DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 12-15, 18, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 15, 18 recites
monitoring a software development lifecycle of a given software product,
wherein
monitoring the software development lifecycle comprises
identifying a plurality of test cases for testing functionality of the given software product,
the plurality of test cases including one or more test cases that are at least one of dynamically generated and dynamically updated during the software development lifecycle;
identifying a plurality of test beds on which the plurality of test cases are configured to run,
the plurality of test beds comprising
information technology assets of an information technology infrastructure;
creating a plurality of test bed pools,
wherein
each of the plurality of test bed pools is associated with one of the plurality of test cases and comprises at least one of the plurality of test beds, and
wherein
a given one of the plurality of test bed pools associated with a given one of the plurality of test cases comprises at least a subset of the plurality of test beds having test bed hardware and software configurations matching one or more test bed specifications of the given test case;
determining a priority level of each of the plurality of test cases for each of two or more different testing stages of a test cycle for the given software product,
wherein
a given priority level of the given test case for a given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle is determined based at least in part on one or more test case property specifications of the given test case,
the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case having weights which are dynamically updated for the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle for the given software product;
determining a dependency degree of each of the plurality of test beds,
wherein
a given dependency degree for a given one of the plurality of test beds is determined based at least in part on a number of the plurality of test bed pools that the given test bed is part of,
generating a testing plan for testing the given software product,
the testing plan comprising
a test case execution order for the plurality of test cases and a mapping of the plurality of test cases to the plurality of test beds,
wherein
the test case execution order is determined utilizing a time-based analytic hierarchy process
configured to
select an execution order for at least a subset of the plurality of test cases based at least in part on the priority levels of the plurality of test cases for each of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle so as to increase a likelihood, for at least a given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle, of completing ones of the plurality of test cases having relatively higher priority levels for the given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle prior to completing ones of the plurality of test cases having relatively lower priority levels for the given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle,
and
wherein
the mapping of the plurality of test cases to the plurality of test beds is determined based at least in part on the dependency degrees of the plurality of test beds; and
executing the testing plan for testing the given software product
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 15, 18, Claim(s) 3-9, 12-14, 21-27 recite(s)
wherein
a given test bed configuration for a given one of the plurality of test beds comprises at least one of
a hardware and a software configuration of a given one of the information technology assets of the information technology infrastructure on which the given test bed runs.
wherein
the one or more test bed specifications of the given test case comprise at least one of
one or more hardware configuration requirements and
one or more software configuration requirements.
wherein
the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case specify a type of testing performed during the given test case.
wherein
the type of testing comprises at least one of
regression testing, new feature coverage testing, and benchmark testing.
wherein
the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case specify one or more results of previous attempts to perform the given test case.
wherein
the one or more results of the previous attempts to perform the given test case indicate at least one of:
whether the given test case has passed during the previous attempts to perform the given test case; and
bugs encountered during the previous attempts to perform the given test case.
wherein
the given priority level for the given test case for the given testing stage is determined as a weighted average of the weights assigned to the one or more test case property specifications for the given testing stage.
wherein
the time-based analytic hierarchy process utilizes a dynamic judgment matrix, and
wherein
the weighted average is computed by
determining a geometric mean of each row vector of the dynamic judgment matrix and
normalizing values of the weights assigned to the one or more test case property specifications for the given test case for the given testing stage.
wherein
generating the testing plan for testing the given product comprises
normalizing the priority levels and the dependency degrees utilizing a Z-score normalization algorithm.
wherein
generating the testing plan for testing the given product comprises
utilizing a linear programming mathematical model comprising
an objective function that comprises
a weighted sum of the normalized priority levels and dependency degrees.
wherein
detecting the one or more changes in the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case comprises at least one of
associating a new test case property specification with the given test case.
wherein
executing the testing plan for testing the given software product comprises, responsive to detecting a failure of a particular one of the plurality of test beds associated with a particular one of the plurality of test bed pools,
dynamically updating the mapping of one or more of the plurality of test cases assigned to the particular one of the plurality of test beds to one or more other ones of the plurality of test beds that are associated with the particular one of the plurality of test bed pools.
wherein
determining the given priority level for the given test case for the given testing stage of the test cycle is based at least in part on detecting one or more changes in the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case.
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured to perform steps of:);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. a given software product).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of the additional elements (e.g., generic computer structure)).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 3-9, 14, 15, 18, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZOBUCHI ET AL. (US 2015/0033212) (hereinafter “MIZOBUCHI”) in view of GUPTA ET AL. (US 9,032,373) (hereinafter “GUPTA”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 15, 18, MIZOBUCHI teaches a testing program and the BRI of:
at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15);
the at least one processing device being configured to
perform steps of:
monitoring a software development lifecycle of a given software product, wherein monitoring the software development lifecycle comprises identifying test information for testing functionality of the given software product, the plurality of test cases including one or more test cases that are at least one of dynamically generated and dynamically updated during the software development lifecycle (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15);
identifying a plurality of test information on which the plurality of test cases are configured to run, the plurality of test information comprising information technology assets of an information technology infrastructure (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15);
determining a priority level of each of the plurality of test cases for each of two or more different testing stages of a test cycle for the given software product,
wherein
a given priority level of the given test case for a given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle is determined based at least in part on one or more test case property specifications of the given test case,
the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case having weights which are dynamically updated for the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle for the given software product (See, e.g., ¶ 0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15);
determining a dependency degree of each of the plurality of test beds, wherein a given dependency degree for a given one of the plurality of test beds is determined based at least in part on a number of the plurality of test information that the given test information is part of (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15),
generating a testing plan for testing the given software product (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15),
the testing plan comprising
a test case execution order for the plurality of test cases (See, e.g., ¶ 0071-0075, 0084; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15)
and
a mapping of the plurality of test cases to the plurality of test beds (See, e.g., ¶ 0034, 0037-0042, 0049-0068, 0084; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15),
wherein
the test case execution order is determined utilizing a time-based analytic hierarchy process
configured to
select an execution order for at least a subset of the plurality of test cases based at least in part on the priority levels of the plurality of test cases for each of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle so as to increase a likelihood, for at least a given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle, of completing ones of the plurality of test cases having relatively higher priority levels for the given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle prior to completing ones of the plurality of test cases having relatively lower priority levels for the given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle (See, e.g., ¶ 0071-0075, 0084; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15),
and
wherein
the mapping of the plurality of test cases to the plurality of test beds is determined based at least in part on the dependency degrees of the plurality of test beds (See, e.g., ¶ 0034, 0037-0042, 0049-0068, 0084; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15); and
executing the testing plan for testing the given software product (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15).
However, MIZOBUCHI is lacking the explicit language of:
a plurality of test cases and a plurality of test beds, creating a plurality of test bed pools, wherein each of the plurality of test bed pools is associated with one of the plurality of test cases and comprises at least one of the plurality of test beds, and wherein a given one of the plurality of test bed pools associated with a given one of the plurality of test cases comprises at least a subset of the plurality of test beds having test bed hardware and software configurations matching one or more test bed specifications of the given test case.
GUPTA teaches provisioning and/or configuring machines (real and/or virtual) for multiple parallel execution of multiple test cases and the BRI of:
a plurality of test cases and a plurality of test beds, creating a plurality of test bed pools, wherein each of the plurality of test bed pools is associated with one of the plurality of test cases and comprises at least one of the plurality of test beds, and wherein a given one of the plurality of test bed pools associated with a given one of the plurality of test cases comprises at least a subset of the plurality of test beds having test bed hardware and software configurations matching one or more test bed specifications of the given test case (See, e.g., Col 7 Line(s) 60 : Col 8 Line(s) 9; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MIZOBUCHI to include a plurality of test cases and a plurality of test beds, creating a plurality of test bed pools, wherein each of the plurality of test bed pools is associated with one of the plurality of test cases and comprises at least one of the plurality of test beds, and wherein a given one of the plurality of test bed pools associated with a given one of the plurality of test cases comprises at least a subset of the plurality of test beds having test bed hardware and software configurations matching one or more test bed specifications of the given test case.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MIZOBUCHI because it would be beneficial to improve software development. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
GUPTA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
a given test bed configuration for a given one of the plurality of test beds comprises at least one of a hardware and a software configuration of a given one of the information technology assets of the information technology infrastructure on which the given test bed runs (See, e.g., Col 7 Line(s) 65 : Col 5 Line(s) 36; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MIZOBUCHI to include wherein a given test bed configuration for a given one of the plurality of test beds comprises at least one of a hardware and a software configuration of a given one of the information technology assets of the information technology infrastructure on which the given test bed runs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MIZOBUCHI because it would be beneficial to improve software development. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 4, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
GUPTA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more test bed specifications of the given test case comprise at least one of one or more hardware configuration requirements and one or more software configuration requirements (See, e.g., Col 7 Line(s) 65 : Col 5 Line(s) 36; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MIZOBUCHI to include wherein the one or more test bed specifications of the given test case comprise at least one of one or more hardware configuration requirements and one or more software configuration requirements.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MIZOBUCHI because it would be beneficial to improve software development. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 5, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
GUPTA further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case specify a type of testing performed during the given test case (See, e.g., Col 7 Line(s) 60 : Col 8 Line(s) 9; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MIZOBUCHI to include wherein the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case specify a type of testing performed during the given test case.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MIZOBUCHI because it would be beneficial to improve software development. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 6, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the type of testing comprises at least one of
regression testing, new feature coverage testing, and benchmark testing (See, e.g., ¶ 0028).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case specify one or more results of previous attempts to perform the given test case (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more results of the previous attempts to perform the given test case indicate at least one of: whether the given test case has passed during the previous attempts to perform the given test case; and bugs encountered during the previous attempts to perform the given test case (See, e.g., ¶ 0028).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the given priority level for the given test case for the given testing stage is determined as a weighted average of the weights assigned to the one or more test case property specifications for the given testing stage (See, e.g., ¶ 0031).
With respect to Claim(s) 21, 24, 26, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
executing the testing plan for testing the given software product comprises, responsive to detecting a failure of a particular one of the plurality of test beds associated with a particular one of the plurality of test bed pools,
dynamically updating the mapping of one or more of the plurality of test cases assigned to the particular one of the plurality of test beds to one or more other ones of the plurality of test beds that are associated with the particular one of the plurality of test bed pools (See, e.g., ¶ 0060; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15).
With respect to Claim(s) 22, 25, 27, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
determining the given priority level for the given test case for the given testing stage of the test cycle is based at least in part on detecting one or more changes in the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15).
With respect to Claim(s) 23, MIZOBUCHI in view of GUPTA teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MIZOBUCHI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
detecting the one or more changes in the one or more test case property specifications of the given test case comprises at least one of
associating a new test case property specification with the given test case (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3, 15).
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
See prior OA, mailed 05/21/2025, for the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 01/20/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 10-13, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“With regard to the § 101 rejection, Applicant respectfully traverses on the ground that the previously-presented claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if one were to assume for purposes of argument that the previously-presented claims are so directed, the previously- presented claims clearly integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application in the field of computer technology, in a manner that provides an improvement in computer technology.
For example, in formulating the § 101 rejection of previously-presented independent claim 1, the Examiner alleges that previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea at Step 1 of the Alice Mayo analysis framework, corresponding to Step 2A of the USPTO analysis framework, which is reproduced below. Applicant respectfully submits that previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 "when read as a whole" are instead directed to "a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology." See Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22825 (Fed. Cir. 2024), citing McRO, Inc., v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As shown in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence ("July 2024 Guidance Update"), the USPTO analysis framework is as follows:
…
The Examiner more particularly alleges with regard to Step 2A of the above USPTO analysis framework that previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea that includes "mathematical concepts" and/or "mental processes."
As detailed in the August 4, 2025 memorandum from Charles Kim, Deputy Commissioner for Patents, titled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" (hereinafter "the August Memorandum"), "a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions." The August Memorandum further indicates that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." The August Memorandum further indicates that the "mental process grouping is not without limits" and that "Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." In the present application, previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 include recitations of particular processing operations including monitoring a software development lifecycle of a given software product, identifying test cases and test beds and creating test bed pools, determining priority levels for the test cases and dependency degrees for the test bed pools, and generating and executing a testing plan for testing a given product. Such recitations of particular processing operations are clearly not mental processes as alleged, as the human mind is not equipped to perform these claim limitations.
With regard to "mathematical concepts," the August 2025 memorandum indicates that "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception...from claims that merely involve an exception." The August 2025 memorandum further specifies that where a claim limitation "involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely on mathematical concepts," if the claim limitation does not "set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas or equations using words or mathematical symbols" it does not recite a judicial exception. Even if one were to assume, arguendo, that the features of previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18, "involve" mathematical concepts, previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 clearly do not recite any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas or equations and are thus not directed to mathematical concepts.
The Examiner further alleges with regard to Step 2B of the above USPTO analysis framework that previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant traverses, and submits that previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 clearly recite arrangements providing an improvement in computer technology. For example, illustrative embodiments of the claimed arrangements provide improvements in the functioning of a computer, and more particularly in the functioning of software development and testing, through improving test execution from multiple stages to meet objectives of increasing or improving the execution rate of test cases in a given time period and completing test cases with higher importance or priority as early as possible. See the specification at page 13, line 19 to page 14, line 9. Accordingly, even if one assumes for purposes of argument only that previously-presented independent claims 1, 15 and 18 could somehow be construed as reciting an abstract idea, these claims clearly integrate any such abstract idea into practical applications that provide improvements in computer technology.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that the §101 rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner maintains previous response:
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed inventions is generic computer structure being used as a tool to monitor data/information corresponding to a non-limiting scope software product, analyze the data/information, and generate/execute a testing plan.
When examining step 2A Prong 1, Examiner determines if there is an abstract idea present. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Further, one skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation. The arguments, in light of the specification, fail to convince the Examiner that utilizing Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes does not fit within the scope of the identified abstract limitations.
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
When examining step 2B, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The only additional element(s) is/are the generic computer structure being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment(s).
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 13-14, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“With regard to the § 103 rejections, Applicant traverses on the ground that the collective teachings of Mizobuchi and Gupta fail to disclose all of the features of the claims as previously presented, arranged as recited in those claims, and on the further ground that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the Mizobuchi and Gupta references to modify their teachings in a manner that would reach the particular claimed arrangements. Notwithstanding this traversal, Applicant has chosen to amend the independent claims solely in order to clarify the claimed subject matter.
Independent claim 1, for example, is amended to recite that the test case execution order is determined utilizing a time-based analytic hierarchy process configured to select an execution order for at least a subset of the plurality of test cases based at least in part on the priority levels of the plurality of test cases for each of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle so as to increase a likelihood, for at least a given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle, of completing ones of the plurality of test cases having relatively higher priority levels for the given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle prior to completing ones of the plurality of test cases having relatively lower priority levels for the given one of the two or more different testing stages of the test cycle, and wherein the mapping of the plurality of test cases to the plurality of test beds is determined based at least in part on the dependency degrees of the plurality of test beds.
The amendments to independent claim 1 are supported, for example, in the specification at page 19, line 11 to page 22, line 8. Similar amendments which are similarly supported have been made to independent claims 15 and 18.
Applicant submits that the cited references fail to disclose at least the newly-added features of the independent claims. Applicant further submits that the §101 rejection is rendered moot by the amendments to the independent claims made herein.
The dependent claims are believed to be patentable by virtue of their respective dependencies from the independent claims. The dependent claims are also believed to recite separately patentable subject matter.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are in condition for allowance, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.”.
The underlined argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit