DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
With respect to Applicant’s amendment of claims 5, 10-11 and 19 with regards to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, rejections with respect to the same have been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 7 and 16 with regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, rejections with respect to the same have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 modifying data and generating test cases without significantly more.
The limitation in Independent Claims 1, 7 and 16 of obfuscating data and generating test cases based on the obfuscated data, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations of “obfuscating… at least some of the respective parameter values to generate obfuscated request data, wherein obfuscating the at least some of the parameter values comprises: for each parameter of one or more of the parameters: determining whether the parameter is included in a catalogue of testing- relevant parameters” and “generating… test cases based on the obfuscated request data,” in Claims 1, 7 and 16, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 7 and 16 recite the following additional elements “receiving, by test-case generation software, requests submitted for processing to one or more endpoints of a request processing software, at least some of the requests comprising parameters and respective parameter values” and “responsive to determining that the parameter is included in the catalogue of testing-relevant parameters, storing the parameter value in the obfuscated request data without modification”, this limitation does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, these limitations of Claims1, 7 and 16 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and functions, recited at a high level of generality, i.e. receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing/retrieving information in memory. As such, these additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept and are not by themselves sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
With regard to the additional limitations which recite, the steps are executed “by test-case generation software,” in Claims 1, 7 and 16, these limitations do nothing more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, with regard to the “configuring… a testing tool based on the test cases” elements of Claims 1, 7 and 16; the “one or more memories” and “one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories” elements of Claim 7; and the “Non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations” of Claim 16, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, 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.
With regard to the individual dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites, “generating the test cases based on a distribution of endpoints identified in the requests.”
Claim 3 recites, “generating the test cases based on a distribution of values of a parameter in the requests.”
Claim 4 recites, “identifying a combination of parameter values that co-occurs together.”
Claim 5 recites, “evaluating whether a parameter value of a parameter in the requests is statistically significant based on a statistical analysis of a distribution of values of the parameter in the obfuscated request data; and using one of the parameter value or a random value to generate test cases that include the parameter based on whether the parameter is statistically significant.”
Claim 8 recites, “replace at least some parameter values in the requests with respective hashed values.”
Claim 9 recites, “replace at least some parameter values in the requests with respective replacement data obtained from a catalogue of replacement values.”
Claim 10 recites, “obfuscate a parameter value of a parameter responsive to a determination that the parameter is not statistically significant to testing based on a statistical analysis of a distribution of values of the parameter in the obfuscated request data.”
Claim 11 recites, “determine not to obfuscate a parameter value of a parameter responsive to a determination that the parameter is statistically significant to testing based on a statistical analysis of a distribution of values of the parameter in the obfuscated request data.”
Claim 12 recites, “identify a parameter in a request of the requests; determine whether an obfuscation catalog includes the parameter; and in response to determining that that the obfuscation catalog includes the parameter, replace a value of the parameter with a random value in the obfuscated request data.”
Claim 17 recites, “generating the test cases based on a statistical analysis of the obfuscated request data.”
Claim 18 recites, “determining whether to obfuscate a parameter value of a parameter based on a lookup of the parameter in a catalogue of to-be-obfuscated parameters.”
Claim 19 recites, “determining whether to obfuscate a parameter value of a parameter based on a lookup of the parameter in a catalogue of statistically significant parameters, wherein statistical significance is based on a statistical analysis of a distribution of values of the parameter in the obfuscated request data.”
Claim 20 recites, “obfuscating a parameter value of a parameter based on a lookup of the parameter in a catalogue of replacement values.”
These limitations of Claims 2-5, 8-12 and 17-20, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out this function through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these 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.
Claim 4 further recites, “configuring at least a subset of the test cases based on the combination of the parameter values.”
Claim 13 recites, “wherein the test cases are based on a distribution of endpoints identified in the requests.”
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the test cases are based on a distribution of values of a parameter in the requests.”
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the test cases are based on a co-occurring parameter values in the requests.”
These limitations of Claims 4 and 13-15 are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these 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.
Further, these limitations of Claims 4 and 13-15 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and functions, recited at a high level of generality, i.e. receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing/retrieving information in memory. As such, these additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept and are not by themselves sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 6 recites, “displaying results of an execution of the test cases via a user interface of the testing tool.”
These limitations of Claim 6 do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering, transmitting and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, these limitations of Claim 6 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and functions, recited at a high level of generality, i.e. receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing/retrieving information in memory. As such, these additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept and are not by themselves sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible invention, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-11 of the Remarks filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments, Page 9 of the Remarks, that Claims 1, 7 and 16 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 since “The claimed features of the independent claims are at least as concrete as those examples and are similarly not practically performable in the human mind,” the Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first contends that the claimed steps of “receiving…” and “configuring…” have not been stated by the Office as being a “mental process,” i.e. being practically performable in the mind, in the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. With regard to the “obfuscating” step, the Office contends that this step is considered as a type of mental process, as the “obfuscating” process as claimed is only broadly recited, as compared to the Applicant’s which appears to be arguing that the claim language currently recites “obfuscating, for each of potentially millions of received requests, the parameter values of each parameter,” which as currently filed it does not. With regard to the “generating” step, this step is also broadly recited as currently claimed, and as such the Office maintains that this step is one which is capable of being done as a “mental process,” potentially with the aid of pen and paper.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument regarding Step 2A and 2B, Pages 9-11 of the Remarks, the Office contends that the independent claims do not appear to go beyond the abstract idea as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above, wherein although testing software is configured by the claimed steps, the actual test itself is not being executed. For further details the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the newly modified 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-20 as discussed above.
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 11-16 of the Remarks, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Kelly et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0210817) discusses a system for refreshing data within the testing environment by sanitizing production data, wherein the system is able to selectively provide sanitized test data on an as-needed basis, removing the need to continuously generate testing data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights