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
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 03, 2026 has been entered. In addition, in response to the Amendment filed on February 03, 2026, claims 1 – 13 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ickin et al (US Pub. No. 2023/0370341 A1) in view of Furman et al (US Pub. No. 2016/0357661 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ickin discloses “An apparatus” (Fig. 13), “comprising at least one processing core” (see Fig. 13); “at least one memory” (See Fig. 13); “including computer program code, the at least one memory” (See Fig. 13 and ¶ 0105); and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to “generate, using a test instruction synthesizer a set of test instructions” (see Ickin figure 4 and ¶ 0062; generating, using the conditional generative model, synthetic but realistic CM dataset), “wherein each one of the test instructions is configured to trigger a first network to change one or more technical characteristics of the first network” (see Ickin figure 4 and ¶ 0062; the synthetic but realistic CM dataset generated are for network optimization (network change)), “the test instructions not comprising configuration changes in nodes of the first network that are usable in changing the one or more technical characteristics of the first network”( see Ickin figure 4 and ¶ 0062; the synthetic but realistic CM dataset generated are for network optimization (changing characteristic of network but not the configuration of the network) ) and “use in the generation of the set of test instructions, as input, a plurality of input instructions and a set of rules defining validity of test instructions” (see Ickin figure 4 and ¶ 0062; for the generation of the synthetic but realistic dataset, rules and conditions used “training includes, where given the KPI model value (discretized) constraint parameter 402, the target energy consumption value (quantized) 404 (optimization parameter), and corresponding CM dataset 406 as input to the conditional generative mode”).
Ickin does not appear to explicitly disclose “the test instruction synthesizer is configured to generate a test instruction from a first input instruction from among the plurality of input instructions either by replacing an element of the first input instruction with another element or by augmenting the first input instruction with a new element that is not included in the first input instruction”.
However, Furman discloses “the test instruction synthesizer is configured to generate a test instruction from a first input instruction from among the plurality of input instructions either by replacing an element of the first input instruction with another element or by augmenting the first input instruction with a new element that is not included in the first input instruction” (See Furman Figs 2A and ¶ 0018, ¶s 0021, ¶ 0024; discloses a base test for performance, which hers is mapped to first input instructions; such base test generate test cases; also discloses multiple key and value pairs may be iteratively added to the created base test to produce variations, which clearly discloses augmenting new elements to the base test; Also ¶ 0024 discloses additional functional key and value pairs can be added to the base testing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ickin and Furman before him or her, to modify the invention of Ickin to use augmentation of input elements, as taught by Furman, to help generating the test instructions taught by Kim. The suggestion for doing so would have been to provide automated systems program that can be iteratively enhanced to provide test coverage (¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Ickin and Furman further discloses “wherein the replaced (2110) element is a parameter, and the apparatus (300) is configured to replace (2110) the parameter of the input instruction with a replacement parameter from another one of the input instructions (280), the replacement parameter occurring in the another one of the input instructions (280) in relation to a same target as the replaced parameter in the first input instruction.”; (this limitation further limit a limitation claimed in alternative way, Rejected under same reasoning as claims 1, the above limitation further limits the unselected option of the alternative limitation ).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Ickin and Furman further discloses “wherein the replaced element is a target, and the apparatus (300) is configured to replace (2110) the target of the input instruction with a replacement target from another one of the input instructions (280), the replacement target occurring in the another one of the input instructions (280) in a same context as the replaced target in the first input instruction”; (this limitation further limit a limitation claimed in alternative way, Rejected under same reasoning as claims 1, the above limitation further limits the unselected option of the alternative limitation ).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ickin does not appear to explicitly discloses “wherein the apparatus is configured to augment the first input instruction with the new element by adding an attribute to the first input instruction, wherein the apparatus is configured to only add the attribute to the first input instruction if the attribute is tagged as generic, or if the attribute occurs in another one of the input instructions in the same context as in the first input instruction” (See Furman Figs 2A and ¶ 0018, ¶s 0021, ¶ 0024; discloses a base test for performance, which hers is mapped to first input instructions; such base test generate test cases; also discloses multiple key and value pairs may be iteratively added to the created base test to produce variations, which clearly discloses augmenting new elements to the base test; also since Furman discloses that multiple key and values (parameter or elements0 are introduced ; Also ¶ 0024 discloses additional functional key and value pairs can be added to the base testing).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Ickin and Furman further discloses “wherein the first network is either a computation network or a communication network”; (see Ickin fig. 16).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Ickin and Furman further discloses “wherein the apparatus (300) is further configured to employ the set of test instructions (250) in testing a configuration mechanism of the first network, or delivering the set of test instructions (250) for testing the configuration mechanism of the first network”; (see Ickin ¶ 0065, ¶ 0088).
Claims 7 - 12 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1- 6 that have been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1 - 6. Claims 7 – 12 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1 - 6.
Claim 13 is the non-transitory computer readable medium corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claims 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights