CTNF 18/317,837 CTNF 84262 DETAILED ACTION 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. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not adhere to the standards outlined in at least MPEP 37 CFR 1.84(m) which states the following: 37 CFR 1.84(m) – “The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. … Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. … Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. … Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color,” wherein at least Figures 4, 7A and 7B contain shading which is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(m). The Office notes that the shading present in Figure 4 for the elements denoted in the ‘Key’ (i.e. ‘Edge’ and ‘Note’ elements) are acceptable, although the shading for the remaining elements are objected to . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 1-3, 8-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopalan et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0039567; hereinafter “Raja”) in view of Boxwell et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0108226; hereinafter “Boxwell”) and Hanumant (US PGPUB 2010/0070231; hereinafter “Hanumant”) . Claim 1: Raja teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by a processor, an edge for each test execution of an end-to-end test of an application under test (AUT) user interface (UI), wherein each edge corresponds to a transition of the UI from a source state to a target state of the UI ([0004] “The computer-implemented method can comprise analyzing, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, an annotated state transition graph of a user interface of a microservices-based application.” [0035] “The state transition graph can have nodes that respectively represent abstract user interface states and edges that respectively represent transitions between the abstract user interface states caused by user interface events.” [0042] “Resiliency testing component 104 can include user interface crawling component 202 that can automatically traverse a state transition graph of a user interface of a microservices-based application.”); determining, by the processor, one or more attributes of each edge ([0043] “the edges of the state transition graph can have annotations with user interface event information indicating which user interface events are associated with edges. For example, user interface event information annotated to an edge can indicate the user interface events that caused the transition between abstract user interface states associated with the edge, and can also provide details regarding each user interface event, such as in a non-limiting example, user interface element that was exercised, an action performed on the user interface element, a data value(s) associated with the user interface element when the user interface element was exercised, or any other suitable information associated with a user interface element, for example, that can be employed by components described herein to uniquely identify the user interface event in a user interface event log entry and/or a server-side request log entry.”); With further regard to Claim 1, Raja does not teach the following, however, Boxwell teaches: generating, by a natural language processing (NLP) engine, a label for each edge, wherein each label is derived from the one or more attributes of each edge ([0042] “The knowledge graph generator 236 is configured to update the knowledge graph 238 based on the relations 282. For example, as the natural language processor 228 identifies the relations 282, the knowledge graph generator 236 may update the knowledge graph 238 to include directed edges that represent the relations 282 and labels that describe the relations 282.”); Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Raja with the NLP generated labels as taught by Boxwell since the generation of labels enhances both the readability of the associated graph structure for users and it assists further analysis of the graph structure by providing a descriptive attribute of each edge. With further regard to Claim 1, Raja in view of Boxwell does not teach the following, however, Hanumant teaches: outputting a test case summary of the end-to-end test, wherein in the test case summary combines labels corresponding to each edge ([0109] “The reports display features, sub features, test cases and test results along with their labels in the same window.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Raja in view of Boxwell with the test case report as taught by Hanumant for purposes of “making it easier for the user to browse through and refer” (Hanumant [0109]), wherein “These reports are easily understandable by the user as he can easily make out the feature/sub feature to which each test case belongs from the labels” (Hanumant [0109]). Claim 2: Raja in view of Boxwell and Hanumant teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Raja further teaches wherein the determining the one or more attributes of each edge includes determining contextual information based on attributes of the source state corresponding to each edge ([0043] “the edges of the state transition graph can have annotations with user interface event information indicating which user interface events are associated with edges. For example, user interface event information annotated to an edge can indicate the user interface events that caused the transition between abstract user interface states associated with the edge, and can also provide details regarding each user interface event, such as in a non-limiting example, user interface element that was exercised, an action performed on the user interface element, a data value(s) associated with the user interface element when the user interface element was exercised, or any other suitable information associated with a user interface element, for example, that can be employed by components described herein to uniquely identify the user interface event in a user interface event log entry and/or a server-side request log entry,” wherein attributes/information in Raja is associated with the “abstract user interface states associated with the edge,” wherein the “states” comprise the “source state”). Claim 3: Raja in view of Boxwell and Hanumant teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Raja further teaches wherein the determining the one or more attributes of each edge includes determining contextual information based on attributes of the target state corresponding to each edge ([0043] “the edges of the state transition graph can have annotations with user interface event information indicating which user interface events are associated with edges. For example, user interface event information annotated to an edge can indicate the user interface events that caused the transition between abstract user interface states associated with the edge, and can also provide details regarding each user interface event, such as in a non-limiting example, user interface element that was exercised, an action performed on the user interface element, a data value(s) associated with the user interface element when the user interface element was exercised, or any other suitable information associated with a user interface element, for example, that can be employed by components described herein to uniquely identify the user interface event in a user interface event log entry and/or a server-side request log entry,” wherein attributes/information in Raja is associated with the “abstract user interface states associated with the edge,” wherein the “states” comprise the “target state”). Claims 8-10: With regard to Claims 8-10, these claims are equivalent in scope to Claims 1-3 rejected above, merely having a different independent claim type, and as such Claims 8-10 are rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Claims 1-3. With further regard to Claim 8, the claim recites additional elements not specifically addressed in the rejection of Claim 1. The Raja reference also anticipates these additional elements of Claim 8, for example, wherein the system comprises: one or more processors configured to initiate operations ([0003] “According to an embodiment, a system is provided. The system comprises a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory.”). Claims 14-16: With regard to Claims 14-16, these claims are equivalent in scope to Claims 1-3 rejected above, merely having a different independent claim type, and as such Claims 14-16 are rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Claims 1-3. With further regard to Claim 14, the claim recites additional elements not specifically addressed in the rejection of Claim 1. The Raja reference also anticipates these additional elements of Claim 14, for example, wherein Raja teaches: A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to initiate operations ([0121] “Embodiments of the present invention may be a system, a method, an apparatus and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration. The computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja in view of Boxwell and Hanumant as applied to Claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view Chao et al. (US Patent 8,578,346; hereinafter “Chao”) . Claim 7: Raja in view of Boxwell and Hanumant teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Raja in view of Boxwell and Hanumant does not teach the following, however, Chao teaches further comprising: implementing a learning module that refines the labels and/or generates additional labels for one or more edges based on user feedback (Claim 11 of Chao: “d. displaying one or more of the respective error descriptions and one or more fix descriptions to a user; e. receiving a selection of a fix description for the unlinked label from the user and applying a fix described by the selected fix description to the respective unlinked label, the fix causing association of the unlinked label with a selected node or edge;”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Raja in view of Boxwell and Hanumant with the further labeling operations as taught by Chao for purposes of “providing improved flow diagrams and automated systems for providing such flow diagrams” (Chao Col. 15 ll. 17-18). Claim 20: With regard to Claim 20, this claim is equivalent in scope to Claim 7 rejected above, merely having a different independent claim type, and as such Claim 20 is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Claim 7 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-6, 11-13 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The above-mentioned claims have been indicated as reciting allowable subject matter due to the inclusion of a novel system and method for selecting which natural language processing (NLP) model to use and for selectively generating labels for edges, particularly with regard to the following limitations which recite: Claims 4, 11 and 17, i.e. exemplary Claim 4: “wherein the selecting is in response to determining that the AUT is created using a framework used to create other AUTs comprising a training set for training the NLP engine”. Claims 5, 12 and 18, i.e. exemplary Claim 4: “wherein the selecting is in response to determining that the AUT is created using a framework different from each used to create other AUTs comprising a training set for training the NLP engine”. Claims 6, 13 and 19, i.e. exemplary Claim 4: “generating labels only for edges corresponding to application-specific program logic transitions” . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows: Simitsis et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0097592) discloses a method and apparatus to display an information integration flow graph, receive user input selecting a modification to apply to the flow graph and modify the flow graph based on the selected modification to form a modified flow graph. Sehon et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0061866) discloses methods and systems to create a data asset generator based on a knowledge-graph-based recommendation engine, and to conduct semantic enrichment using natural language processing to determine relevant nodes, edges, and labels in the knowledge graph and conduct semantic tagging. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joanne G. Macasiano whose telephone number is (571)270-7749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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. /JOANNE G MACASIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 2 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 3 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 4 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 5 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 6 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 7 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 8 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 9 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/317,837 Page 10 Art Unit: 2197
Prosecution Insights