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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on June 16, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
No rejection under 35 USC §§ 102, 103, 112 or 101 has been applied to claims 1-20 with the exception to the double patenting rejection below. The instant application is allowable for the following reasons:
Rodecker et al “Rodecker”, US Patent Application Pub. No. 20200301767 discloses managing communications for remote software/application testing, including routing messages from a plurality of remote computing devices to a specified one of multiple logical testing environments configured in a physical environment (Paragraph [0001]). In further details, Rodecker discloses an IMS router 130 that monitors communication received from one or more users. Based on user identifier associated with the message, the IMS router 130 may access the configuration data in virtual storage 180 to retrieve application and level information associated with the user identifier. Based on the user entry in the configuration data in virtual storage 180, the IMS router may modify the transaction communication and route the transaction message to the IMS 130 to access the desired testing pipeline container (e.g., account_manager_10, account_manager_n, and the like), including an application container 152, a test data container 154, and a user interface screen container 156, associated with the assigned testing level. When the user desires to test functionality at a different level (e.g., a functionality build level, a release build level, and the like), the user or resource manager may modify an assigned testing level in the configuration data table. Multiple individuals may be assigned to each level and the IMS router 110 may route transaction messages from each of a plurality of users to the IMS 130 based on the configuration data in virtual storage 180 (Paragraphs [0030], [0035]).
Zhou et al “Zhou”, U.S. Patent No. 8,769,102 discloses testing a software application in a variety of testing environment. In some examples, a user of client device might desire to test a client application (or other type of software application) on one or more system configurations (e.g., combinations of an operating system, browser type, central processing unit (CPU) type, and languages, such as English or French). Rather than requiring local access to one or more machines having the desired configuration, the following describes techniques that may provide virtual testing environments. In some cases, providing such virtual test environments may reduce a developer's costs in terms of the number of machines that the developer must maintain, and with regard to the amount of software that the developer must possess in order to set up computing systems in the necessary configurations (col. 2 lines 55-67). Fig. 1 of Zhou is a block diagram showing an example of a system 100 for providing a virtual test environment to a client device 102. A user of client device 102 (for example, a software application developer) in the system 100 might desire access to one or more computing systems having various configurations in order to test a client (or other) application (e.g., a program under development that needs to be tested on various platforms and under various operating conditions). The system 100 enables the client device 102, using, for example, client application 104, to request and access one or more remotely-located virtual test environments on which to test a client application 104 (col. 3 lines 1-12).
While the cited prior art discloses some of the claimed features as explained above, however the cited prior art fail to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either from the cited prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known references to render the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,354. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are slightly broader than the claims recited in the U.S. Patent.
Said claims in both applications are directed to enabling a remote infrastructure for application and website development on multiple platforms, and more particularly to troubleshooting and error detection in such infrastructure, using routing and traffic information without inspecting traffic content.
Taking claims 1 , 10 and 19 in the instant application, as an exemplary to show the similarity in features being claimed in both applications, to compare to claims 1 , 9 and 17 in the U.S. Patent (see comparison table below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the same claim elements of the parent application, to construct a system as claimed in the instant application capable of performing identical functions as the parent application. The rest of the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in the U.S. Patent.
An exemplary table to show similarity among the conflicting claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,335,354
1. A method comprising:
a repeater, receiving requests, from a device, the requests comprising application requests, wherein requests from the device to the repeater comprise device sockets, requests from the repeater to a public server comprise repeater sockets, and requests from the application to a private server comprise application sockets;
aggregating the device sockets, the repeater sockets and the application sockets;
determining a sum of the repeater sockets and the application sockets; and
determining an error in a test session by determining the sum of the repeater sockets and the application sockets not equaling the number of device sockets during the test session.
1. A method comprising:
in a testing application, executable in a user network, in an infrastructure, having a device, wherein a repeater, external to the user network, connected to the testing application and configured to receive user application requests issued from the device, determining when the request comprises a request to access a public server; routing the request to the public server; determining when the request comprises a request to access a user server in the user network; routing the request to the user server in the user network; wherein traffic requests from the device to the repeater comprise device sockets, traffic requests from the repeater to public servers comprise repeater sockets, and traffic requests from the testing application to the user server comprise testing application sockets,
aggregating the device sockets, the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets;
determining a sum of the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets; and
determining an error in a test session by determining the sum of the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets not equaling the number of device sockets during the test session.
10. A system comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising:
a repeater, receiving requests, from a device, the requests comprising application requests, wherein requests from the device to the repeater comprise device sockets, requests from the repeater to a public server comprise repeater sockets, and requests from the application to a private server comprise application sockets;
aggregating the device sockets, the repeater sockets and the application sockets;
determining a sum of the repeater sockets and the application sockets; and
determining an error in a test session by determining the sum of the repeater sockets and the application sockets not equaling the number of device sockets during the test session.
9. A system comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising:
in a testing application, executable in a user network, in an infrastructure, having a device, wherein a repeater, external to the user network, connected to the testing application and configured to receive user application requests issued from the device,
determining when the request comprises a request to access a public server; routing the request to the public server; determining when the request comprises a request to access a user server in the user network; routing the request to the user server in the user network; wherein traffic requests from the device to the repeater comprise device sockets, traffic requests from the repeater to public servers comprise repeater sockets, and traffic requests from the testing application to the user server comprise testing application sockets,
aggregating the device sockets, the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets;
determining a sum of the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets; and
determining an error in a test session by determining the sum of the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets not equaling the number of device sockets during the test session.
19. A non-transitory computer storage that stores executable program instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, configure the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
a repeater, receiving requests, from a device, the requests comprising application requests, wherein requests from the device to the repeater comprise device sockets, requests from the repeater to a public server comprise repeater sockets, and requests from the application to a private server comprise application sockets;
aggregating the device sockets, the repeater sockets and the application sockets;
determining a sum of the repeater sockets and the application sockets; and
determining an error in a test session by determining the sum of the repeater sockets and the application sockets not equaling the number of device sockets during the test session.
17. A non-transitory computer storage that stores executable program instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, configure the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
in a testing application, executable in a user network, in an infrastructure, having a device, wherein a repeater, external to the user network, connected to the testing application and configured to receive user application requests issued from the device, determining when the request comprises a request to access a public server; routing the request to the public server; determining when the request comprises a request to access a user server in the user network;
routing the request to the user server in the user network; wherein traffic requests from the device to the repeater comprise device sockets, traffic requests from the repeater to public servers comprise repeater sockets, and traffic requests from the testing application to the user server comprise testing application sockets,
aggregating the device sockets, the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets;
determining a sum of the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets; and
determining an error in a test session by determining the sum of the repeater sockets and the testing application sockets not equaling the number of device sockets during the test session.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights