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 Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 9/10/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 1 and 4-7 were amended. Claims 2-3 were cancelled. Claims 8-22 were newly added. Thus, Claims 1 and 4-22 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 11, line 2, the first occurrence of “TCP SYN” should be spelled out.
In Claim 11, line 5, the first occurrence of “SYN/ACK” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the term "immediately" in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "immediately" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-22 are allowed.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4-22, the closest prior art of record Li et al (US 20180069774) in view of Liu et al (US 20160183129) in further view of Emile (US 20080019283) and in even further view of Ooba (US 20120005336) does not teach a testing method executed by a testing device, the testing method comprising: examining an access method for a plurality of devices existing in a test target network; generating a test packet on a basis of an examination result of the access method and a scenario in which a procedure related to generation of the test packet is described; transmitting the test packet; and collecting a log from a device to which the test packet is transmitted among the plurality of devices existing in the test target network and analyzing the collected log, wherein: the examining includes: examining whether it is possible to establish a transmission control protocol (TCP) connection by performing a three-way handshake on internet protocol (IP) addresses included in an IP address range of the test target network; recording an IP address capable of establishing the TCP connection in an IP address table; extracting a uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to a domain name of an IP address included in the IP address range of the test target network; and recording the extracted URL in a URL table in a case that an IP address of a response packet at a time of accessing the extracted URL is included in the IP address range of the test target network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ma et al (US 20130055027), Abstract - A low cost error-based program testing apparatus and method are provided. The testing apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention generates error programs by adding errors to a test target program, selects a test target error program associated with test data among the error programs using error information obtained through the error addition, receives the test data to execute the test target error program, and tests for presence/absence of the errors. Accordingly, it is possible to reduce a text execution time and testing costs.
DOI (US 20080244340), Abstract - There is provided a test apparatus for testing a memory under test that includes therein a plurality of blocks and one or more repairing columns. The test apparatus includes a testing section, a flag memory that stores thereon a flag indicating whether each column is defective, a counter memory that stores thereon the number of defective blocks in association with each column, a failure writing section that writes a flag indicating that a column is defective into the flag memory under a condition that one of the following conditions is satisfied: when a test result indicates that the column is defective; and when a flag stored on the flag memory in association with the column indicates that the column is defective, a counting section that increments the number of defective blocks stored on the counter memory in association with the column under a condition that the test result indicates that the column is defective and the flag indicating that the column is defective is not stored on the flag memory in association with the column, and a selecting section that selects columns to be replaced with the repairing columns based on the number of defective blocks stored in association with each column.
Osada et al (US 20130246852), Abstract - A test method which tests a processing device includes: obtaining a maximum number of processing units with which the processing device as a test target can simultaneously parallel process a plurality of threads; specifying a number of threads, causing the processing device as the test target to parallel process the threads, and obtaining a processing time corresponding to the number of threads; and outputting information indicating that the processing device as the test target is normal when the number of threads for which the processing time is more than or equal to a threshold matches the maximum number of processing units which can simultaneously parallel process, or outputting information indicating that the processing device as the test target is abnormal when the number of threads does not match.
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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights