in the art and Azad’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0231]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shang’s teaching of testing and reviewing result of web page performance with affordance for viewing and select options(as presented in claim 1) with Azad’s teaching of a dashboard displaying security tools for selection to mitigate risk to have an obvious and predictable result of the affordance comprises one or more performance tools configured to improve the respective performance characteristics of the one or more performance characteristics.
10. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang et al. (US 2022/0147429 A1) hereinafter “Shang” in view of Yemini (US 20180060217 A1), hereinafter “Yemini.”
Regarding claim 9, Shang discloses the method of claim 1. Shang discloses monitoring response times (paragraph [0053]), but Shang does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more performance characteristics correspond to one or more actions executed by the web page comprising: one or more queries that take longer than a threshold query time to execute; one or more transactions that take longer than a threshold transaction time to execute; one or more scripts that take longer than a threshold script time to execute; or a combination thereof. However, monitoring transactions that exceed a latency threshold is known in the art and Yemini’s teaching is an example (Fig.2 with associated text, steps 221 and 222).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shang’s teaching of testing and reviewing result of web page performance with Yemini’s teaching of monitoring transactions that exceed a latency threshold to have an obvious and predictable result of the one or more performance characteristics correspond to one or more actions executed by the web page comprising: one or more queries that take longer than a threshold query time to execute; one or more transactions that take longer than a threshold transaction time to execute; one or more scripts that take longer than a threshold script time to execute; or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 20, it claims similar subject matter to claim 9; therefore, claim 20 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 9.
Prior Art of Record
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T. LE whose telephone number is (571)270-0279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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.
/THANH T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights