CTNF 18/193,690 CTNF 82239 DETAILED ACTION This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on March 31, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the first tag.” It should read -- the first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case --. Claim 5 contains a typographical error: the whitespace character before the period (.) should be deleted. Claims 6 and 13 recite “the one or more automatically generated tags.” It should read -- the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case --. Claims 11 and 18 recite “the steps of.” It should read -- the step of --. Claim 15 recites “system-under-test.” It should read -- system-under-test (SUT) --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation “the testing” at lines 5, 9, and 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “running the test case” for the purpose of further examination. Claims 2-7 depend on Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-7 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 1. Claims 9-14 depend on Claim 8. Therefore, Claims 9-14 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 8. Claims 16-20 depend on Claim 15. Therefore, Claims 16-20 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 15. Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the limitation “the relevancy scores” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “the relevancy score” for the purpose of further examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111. Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations: (a) generating […] a set of tags based on a collection of test cases; (b) tagging a test case with one or more automatically generated tags from the set of tags; (c) determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case; and (d) validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag. These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting: (1) […] automatically […]. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a collection of test cases in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a set of tags. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the set of tags in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to tag a test case. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the test case in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine a result of running the test case. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a fault related to the tag in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to validate as association between the tag and the test case. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element: (1) […] automatically […]. The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The term “automatically” implies that a computer/machine is used as a tool to perform the “generating” step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Also, the claim recites the additional element: (2) running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT). The additional element (2) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of running a test case without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how running the test case solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of running the test case with no restriction on how it is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element: (1) […] automatically […]. The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Also, the claim recites the additional element: (2) running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT). The additional element (2) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of running a test case with no restriction on how it is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 2-7 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1. Claim 2 recites the limitation: (a) wherein the first tag is validated by hardening the first tag for the test case. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 3 recites the limitation: (a) wherein the set of tags is automatically generated through a machine-learning natural language processing (ML/NLP) framework. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 4 recites the limitation: (a) retraining the ML/NLP framework. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 5 recites the limitations: (a) wherein generating, automatically, a set of tags based on a collection of test cases includes: (b) parsing each test case in the collection of test cases; (c) determining a relevancy score for each token parsed from the collection of test cases; and (d) selecting, based on the relevancy scores, one or more tokens as the set of tags. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 6 recites the limitations: (a) receiving a test case query including search criteria; (b) matching the search criteria to the test case based on the one or more automatically generated tags; and (c) populating a regression test bucket with one or more test cases including the test case. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 7 recites the limitations: (a) identifying a corpus of documents related to a system update; (b) generating, automatically, one or more tags for the corpus of documents; and (c) matching at least one tag of one or more test cases to at least one tag for the corpus of documents. Claims 2 and 5-7 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Claims 3, 4, and 6 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 2-7 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, Claims 1-7 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 8 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111. Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 8 recites the limitations: (a) generating […] a set of tags based on a collection of test cases; (b) tagging a test case with one or more automatically generated tags from the set of tags; (c) determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case; and (d) validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag. These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting: (1) [a]n apparatus for generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure, the apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed therein computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of; and (2) […] automatically […]. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a collection of test cases in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a set of tags. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the set of tags in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to tag a test case. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the test case in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine a result of running the test case. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a fault related to the tag in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to validate as association between the tag and the test case. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (1) [a]n apparatus for generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure, the apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed therein computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of; and (2) […] automatically […]. The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The computer processor and computer memory are used as a tool to perform the “tagging,” “running,” “determining,” and “validating” steps of the claim. And the term “automatically” implies that a computer/machine is used as a tool to perform the “generating” step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Also, the claim recites the additional element: (3) running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT). The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of running a test case without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how running the test case solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of running the test case with no restriction on how it is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements: (1) [a]n apparatus for generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure, the apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed therein computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of; and (2) […] automatically […]. The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Also, the claim recites the additional element: (3) running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT). The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of running a test case with no restriction on how it is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 9-14 are dependent on Claim 8, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 8. Claim 9 recites the limitation: (a) wherein the first tag is validated by hardening the first tag for the test case. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 10 recites the limitation: (a) wherein the set of tags is automatically generated through a machine-learning natural language processing (ML/NLP) framework. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 11 recites the limitation: (a) retraining the ML/NLP framework. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 12 recites the limitations: (a) wherein generating, automatically, a set of tags based on a collection of test cases includes: (b) parsing each test case in the collection of test cases; (c) determining a relevancy score for each token parsed from the collection of test cases; and (d) selecting, based on the relevancy scores, one or more tokens as the set of tags. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 13 recites the limitations: (a) receiving a test case query including search criteria; (b) matching the search criteria to the test case based on the one or more automatically generated tags; and (c) populating a regression test bucket with one or more test cases including the test case. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 14 recites the limitations: (a) identifying a corpus of documents related to a system update; (b) generating, automatically, one or more tags for the corpus of documents; and (c) matching at least one tag of one or more test cases to at least one tag for the corpus of documents. Claims 9 and 12-14 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Claims 10, 11, and 13 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 9-14 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 8 into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, Claims 8-14 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 15 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111. Step 1: Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 15 recites the limitations: (a) generating […] a set of tags based on a collection of test cases; (b) tagging a test case with one or more automatically generated tags from the set of tags; (c) determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case; and (d) validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag. These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting: (1) [a] computer program product for generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure, the computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising computer program instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to carry out the steps of; and (2) […] automatically […]. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a collection of test cases in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a set of tags. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the set of tags in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to tag a test case. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the test case in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine a result of running the test case. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a fault related to the tag in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to validate as association between the tag and the test case. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (1) [a] computer program product for generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure, the computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising computer program instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to carry out the steps of; and (2) […] automatically […]. The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The computer readable medium and computer are used as a tool to perform the “tagging,” “running,” “determining,” and “validating” steps of the claim. And the term “automatically” implies that a computer/machine is used as a tool to perform the “generating” step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Also, the claim recites the additional element: (3) running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT). The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of running a test case without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how running the test case solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of running the test case with no restriction on how it is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements: (1) [a] computer program product for generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure, the computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising computer program instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to carry out the steps of; and (2) […] automatically […]. The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Also, the claim recites the additional element: (3) running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT). The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of running a test case with no restriction on how it is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 16-20 are dependent on Claim 15, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 15. Claim 16 recites the limitation: (a) wherein the first tag is validated by hardening the first tag for the test case. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 17 recites the limitation: (a) wherein the set of tags is automatically generated through a machine-learning natural language processing (ML/NLP) framework. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 18 recites the limitation: (a) retraining the ML/NLP framework. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 19 recites the limitations: (a) wherein generating, automatically, a set of tags based on a collection of test cases includes: (b) parsing each test case in the collection of test cases; (c) determining a relevancy score for each token parsed from the collection of test cases; and (d) selecting, based on the relevancy scores, one or more tokens as the set of tags. <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> Claim 20 recites the limitations: (a) identifying a corpus of documents related to a system update; (b) generating, automatically, one or more tags for the corpus of documents; and (c) matching at least one tag of one or more test cases to at least one tag for the corpus of documents. Claims 16, 19, and 20 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Claims 17 and 18 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 16-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 15 into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, Claims 15-20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium. However, it is noted that the specification does not provide an explicit definition of what constitutes a computer readable medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se , the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 , Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. Therefore, the claimed computer readable medium is ineligible subject matter under § 101. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite “computer readable storage medium” in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. Note that the Applicant’s specification (page 22, paragraph [0060]) provides a special definition that explicitly excludes a computer readable storage medium from being interpreted as transitory signals per se . Claims 16-20 depend on Claim 15 and do not cure the deficiency of Claim 15. Therefore, Claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0226691 (hereinafter “Happell”) (cited in the IDS submitted on 03/31/2023) in view of US 2018/0004637 (hereinafter “Chandra”) . [ Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Happell is generally directed to associating one or more attribute tags with one or more executable test cases (Happell, Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Chandra is generally directed to automatically identifying violations in one or more test cases (Chandra, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Happell and Chandra are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).] As per Claim 1, Happell discloses: A method (paragraph [0019], “Embodiments of the present invention extend to the […] methods […] for associating one or more attribute tags with one or more executable test cases.”) comprising: generating, automatically, a set of tags based on a collection of test cases (paragraph [0030], “Process flow 200A also includes one or more attribute tags 230. In FIG. 2A, attribute tags 230 are illustrated as attribute tags 230A, 230B, 230C and any number of additional attribute tags as depicted by ellipses 230D. The attribute tags 230 may be used to tag one or more of the test cases 210 [a set of tags based on a collection of test cases] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0051] 1 , “Method 300 also includes an act of accessing a plurality of attribute tags (act 310). For example, access module 220 may access the plurality of attribute tags 230. As mentioned previously, the attribute tags 230 comprise one or more attributes, for instance attributes 235, which describe properties of the test case. These attributes may include one of a test case owner, a component to be tested, a test case behavior, and test input values.”) ; [ 1 Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Happell discloses that the access module may access the plurality of attribute tags. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the plurality of attribute tags are automatically generated prior to being accessed.] tagging a test case with one or more automatically generated tags from the set of tags (paragraph [0052], “In addition, method 300 includes an act of associating the plurality of access tags with the test case (act 311) [tagging a test case with one or more automatically generated tags from the set of tags] . For example, associate module 240 may associate test case 210A with attribute tags 230 as represented by association 250. In this way, a test case is associated with a plurality of attribute tags (emphasis added).”) ; and running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT) (paragraph [0029], “Typically, test cases 210 may comprise executable code that when executed by the processors 102 [a system-under-test (SUT)] produces test results.”; paragraph [0054], “ Method 400 includes an act of executing a test case to produce test results (act 402) [running the test case on a system-under-test (SUT)] . For example, execute/associate module 260 may execute test case 210A of association 250. As a result of the execution, test results 280 are produced. As mentioned previously, test results 280 may comprise any number of test results (emphasis added).”) . Happell does not explicitly disclose: determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case; and validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag. However, Chandra discloses: determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case (paragraph [0038], “[…] the POS tag assigning module 225 assigns the POS tags to each of the one or more tokens of each of the one or more test cases 104.”; paragraph [0050], “Based on the POS tag assigned to each of the one or more tokens of test case 2, the test case validation system 107 identifies that the test case 2 is the event-based test case.” and “[…] the test case validation system 107 identifies that the precondition is missing in the test case 2. The test case validation system 107 tags the violation “Missing precondition” to the test case 2 [determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case] and notifies the user via the validation report (emphasis added).”) ; and validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag (paragraph [0038], “[…] the POS tag assigning module 225 assigns the POS tags to each of the one or more tokens of each of the one or more test cases 104.”; paragraph [0063], “Further, the processor 109 identifies the violations in the one or more test cases 104 when a mismatch is identified in the one or more tokens of each of the one or more test cases 104 and the predefined tokens during the comparison. Upon identifying the violations in the one or more test cases 104, the processor 109 tags data related to the violation with the corresponding one or more test cases 104 [validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag] . Further, a validation report is generated by the processor 109 indicating overall summary of data related to the violations in the one or more test cases 104 (emphasis added).”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Happell and Chandra are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chandra into the teaching of Happell to include “determining that a result of the testing identifies a fault related to a first tag of the one or more automatically generated tags of the test case; and validating an association between the first tag and the test case in response to identifying that the fault is related to the first tag.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically identify violations in one or more test cases (Chandra, paragraph [0006]). Claim 8 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. Claim 15 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happell in view of Chandra as applied to Claim s 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2007/0006152 (hereinafter “Ahmed”) . [ Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Ahmed is generally directed to tagging software (Ahmed, paragraph [0007]). Thus, Ahmed is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).] As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Happell discloses “the test case,” but the combination of Happell and Chandra does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first tag is validated by hardening the first tag for the test case. However, Ahmed discloses: wherein the first tag is validated by hardening the first tag […] (paragraph [0020], “A tag validator 112 verifies and validates tags in the source repository 110 to determine whether they are malformed or conform to various tag schemata (discussed below).”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Ahmed is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed into the combined teachings of Happell and Chandra to include “wherein the first tag is validated by hardening the first tag for the test case.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine whether tags are malformed or conform to various tag schemata (Ahmed, paragraph [0020]). Claim 9 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2. Claim 16 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happell in view of Chandra as applied to Claim s 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2023/0195771 (hereinafter “Sanghvi”) . [ Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Sanghvi is generally directed to automatic tagging of terms within a document and generating visual representations specifying the identifications to terms in the document and tags assigned to each term (Sanghvi, Abstract). Thus, Sanghvi is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).] As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Happell and Chandra does not explicitly disclose: wherein the set of tags is automatically generated through a machine-learning natural language processing (ML/NLP) framework. However, Sanghvi discloses: wherein the set of tags is automatically generated through a machine-learning natural language processing (ML/NLP) framework (paragraph [0048], “The ML/NLP pipeline 212 can further generate a first visual representation identifying the identified terms, tags associated with the terms, and actions capable of being taken for each identified term.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Sanghvi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sanghvi into the combined teachings of Happell and Chandra to include “wherein the set of tags is automatically generated through a machine-learning natural language processing (ML/NLP) framework.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use an ML/NLP pipeline to interact with a database to implement auto-tagging process (Sanghvi, paragraph [0048]). As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Happell and Chandra does not explicitly disclose: retraining the ML/NLP framework. However, Sanghvi discloses: retraining the ML/NLP framework (paragraph [0049], “The metadata can be uploaded to the database 210 and used by the ML/NLP pipeline 212 to train itself and increase accuracy in associating terms with tags according to the contextual features included in the metadata.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Sanghvi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sanghvi into the combined teachings of Happell and Chandra to include “retraining the ML/NLP framework.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase accuracy in associating test cases with tags (Sanghvi, paragraph [0049]). Claims 10 and 11 are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 3 and 4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 3 and 4, respectively. Claims 17 and 18 are computer program product claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 3 and 4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 3 and 4, respectively . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happell in view of Chandra as applied to Claim s 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2011/0191768 (hereinafter “Smith”) . [ Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Smith is generally directed to automating processes for the distribution or installation of software, and the identification of users for such distribution or installation using an automated learning process (Smith, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Smith is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).] As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Happell further discloses: wherein generating, automatically, a set of tags based on a collection of test cases includes: parsing each test case in the collection of test cases (paragraph [0033], “Access module 220 is configured to access both the test cases 210 and the attribute tags 230. In some embodiments, the test cases 210 and the attribute tags 230 may be accessed by different access modules.”) . Happell discloses “the collection of test cases” and “the set of tags,” but the combination of Happell and Chandra does not explicitly disclose: determining a relevancy score for each token parsed from the collection of test cases; and selecting, based on the relevancy scores, one or more tokens as the set of tags. However, Smith discloses: determining a relevancy score for each [address] parsed from the collection of [messages] (paragraph [0114], “[…] after the messages (115 and 117) are processed, each of the addresses has a relevancy score. The higher the score, the more relevant the address is to the user of the user terminal (101).”; paragraph [0115], “[…] the relevancy score is computed from the data in the profile (131), such as the total number of messages received from the person (148), the total number of messages sent to the person (149), etc.”) ; and selecting, based on the relevancy scores, one or more [addresses] as the set of [inputs] (paragraph [0127], “In FIG. 7, in response to an incomplete input in an address field, the profile presenter (125) identifies (259) a set of persons by matching the incomplete input with names of the persons and/or the addresses of the persons. The profile presenter (125) sorts (261) the addresses of the identified persons according to the relevancy scores of the persons and/or the relevancy scores of the addresses, and selects and presents (263) up to a predetermined number of suggestions from the sorted addresses. In response to a user selection of one of the suggestions, the profile presenter (125) replaces (265) the incomplete input with the user selected address.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Smith is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Smith into the combined teachings of Happell and Chandra to include “determining a relevancy score for each token parsed from the collection of test cases; and selecting, based on the relevancy scores, one or more tokens as the set of tags.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rank tokens for suggestions to complete tags, based on a relevancy index between the tokens and the tags (Smith, paragraph [0109]). Claim 12 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5. Claim 19 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happell in view of Chandra as applied to Claim s 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2022/0374336 (hereinafter “Brown”) and US 2015/0254173 (hereinafter “Gupta”) . [ Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Brown is generally directed to performing efficient and techniques for visual software test management using captured test case data entities, annotation-based test case data entities, and dynamic test case data entity cloning (Brown, paragraph [0002]). And Gupta is generally directed to regression testing of software (Gupta, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Brown and Gupta are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).] As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Happell discloses “the collection of test cases” and “the set of tags,” but the combination of Happell and Chandra does not explicitly disclose: receiving a test case query including search criteria; and matching the search criteria to the test case based on the one or more automatically generated tags. However, Brown discloses: receiving a test case query including search criteria (paragraph [0068], “As depicted in FIG. 3, the test case manager module 108 includes: […] (ii) an inquiry engine 320 that is configured to process queries related to the test case documentation data 350 in accordance with defined query criteria to generate test case visualization data as query results […].”; paragraph [0070], “[…] the user interface generation engine 330 is configured to (i) receive end user queries in relation to test case documentation data 350”) ; and matching the search criteria to the test case based on the one or more automatically generated tags (paragraph [0117], “[…] the user may use the tag search panel 434 to search by keywords within the tag names and/or the category/color of the tag. In some embodiments, when a keyword is searched, the frequent tag panel 435 is converted into a result panel which will display search result in a relevancy order, with the tags that most closely match the search criteria, by relevancy, being be [sic] displayed first. In some embodiments, a tag that is displayed using the frequent tag panel or the results panel has a parenthetical numeric designator associated with it, where the parenthetical numeric designator describes the count of usage of the tag within a set of test case data entities that are in a search scope of the primary test case data entity.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Brown is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brown into the combined teachings of Happell and Chandra to include “receiving a test case query including search criteria; and matching the search criteria to the test case based on the one or more automatically generated tags.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to receive test case data from an inquiry engine in response to end user queries (Brown, paragraph [0099]). The combination of Happell, Chandra, and Brown does not explicitly disclose: populating a regression test bucket with one or more test cases including the test case. However, Gupta discloses: populating a regression test bucket with one or more test cases including the test case (paragraph [0055], “[…] when software is modified in any way, it is highly desirable to perform regression testing to ensure both that the new code operates as intended, and also that the new code does not adversely affect the operation of the existing code. However, performing a full regression test using all of the test cases generated during the initial testing phase may be costly and time consuming.”; paragraph [0058], “Finally, the test cases associated with the test case IDs identified in block 304 may be run as a regression test against the application under test (block 306). This may be performed programmatically, for example, by a script that populates and initiates the regression test cases automatically.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Gupta is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gupta into the combined teachings of Happell, Chandra, and Brown to include “populating a regression test bucket with one or more test cases including the test case.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically populate and initiate a regression test using test cases (Gupta, paragraph [0058]). Claim 13 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happell in view of Chandra as applied to Claim s 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2008/0148248 (hereinafter “Volkmer”) and US 2014/0019937 (hereinafter “Clark”) . [ Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating referential artificial intelligence functionality for intuitively tagging infrastructure (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Volkmer is generally directed to automatic software maintenance with change requests (Volkmer, paragraph [0001]). And Clark is generally directed to generating and updating product documentation by capturing application content when executing automated test scripts (Clark, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Volkmer and Clark are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).] As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Happell discloses “the collection of test cases” and “the set of tags,” but the combination of Happell and Chandra does not explicitly disclose: identifying a corpus of documents related to a system update. However, Volkmer discloses: identifying a corpus of documents related to a system update (paragraph [0013], “The retrieved information is automatically sent (e.g., via eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), etc.) to an update server with a request for a list of software updates. The update server is a repository or storage site for downloads and information related to software updates. The update server contains at least the most recent product versions, software component versions, patches, etc. for various applications, including applications associated with a business suite. The update server may also contain text files and/or other support documents that provide installation instructions, tips, warnings, explanation, advice, notes, etc., related to the various software updates.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Volkmer is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Volkmer into the combined teachings of Happell and Chandra to include “identifying a corpus of documents related to a system update.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to request a list of software updates and text files and/or other support documents that provide installation instructions, tips, warnings, explanation, advice, notes, etc., related to various software updates (Volkmer, paragraph [0013]). Happell discloses “at least one tag of one or more test cases,” but the combination of Happell, Chandra, and Volkmer does not explicitly disclose: generating, automatically, one or more tags for the corpus of documents; and matching at least one tag of one or more test cases to at least one tag for the corpus of documents. However, Clark discloses: generating, automatically, one or more tags for the corpus of documents (paragraph [0038], “Based on the application features identified by the text and image analysis component 226, the tag generation component 224 may insert one or more tags into test script 214. For example, tag generation component 224 may add tags to the test script 214 as metadata associated with a portion of the test script code.”) ; and matching at least one [string of characters] to at least one tag for the corpus of documents (paragraph [0041], “At step 320, the analysis application 220 identifies tags 215-217 in the test script 214 as the test script 214 executes. For example, the analysis application 220 may identify a tag by matching a string of metadata characters with a predefined string for the tag.”) . As pointed out hereinabove, Clark is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Clark into the combined teachings of Happell, Chandra, and Volkmer to include “generating, automatically, one or more tags for the corpus of documents; and matching at least one tag of one or more test cases to at least one tag for the corpus of documents.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate new and/or update existing product documentation in conjunction with automated test scripts (Clark, paragraph [0017]). Claim 14 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7. Claim 20 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows: US 2002/0029377 (hereinafter “Pavela”) discloses generating test cases using a test object library. US 2008/0163003 (hereinafter “Mehrotra”) discloses autonomic testing of a target such as hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software, using test cases. US 2016/0034375 (hereinafter “Sinha”) discloses determining test case priorities based on tagged execution paths. US 2017/0060734 (hereinafter “Raz”) discloses testing using functional models of test suites. US 2022/0374337 (hereinafter “Brown”) discloses visual software test management using captured test case data entities, annotation-based test case data entities, and dynamic test case data entity cloning. US 2022/0374340 (hereinafter “Brown”) discloses software test execution planning by utilizing at least one of static execution plan data entities, dynamic execution plan data entities, worksheet execution run data entities, automated execution run data entities, and manual execution run data entities. US 2022/0374341 (hereinafter “Brown”) discloses software test execution planning by utilizing at least one of static execution plan data entities, dynamic execution plan data entities, worksheet execution run data entities, automated execution run data entities, and manual execution run data entities. US 2022/0374342 (hereinafter “Brown”) discloses software test execution planning by utilizing at least one of static execution plan data entities, dynamic execution plan data entities, worksheet execution run data entities, automated execution run data entities, and manual execution run data entities. US 2022/0374344 (hereinafter “Brown”) discloses visual software test management using captured test case data entities, annotation-based test case data entities, and dynamic test case data entity cloning. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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. /Qing Chen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 2 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 3 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 4 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 5 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 6 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 7 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 8 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 9 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 10 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 11 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 12 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 13 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 14 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 15 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 16 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 17 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 18 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 19 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 20 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 21 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 22 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 23 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 24 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 25 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 26 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 27 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 28 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 29 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 30 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 31 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 32 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/193,690 Page 33 Art Unit: 2191
Prosecution Insights