DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 10 April 2026 responsive to the 28 January 2026 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17 and 20-23 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-23 remain pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin (US 2024/0411673) (art of record – hereinafter Deakin) and Venkataraman et al. (US 2019/0196949) (art of record – hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Sharma “Step Definition” (art made of record – hereinafter Sharma).
As to claim 1, Deakin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a memory; (e.g., Deakin, pars. [0114], [0124]) and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor configured (e.g., Deakin, pars. [0114], [0124]) to:
create a software test, comprising a sequence of human-readable steps for testing a software program using a description of a plurality of testing elements (e.g., Deakin, par. [0040]: the AI could be instructed to “Create some test scenarios, both positive and negative with this data for a Java function that takes an ICAO and/or IATA code and returns an airline name, and outputs a table of the inputs and expected outputs for such a function” [all of this being a description of a plurality of testing elements]; par. [0041]: the AI may return scenarios and the tabulated test data that can be used in automated testing; par. [0059]: the AI may then be instructed to restate these scenarios as GIVEN…WHEN…THEN behavioral scenarios. The AI may then output the following in response: par. [0061]: GIVEN that the IATA/ICAO code is “BAB”, WHEN the function ‘getAirlineName’ is invoked with this code THEN it should return “British Airways” [these GIVEN…WHEN…THEN scenarios being human-readable steps]; par. [0067]: the result at this point is that scenario definitions and input with expected outputs are generated, which completes step 1 302 of FIG. 3; par. [0010]: testing the implemented generated implementation source code [software program] against the generated test scenarios)
store the software test within the memory; (see above, the test scenarios [software tests] are necessarily within memory)
generate an automation script for automated execution of the software test based on execution of a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model (e.g., Deakin, claim 10: the generative AI module comprises a machine learning model; par. [0068]: in step 304 of FIG. 3, the generative AI may be used to write test code [automated script for automated execution of the software test]. Continuing the example use case, the AI may be instructed using the following input: “In Java code using the Junit framework, write tests for the above scenarios [i.e., the description of a plurality of features, see above] that provide the inputs to the function and verify the return string is what is expected.” In response, the AI may return source code implementation of the test cases it previously described).
Deakin does not explicitly disclose to attach the automation script to the software test in memory; an automation script which comprises a mapping between the sequence of human-readable steps and a sequence of respective code functions; or in response to a request to execute the software test, execute the sequence of respective code functions based on the mapping in the automation script.
However, in an analogous art, Venkataraman discloses: to
attach the automation script to the software test in the memory, (e.g., Venkataraman, par. [0040]: testing scenarios “(e.g., test cases)” [necessarily in memory]; par. [0008]: assigning the generated automated testing script to the test case)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test execution of Deakin, to include attach the automation script to the software test in the memory, as taught by Venkataraman, as Venkataraman would provide the advantage of a means of determining which test script to utilize when a test case is selected for execution. (See Venkataraman, pars. [0081], [0030]).
Further, in an analogous art, Sharma discloses:
an automation script which comprises a mapping between the sequence of human-readable steps and a sequence of respective code functions, (e.g., Sharma, p. 1 par. 1: we need to write the implementation or step definition for each step in the feature file [a feature file in Cucumber is also a sequence of human-readable steps, see pars. [0002-0010] of US 2018/0024912]; p. 2 What is a Step Definition?: a step definition is a java method with an annotation [mapping] above it. An annotation is used to link the Step Definition to all the matching steps; p. 3 last line: @ annotations; pp. 5-6: “Step Definition: Test_Steps Class” [see code, this step definition file is the automation script. As shown in the code, it comprises a sequence of functions, each with a corresponding @ annotation (mapping)])
in response to a request to execute the software test, execute the sequence of respective code functions based on the mapping in the automation script (e.g., Sharma, p. 7 “Run the Cucumber Test”: now we are set to run the first Cucumber test. Click Run As > Junit Test; p. 8 par. 1: Cucumber starts its execution by reading the feature file steps. As soon as Cucumber reaches the first step for e.g., Given statement of Scenario, it looks for the same statement in the Step Definition file, the moment it finds the statement, it executes the piece of code written inside the function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generation of an automation script for a test comprising a sequence of human-readable steps taught by Deakin, such that the script comprises a mapping between the steps and a sequence of respective code functions, and the sequence of respective code functions is executed based on the mapping in the automation script in response to a request to execute the software test, as taught by Sharma, as the combination would provide the advantage of a means of accelerating Cucumber testing. (See Sharma, par. [0010]).
As to claim 2, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Deakin does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: display results of the execution of the software test via a user interface.
However, in an analogous art, Venkataraman discloses:
wherein the processor (e.g., Venkataraman, par. [0086]) is further configured to:
display results of the execution of the software test via a user interface (e.g., Venkataraman, par. [0080]: engine 160 may persist results from the execution of the automated testing scripts in a reporting database. The reporting engine may generate reports from the information stored in the reporting database, which can be reviewed by users 112. These reports include details on the performance of the system during the execution of the automated testing scripts and may include any warning messages displayed; par. [0099]: techniques described here can be implemented on a computer having a display device for displaying information to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test execution of Deakin, such that results of execution of the software test are displayed via a user interface, as taught by Venkataraman, as Venkataraman would provide the advantages of a means for a user to review the results of the test and a means of informing the user of any test execution warnings. (See Venkataraman, par. [0080]).
As to claim 4, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the processor is further configured to generate a step definition in a predefined programming language based on the sequence of respective code functions.
However, in an analogous art, Sharma discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate a step definition in a predefined programming language based on the sequence of respective code functions (e.g., Sharma p. 2 “Add a Step Definition file”: Create a new Class file in the stepDefinition package and name it as Test Steps [this class being the step definition]; p. 3 figure and item 2: all you need to do is copy the complete text marked in a blue box and paste it into the Test_Steps class [ see figure, the code in the blue box is a sequence of Java code functions. Adding those functions to the step definition file is generating the step definition]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generation of an automation script of Deakin/Venkataraman to include generate a step definition in a predefined programming language based on a sequence of code functions, as taught by Sharma, as Sharma would provide the advantage of a means of at least partially generating the automation script, and doing so in a framework such as Cucumber. (see Sharma, p. 3 item 2).
As to claim 5, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), but Deakin does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the automation script in the predefined programming language based on the step definition.
However, in an analogous art, Sharma discloses:
wherein when the processor, the processor is further configured to:
generate the automation script in the predefined programming language based on the step definition (e.g., Sharma, p. 4 “Add Selenium Java code in the Step Definition methods” step 1: take Selenium Java code from the SeleniumTest and past it into the first method; p. 5 item 4 “do the same steps for the rest of the methods and complete Test_Steps class will look like this: [see code, thus complete code is the automation script]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the GenAI script generation in a predefined programming of Deakin/Venkataraman such that the script in the predefined language based on a step definition, as taught by Sharma, as Sharma would provide the advantage of a means of generating a complete script for executing the test. (See Sharma, p. 2, p. 8 par. 1).
As to claim 7, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Deakin further discloses the sequence of human readable steps (see rejection of claim 1 above) but Deakin does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: generate an executable software program that executes the sequence of human-readable steps and display results of execution of the sequence of human-readable steps via a user interface of the software application.
However, in an analogous art, Venkataraman discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: generate an executable software program that executes the sequence of human-readable steps (e.g., Venkataraman, par. [0058]: test cases (“e.g., test scenarios)”; par. [0059]: a scenario or list of scenarios may be included in a feature file, where a formatted language, such as Gherkin is used to write the scenarios in a human readable way. Each step in a given scenario may map to a step definition; par. [0055]: as described above, engine 122 converts the intent into executable automated scripts [executable software programs]; par. [0003]: executing the test cases through, for example, a test script; par. [0076]: module 710 selects test cases to be executed. Test case sequencer receives the selected test cases. The sequence of test cases is passed to the test execution engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test script generation of Deakin, to include generating an executable software program that executes human-readable steps in sequence via a user interface of a software application, as taught by Venkataraman, as Venkataraman would provide the advantages of a means of executing tests based on priority ad a means of maximizing certain testing thresholds and criteria. (See Venkataraman, par [0035]).
Further, in an analogous art, Sharma discloses:
to display results of execution of the steps via a user interface of a software application (e.g., Sharma, p. 7 “Run the Cucumber test”. Right click on TestRunner class and click Run As > JUnit test. Cucumber will run the script and the results will be shown in the left hand side project explorer window in Junit tab; p. 8 par. 1: Cucumber starts its execution by reading the feature file steps; p. 2 “What is a Step Definition”; the code is what Cucumber will execute when it sees a Gherkin step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generation of an executable program that executes a sequence of human readable steps of Deakin/Venkataraman to include displaying results of execution of the steps via a user interface of a software application, as taught by Sharma, as Sharma would provide the advantage of a means of presenting test results to the user in a graphical window. (See Sharma, p. 7). Graphical presentation of the results would be more user-friendly than, for example, plain text.
As to claim 8, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Deakin further discloses:
wherein the request comprises an identifier of a programming language, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the software test via a framework developed in the programming language (e.g., Deakin, par. [0068]: the AI may be instructed to implement test cases using the following input [request] “In Java code and using the Junit framework, write unit tests for the above scenarios that provide inputs to the function and verify the return string is what is expected” [note that the unit tests must be executed to perform the verification]; par. [0127]: in block 514, the method 500 includes verifying the generated implementation source code [i.e., executing the aforementioned unit tests]).
As to claim 9, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 10, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 12, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 13, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 15, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 16, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 17, it is medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 18, it is medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 20, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin (US 2024/0411673) in view of Venkataraman (US 2019/0196949) in view of Sharma (“Step Definition”) in further view of Kohisseri et al. (US 2022/0188079) (art of record – hereinafter Kohisseri).
As to claim 6, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to train the GenAI model to understand connections between features and source code based on execution of the GenAI model using mappings between a plurality of features and a plurality of code modules, respectively.
However, in an analogous art, Kohisseri discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to train the GenAI model to understand connections between features and source code based on execution of the GenAI model using mappings between a plurality of features and a plurality of code modules, respectively (e.g., Kohisseri, par. [0029]: neural network models [GenAI models] are trained to comprehend the user inputs 103 and generate the codes required [i.e., to understand the required code for the inputs]; par. [0060]: consider that the auto encode model has been trained using the following inputs: [see table, the words in the left column are features, the codes in the right column include code modules]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the code generation and model of Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma to include training the GenAI model to understand connections between features and source code based on execution of the GenAI model on mappings between a plurality of features and a plurality of code modules, respectively, as taught by Kohisseri, as Kohisseri would provide the advantage of a means to configure the generative model to generate the code required for particular features (see Kohisseri, par. [0029]) as suggested by Deakin. (See Deakin, claim 10).
As to claim 14, it is method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin (US 2024/0411673) in view of Venkataraman (US 2019/0196949) in view of Sharma (“Step Definition”) in further view of Tahvili et al. (US 2024/0241817) (art of record – hereinafter Tahvili).
As to claim 21, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: identify the sequence of human-readable steps from a historical software test having similar requirements to the software test.
However, in an analogous art, Tahvili discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
identify the plurality of sequence of human-readable steps from a historical software test having similar requirements to the software test (e.g., Tahvili, par. [0034]: a system/method described herein may provide advantages such as reducing manual work associated with software testing by automatically recommends [sic] test case specifications with high accuracy; par. [0057]: a test specification may describe test steps; par. [0078]: a case specification may describe aspects of a test to be performed, such as Purpose, Procedure [a sequence of steps] and Pass Criteria; par. [0048]: test specifications written in a natural language; par. [0068]: the method recommends [identifies] a corresponding test specification for each requirement, based on previous test cases developed for similar requirements; abstract: features from the test specifications [identifying a specification is identifying a sequence of steps because specifications describe such sequences]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sequence of steps taught by Deakin to include identifying the sequence from a historical software test having similar requirements to the software test, as taught by Tahvili, as Tahvili would provide the advantage of a means to adapt previous knowledge for testing a new product. (See Tahvili, par. [0012]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin (US 2024/0411673) in view of Venkataraman (US 2019/0196949) in view of Sharma (“Step Definition”) in further view of Hegarty et al. (US 2008/0126880) (art made of record – hereinafter Hegarty).
As to claim 22, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the sequence of human-readable steps (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: display the sequence of human-readable steps on a display of a device; and receive, via the display, an input with feedback regarding sequence of human-readable steps.
However, in an analogous art, Hegarty discloses:
wherein the processor (e.g., Hegarty, par. [0046]) is configured to:
display the sequence of steps on a display of a device; (e.g., Hegarty, par. [0025]: the client machine 110 may display the proposed test case [sequence of steps] via the GUI; Fig. 3C and associated text, par. [0024]: one embodiment of a proposed test case is shown in FIG. 3C [see figure, although code, it is still a sequence of steps]) and
receive, via the display, an input with feedback regarding the steps (e.g., Hegarty, par. [0026]: user B may provide feedback on the proposed test case at block 143. User B may input the feedback via the GUI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test case comprising a sequence of human-readable steps taught by Deakin such those steps are displayed via a display of a device and feedback is received via the display regarding the steps, as taught by Hegarty, as Hegarty would provide the advantage of a means of re-generating the steps using that feedback (see Hegarty, par. [0026]) and generating better results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deakin (US 2024/0411673) in view of Venkataraman (US 2019/0196949) in view Sharma (“Step Definition”) in further view of Hicks et al. (US 2024/0330169) (art of record – hereinafter Hicks).
As to claim 23, Deakin/Venkataraman/Sharma discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses the GenAI model (see rejection of claim 1 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein processor is further configured to generate a label for the software test based on the execution of the GenAI model, identifying a purpose of the software test.
However, in an analogous art, Hicks discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate a label for the software test based on the execution of the model, identifying a purpose of the software test (e.g., Hicks, par. [0041]: an automated test tool utilizes a machine learning model to automatically generate tags for test cases; par. [0041]: the automatically generated tags may relate to functions tested by the test [testing those functions being a purpose of the test]. A test case that is directed to I/O functions will be tagged with the ‘I/O’ tag. A test case that is directed to networking functions will be tagged with the ‘networking’ tag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the GenAI model generating tests taught by Deakin such that it labels the tests with a label identifying a purpose of the test, as taught by Hicks, as Hicks would provide the advantage of a means of easily identifying relevant tests. (See Hicks, par. [0035])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S 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.
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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights