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
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on June 28, 2023.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objection
3. Claim 17 is objected to. Please amend claim 17 to read:
A computer program product for picking and placing operations for generating test cases satisfying constraints, the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code executable by a hardware processor to cause the hardware processor to:
. . .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
4. Claims 17-20 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, which may comprise only software components.
Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions. See MPEP 2106.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies as noted above, thus, also amount to Functional Descriptive Material: "Data Structures" representing descriptive material per se or “Computer Programs” representing computer listings per se.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, claims 17-20 have been examined as the Examiner anticipates the claims will be amended to obviate these 35 USC § 101 issues. For example,
…the computer program product includes a computer readable storage medium …
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0008037 to Venugopal et al. (hereafter “Venugopal”) in view of US 2022/0334807 to Rai et al. (hereafter “Rai”).
Claim 1.
Venugopal discloses a computer implemented method for generating test cases satisfying constraints comprising:
parsing source code to extract variables (0009, 0013, 0039, 0056, parse code to extract fields);
extracting constraints from a natural language description in the source code (0038, 0047, 0048);
mapping between the variables extracted from the source code and the constraints from the natural language description (0008, 0010, 0055, 0056, 0062);
generating input variables satisfying the constraints provided from the natural language description (0008, 0010, 0047, 0059, 0062); and
executing the source code using the input variables satisfying the constraints provided from the natural language description (0028, 0035, 0041, 0042, 0044).
Venugopal does not disclose to get boundary conditions on the variables.
However, Rai discloses to get boundary conditions on the variables (0086).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rai’s teaching into Venugopal‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to generate/update information on how to set up an industrial automation system as suggested by Rai (0086).
Claim 2.
Venugopal discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parsing of the source code to extract variables includes a rule based method (FIG.5, block 508 rule if Yes, block 510 rule if No, and related text).
Claim 3.
Venugopal discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parsing of the source code to extract variables includes a program analysis method (FIG.5, block 504, step by step program analysis method, and related text).
Claim 4.
Venugopal discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parsing of the source code to extract variables includes a neural approach (0025, 0031, 0048-0050).
Claim 5.
Venugopal does not disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the extracting constraints from the natural language description in the source code to retrieve boundary conditions on the variables comprises a rule based method.
However, Rai discloses the extracting constraints from the natural language description in the source code to retrieve boundary conditions on the variables comprises a rule based method (0086, between minimum and maximum values > yes, greater than the maximum value > no, smaller than the minimum value > no).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rai’s teaching into Venugopal‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to generate/update information on how to set up an industrial automation system as suggested by Rai (0086).
Claim 6.
Venugopal does not disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the extracting constraints from the natural language description in the source code to retrieve boundary conditions on the variables comprises a neural based approach.
However, Rai discloses the extracting constraints from the natural language description in the source code to retrieve boundary conditions on the variables comprises a neural based approach (0056).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rai’s teaching into Venugopal‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to generate/update information on how to set up an industrial automation system as suggested by Rai (0086).
Claim 8.
Venugopal discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parsing the source code to extract variables also extracts types from the source code (0042, 0054).
Claims 9-14 and 16.
These claims are system versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 1-6 and 8, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Claims 17-20.
These claims are product versions, which recite the same limitations as those of claims 1-6, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claims, it also teaches all of the limitations of these claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 7 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the extracting constraints from the natural language description in the source code to retrieve boundary conditions on the variables comprises a prompt based approach,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating claim 7 into claims 1, 9, and 17 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 7 and also allowable.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights