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
2. The 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37 CFR 1.114, the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed 11/24/2025 has been entered. An action on the RCE follows.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending,
Claims 1, 8, 15 are amended,
Claims 1, 8, 15 are independent claims,
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 9/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafi Bryl et al (US Publication 20150169433 A1, hereinafter Bryl), and in view of Brett Rosen et al (US Publication 20200089797 A1, hereinafter Rosen), and Sebastian Mietke (US Publication 20210390038 A1, hereinafter Mietke), and Billy Ma et al (US Patent 11030082 B1, hereinafter Ma), and further in view of David Matthews et al (US Publication 20190155970 A1, hereinafter Matthews).
As for independent claim 1, Bryl discloses: A computer-implemented method (Bryl: Abstract, generating test data for an application that is to be tested), comprising: receiving configurations that define, for each field of a test dataset to be generated (Bryl: [0027], an example interface 200 for configuring rules that can be processed for generating test data), ranges of values for which test values are to be generated for each field (Bryl: [0032], the user can further select whether any integer can be selected, or define a range of integers, between which the integers can be randomly selected); receiving dependencies that define, for each field of the test dataset, relationships with fields and that restrict the test values to be generated for each field of the test dataset, comprising: receiving a conditional dependency that imposes restrictions on a value range of a first field when a second field meets a pre-determined condition (Bryl: Abstract, receiving user input for each element being associated with a rule defining how values of the respective element are to be provided); … generating a test data set using the ordered fields, the configurations, and the increasing dependencies by generating random test data for each of the configurations of the ordered fields (Bryl: [0035], after the user has indicated the elements, for which test data is to be generated, the number of records that are to be generated for the subject entity, and the rules (configuration and dependencies) that are to be applied for each element, the user can select the "Next" option 208 of the interface 200 of FIG. 2A to provide the test data).
Bryl discloses generating test data based on user-defined rules but does not expressly disclose a conditional dependency, in an analogous art of automatically generating test data, Rosen discloses: receiving dependencies that define, for each field of the test dataset, relationships with fields and that restrict the test values to be generated for each field of the test dataset, comprising: receiving a conditional dependency that imposes restrictions on a value range of a first field when a second field meets a pre-determined condition (Rosen: [0016], The data fields 116 may further include value ranges or other limitations (e.g., numeric data fields that are limited to integer values, code data fields or string data fields that are limited to a list of possible code values or string values respectively, etc.). In some examples, some data fields may be dependent on or otherwise related to other data fields (e.g., a zip code data field or area code data field may have a limited set of possible code data values based on a state data field, etc.). Such data field dependencies and/or relationships may be defined within the data of the data fields);
Bryl and Rosen are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automatically generating test data based on user-defined rules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bryl using the teachings of Rosen to include defining dependency between fields. It would provide Bryl’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to define test data with more flexibility.
Further, Bryl does not clearly disclose the relational dependency is in a form of an inequality between field X and field Z, in another analogous art of automatically generate test data, Mietke discloses: and receiving a relational dependency enforcing a direct relationship between two or more fields, wherein the relational dependency is in a form of an inequality between the first field and a third field (Mietke: [0108], an operator associated with a conditional statement, such as an equality operator, an inequality operation, a greater than or less than operator, etc., can be changed to a different operator);
Bryl and Mietke are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automatically generating test data based on user-defined rules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bryl using the teachings of Mietke to include using conditional check (IF/THEN logic) and inequality relationship. It would provide Bryl’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to define test data with more flexibility.
Furthermore, Bryl did not disclose sorting the fields based on increasing dependencies to generate ordered fields, Ma discloses: sorting the fields based on increasing dependencies to generate ordered fields (Ma: column 9, Lines 15-18, In an embodiment, the API simulator 100 sorts the dependent fields in increasing order of their dependencies, i.e., least dependent fields first followed by fields with more dependencies);
Bryl and Ma are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing test data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bryl using the teachings of Mato include sorting fields in increasing order of their dependencies. It would provide Bryl’s method with enhanced capabilities of processing data more efficiently.
In addition, Bryl does not clearly disclose using the test data set, a quality assurance for a tool used by and for operation of equipment used for drilling, Matthews discloses: performing, using the test data set, a quality assurance for a tool used by and for operation of equipment used for drilling (Matthews: [0001], Machine and equipment assets are engineered to perform particular tasks as part of a process. For example, assets can include, among other things and without limitation, industrial manufacturing equipment on a production line, drilling equipment for use in mining operations, wind turbines that generate electricity on a wind farm, transportation vehicles, gas and oil refining equipment, and the like; [0032], The testing may include validation, certification, quality assurance, and the like. Based on the testing, results may be output for display to the industrial computing system);
Bryl and Matthews are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing test data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bryl using the teachings of Matthews include using the test data as a quality assurance for drilling equipment for use in mining operations. It would provide Bryl’s method with enhanced capabilities of fitting more industrial fields.
As for claim 2, Bryl-Rosen-Mietke-Ma discloses: wherein the test dataset is an SAP dataset (Bryl: [0018], An example programming language includes SAP River, provided by SAP AG of Walldorf, Germany).
As for claim 3, Bryl-Rosen-Mietke-Ma discloses: wherein the configurations and dependencies are received in a graphical user interface (Bryl: [0027], FIG. 2A depicts an example interface 200 for configuring rules that can be processed for generating test data).
As for claim 4, Bryl-Rosen-Mietke-Ma discloses: wherein the graphical user interface facilitates definition of the configurations and the dependencies and displays actual field names of the test dataset (Bryl: [0028], In the example of FIG. 2A, the elements include elements described above with reference to the example entity "Flight.").
As for claim 5, Bryl-Rosen-Mietke-Ma discloses: wherein generating the test dataset comprises pruning a set of values for a configuration based on the dependencies (Bryl: [0031], a rule editing interface is provided to enable the user to define a rule for generating the test data. In some examples, the content of the rule editing interface is provided based on the type of the respective element. For example, a first rule editing interface is provided for elements of the type integer, a second rule editing interface is provided for elements of the type decimal, and a third rule editing interface is provided for elements of the type string; please note the configuration of the test data is based on the type; Rosen: [0016], The data fields 116 may further include value ranges or other limitations (e.g., numeric data fields that are limited to integer values, code data fields or string data fields that are limited to a list of possible code values or string values respectively, etc.). In some examples, some data fields may be dependent on or otherwise related to other data fields (e.g., a zip code data field or area code data field may have a limited set of possible code data values based on a state data field, etc.). Such data field dependencies and/or relationships may be defined within the data of the data fields; [0041], Data fields may be defined to include ranges of possible values (e.g., a numeric field with values between 0 and 10, etc.) and/or lists of possible values (e.g., a category field with values from a list of 5 different category values, etc.)).
As for claim 6, Bryl-Rosen-Mietke-Ma discloses: wherein defining a configuration consists of defining an operation, a low value, and (optionally) a high value (Bryl: [0032], the user can further select whether any integer can be selected, or define a range of integers; Fig. 2B, “Integer Range: a low value, a high value; Rosen: [0041], Data fields may be defined to include ranges of possible values (e.g., a numeric field with values between 0 and 10, etc.) and/or lists of possible values (e.g., a category field with values from a list of 5 different category values, etc.)).
As for claim 7, Bryl-Rosen-Mietke-Ma discloses: wherein the operation is selected from a group comprising =, <, >, <=, >=, and range (Bryl: [0032], the user can further select whether any integer can be selected, or define a range of integers; Fig. 2B, “Integer Range: a low value, a high value; Mietke: [0074], A value restriction 440f can specify, for example, that negative values are or are not allowed, or particular ranges or threshold of values that are acceptable for a domain; [0108], For example, an operator associated with a conditional statement, such as an equality operator, an inequality operation, a greater than or less than operator, etc.).
As per claims 8-14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-7, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-7 are incorporated herein.
As per claims 15-20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-6, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-6 are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118