The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Claim(s) 1 and 3 has/have been examined.Claim(s) 1 and 3 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 22, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Note that the amended claims have removed various limitations which invoked 112(f) and changed the scope of each claim. This rejection is therefore made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badwe (PG-PUB 2007/0277154) in view of Oellermann (PG-PUB 2013/0205019) and Salame (PG-PUB 2013/0246853).
Regarding claim 1, Badwe discloses :
a test campaign management system for contact center fault diagnostics (the specification describes a contact center as a software infrastructure for facilitating communications (paragraph 27 of the specification); Badwe is directed to testing a distributed system that includes components for an SQL database and an internet information service component (paragraph 29); the distributed system can be considered a contact center because it includes internet communication components for use with a remote database), comprising:
a test case database stored on a non-volatile data storage device, the test case database comprising one or more test cases, each test case comprising an operational instruction to a network component of a contact center (paragraph 47, a test directive tests functionality of a component by dynamically invoking an API with specific parameters) and an expected response for that component (paragraph 48, it is determined whether the component responded as intended; an intended response is thus associated); and
a computer system configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media, wherein the software instructions comprise instructions that:
receives a test campaign comprising a periodic set of tests to be performed on a contact center's services (Figure 1, a test case includes multiple test directives); and
links each test of the periodic set of tests to a test case stored in the test case database (test libraries of Figure 1 and test cases of Figure 3 are associated with the test directives to be accessed or utilized);
retrieves each test case linked to each test of the periodic set of tests (paragraph 23, test directives are generated as specified by the test case definition);
executes each test case retrieved by sending the operational instruction for that test case to the network component of the contact center for the component of that test case (paragraph 48, test data is sent to the component which responds with results; paragraph 47, test directive tests functionality of a component by sending API requests);
receives a response from each component of each test case (paragraph 48, test data is sent to the component which responds with result); and
determines whether the component for each test case is a root cause of an error in operation of the contact center (paragraph 48, it is determined whether the component responded as intended or whether an error or performance deviation occurred).
Badwe does not expressly disclose the test management system wherein determining whether a component is a root cause of an error is done by calculating a time of response to the operational instruction for each test case executed and evaluating whether its response meets a threshold time of response and whether the response received for the component matches the expected response for that component.
Badwe teaches that a test driver executes test cases to invoke APIs and store results of the APIs (see abstract). Badwe additionally teaches that a response to testing is analyzed to determine if the component responded as intended, or if there was a performance deviation or an error occurred (paragraph 48).
Oellermann teaches a system for monitoring and managing API interactions in a cloud environment (see abstract). The correctness of monitored API responses is determined by both a time to respond and whether a response received was correct (paragraph 25).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cloud component testing disclosed by Badwe such that API responses are validated using their response time and correctness of response, as taught by Oellermann. This modification would have been obvious because a user may wish to be alerted when an API response time goes above a limit (Oellermann paragraph 39); also the monitoring attempts to provide service-level observations that mirror what a user of the API may be experiencing (Oellermann paragraph 25) and, as would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, a user experiencing observable API response delays may be indicative of a problem with the associated API.
Badwe does not expressly disclose the system wherein the set of tests are periodic and wherein the test campaign is periodically repeated.
Salame teaches a testing system in which periodic testing is performed of a functionally complex system and results of the periodic testing are logged (paragraph 14), the target system being a distributed contact center (paragraph 60). For the testing, a test database stores a test configuration and instructions (paragraph 96).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distributed testing disclosed by Badwe such that the testing is performed periodically, as taught by Salame. This modification would have been obvious because periodic testing is effective for detecting faults that occur due to periodic conditions or be performing a periodic trend analysis (Salame paragraph 92).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anastas teaches determining problems based on web page load time threshold and page content problems; the test results have an associated error type and code and a threshold number of occurrences of each error type. Carames teaches utilizing a performance criteria including a maximum response time and minimum result accuracy.
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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trialand-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-programindependent.
The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SCHELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8186. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9AM-5:00PM (Pacific Time).
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. Please note that all agendas or related documents that Applicant would like reviewed should be sent at least one full business day (i.e. 24 hours not including weekends or holidays) before the interview.
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. The fax phone number for the examiner is 571-273-8186. The examiner may be e-mailed at joseph.schell@uspto.gov though communications via e-mail are not permitted without a written authorization form (see MPEP 502.03).
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.
JS/JOSEPH O SCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114