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 in response to the application filed on 06/21/2025, claims 1-21 are presented for the examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/21/2025 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10-14, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “EAS testing platform” and “ESA testing platform” used in specification and claims interchangeably. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “EAS testing platform” and “ESA testing platform” used in specification and claims interchangeably.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant Application 19/245289
Reference patent
12360885
Reference Patent
11709762
Reference Patent
11409638
Reference Patent 10877872
Reference Patent 10114734
Reference patent
9471475
Reference patent 9003237
A method comprising:
receiving a request with a computer from an end user using a computer to access an enterprise software application (ESA) hosted by an EAS testing platform that is remote from the computer used by the end user; receiving data from the computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote EAS testing platform is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the computer.
1. An apparatus comprising: means, including one or more processors, for electronically transmitting a virtual desktop infrastructure template to a computer system, wherein the virtual desktop infrastructure template is configured to transform a first computer into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with the virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer, wherein the ESA testing platform computer system hosts an enterprise software application, wherein the first computer system comprises: means, including one or more processors, for receiving a request from an end user using a second computer to access an ESA hosted by the ESA testing platform computer system that is remote from the second computer used by the end user; means for receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and means, including one or more processors, for testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
A method comprising: electronically transmitting a virtual desktop infrastructure template to a computer system, wherein the virtual desktop infrastructure template is configured to transform a first computer into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with the virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer, wherein the ESA testing platform computer system hosts an enterprise software application, wherein the first computer system is transformed by the interaction of the virtual desktop infrastructure template to allow the ESA testing platform computer system for: receiving a request from an end user using a second computer to access an ESA hosted by the ESA testing platform computer system that is remote from the second computer used by the end user; receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
A method comprising: generating a virtual desktop infrastructure template; and electronically transmitting the virtual desktop infrastructure template to a first computer system, wherein the virtual desktop infrastructure template configures the first computer system into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with the virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer system, wherein the first computer system configured as the ESA testing platform computer system to perform operations comprising: hosting an ESA; receiving a request from a second computer to access the hosted ESA, wherein the ESA testing platform computer system is remote from the second computer; receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
1. A method comprising: executing code in a first computer system to cause the first computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving an electronically transmitted virtual desktop infrastructure template with a first computer system; utilizing the virtual desktop infrastructure template as a management layer to provision the first computer system and transform the first computer into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with the virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer, wherein the SA testing platform computer system hosts the software application; receiving a request from an end user using a second computer to access an ESA hosted by the ESA testing platform computer system that is remote from the second computer used by the end user; receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
1. A method comprising: receiving an electronically transmitted virtual desktop infrastructure template with a first computer system; utilizing the virtual desktop infrastructure template as a management layer to provision the first computer system and transform the first computer into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with the virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer, wherein the ESA testing platform computer system hosts an enterprise software application; receiving a request from an end user using a second computer to access an ESA hosted by the ESA testing platform computer system that is remote from the second computer used by the end user; receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
1. A method comprising: generating a virtual desktop infrastructure template; and electronically transmitting the virtual desktop infrastructure template to a computer system, wherein the virtual desktop infrastructure template is configured to transform a first computer into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with the virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer, wherein the ESA testing platform computer system hosts an enterprise software application, wherein the first computer system is transformed by the interaction of the virtual desktop infrastructure template to allow the ESA testing platform computer system for: receiving a request from an end user using a second computer to access an ESA hosted by the ESA testing platform computer system that is remote from the second computer used by the end user; receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
1. A method comprising: transforming a first computer into an enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system in accordance with a virtual desktop infrastructure template interacting with virtualization software executing on the first computer; and performing by the enterprise software application (ESA) testing platform computer system programmed with code stored in a memory and executing by a processor of the ESA testing platform computer system: receiving a request with the ESA testing platform computer system from an end user using a second computer to access an ESA hosted by the ESA testing platform computer system that is remote from the second computer used by the end user; receiving data with the ESA testing platform computer system from the second computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote ESA testing platform computer system is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the ESA testing platform computer system.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,114,734. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,877,872. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11409638. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11709762. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11709762. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application are anticipated by the reference claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in claim 21, “means for receiving”, “means for testing” that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 15-20, they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable medium” to include non-statutory matter. The applicant does not have description of a computer-readable medium; therefore, it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums. The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium”.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, 15-17, 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer et al. (US 2002/0184165, referred herein after Deboer) in view of Miller et al. (US 2006/0090136, referred herein after Miller).
As per claim 1, 15, 21, Deboer discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request with a computer from an end user using a computer to access an enterprise software application (ESA) hosted by an EAS testing platform that is remote from the computer used by the end user ([0008], [0009], [0011], “The method further includes executing a server side application portion for receiving indications of the user interactions with the client side application portion and, responsive to the indications, performing the given tests on the component.”, wherein the component is enterprise application as claimed);
Deboer does not specifically disclose receiving data from the computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote EAS testing platform is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the computer;
However, Miller discloses receiving data from the computer to test the ESA, wherein the remote EAS testing platform is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested; and testing the ESA in the computer ([0032], [0033], [0037], [0069]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Miller’s method into Deboer’s method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve troubleshooting and testing of the software.
As per claim 2, 12, 16, Deboer discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: providing test results from the testing of the ESA to the second computer ([0010], [0011], [0041], [0044]).
As per claim 3, 8, 17, Miller discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: provisioning the remote EAS testing platform using a virtual desktop interface template ([0044], [0050], [0059]).
As per claim 7, Deboer discloses an apparatus comprising:
an enterprise software application (ESA) testing computer platform hosting an enterprise software application, wherein the EAS testing platform includes one or more computers that are remote from a computer used by an end user providing data to test an ESA ([0008], [0009], [0011], “The method further includes executing a server side application portion for receiving indications of the user interactions with the client side application portion and, responsive to the indications, performing the given tests on the component.”, wherein the component is enterprise application as claimed);
Deboer does not specifically disclose wherein, during operation, the EAS testing platform is capable of receiving the data to test the ESA and to execute the ESA.
However, Miller discloses during operation, the EAS testing platform is capable of receiving the data to test the ESA and to execute the ESA ([0032], [0033], [0037], [0069]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Miller’s method into Deboer’s method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve troubleshooting and testing of the software.
As per claim 10, Deboer discloses the apparatus of claim 7 wherein the ESA testing platform comprises one or more processors coupled to one or more memories having the enterprise software application stored therein (Fig. 9, [0050], [0051]).
As per claim 11, Miller discloses the apparatus of claim 7 wherein the ESA testing platform is provisioned to emulate an actual operating environment for which the ESA is being tested ([0032], [0033], [0037], [0069]).
Claims 4, 9, 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer and Miller in view of Glaser et al. (US 2012/0209947).
As per claim 4, 9, 18, neither Deboer nor Miller discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: accessing the EAS testing platform via cloud computing web service;
However, Glaser discloses accessing the EAS testing platform via cloud computing web service ([0038], [0039]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Glaser’s method into Miller’s and Deboer’s method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide rapid feedback and support the integration of remote testing applications in the system.
Claims 5-6, 13, 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer and Miller in view of Keating et al. (US 2012/0209947).
As per claim 5, 13, 19, neither Deboer nor Miller discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: recording a "snapshot" of the ESA testing platform during testing of the ESA;
However, Keating discloses recording a "snapshot" of the ESA testing platform during testing of the ESA ([0030], [0031]);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Keating’s method into Miller’s and Deboer’s method because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide automated build and test services for software.
As per claim 6, 20, Keating discloses the method of claim 5 further comprising: transmitting the snapshot to a computer system ([0030], [0031]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Peck teaches method for debugging a program intended for execution on a programmable hardware element (PHE) to perform a function. A first portion of the program is converted into a first hardware configuration program (HCP) deployable on the PHE, where a remaining portion is to be debugged by a user.
Subramaniam teaches a method for remote testing of enterprise software applications (ESA) allows one or more testers to remotely access an ESA and remotely test the ESA. In at least one embodiment, the ESA resides in a testing platform that includes one more computers that are provisioned for testing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Matt Kim can be reached on 571-272-4182. 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights