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 .
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 06/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, 13, and 14 are amended and Claims 5-7 are canceled. Claims 1-4 and 8-15 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered overcome the claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/25/2026.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 directed to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that claim 1 recites that a camera automatically detects the operator's physical presence, and this detection directly controls the testing workflow in the real world. As such, claim 1 cannot fairly be characterized as a mental process. In addition, by tying the software logic to a physical sensor, i.e., the camera interacting with the real world environment, the claim cannot fairly be characterized as recited an abstract idea. In addition, claim 1 incorporates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a practical application that improves the functionality of the testing system itself though the use of automatic and autonomous that improve efficiency of the testing system. For example, claim 1 recites the practical application of a testing system that automatically detects the availability of the human operator and evaluates the collected data and sets a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data in response to the human operator being available and records the collected data and sets the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed in response to the human operator not being available.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that the claims do not present the specific structure/features of a tangible or physical structure to determining the attribute as a function of a machine-learning process. The limitation of “in response to a characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator is available to provide input for evaluating the collected data: evaluating the collected data and setting a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data; and in response to the characteristic of the respective test step indicating that the human operator is not available to provide input for evaluating the collected data … setting the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed” in the context of this claim may encompass manually evaluating or inferring the collected data and setting the pass/ failed/postponed status, which is indicative of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind and executed by a computer program or a mathematical algorithm. The characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator’s availability and unavailability may be indicative of data used for performing math or mental process such as the evaluating step and the setting step. The limitation of “wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect data used for determining the availability. The camera is a high level of generality merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic camera to capture an image related to the environment, where the captured environment is indicative of routine data used for performing math or mental process such as the evaluating and/or the setting step.
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to test a system for executing each test step of each test case, evaluating the data, setting the fail/pass/postpone status of test step(s) of each test case, and the camera to capture the environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Further, claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to executing each test step of each test case, evaluating the data and setting the fail/pass/postpone status of test step(s) of each test case. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the Examiner believes that the Office action is amended not to be unclear. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments raise the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Frohlich in view of Vanderwall.
On pages 8-11 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the cited references fail to teach or suggest these recited features. … Frohlich describes different test step statuses of "passed," "failed," or "aborted," wherein the test execution sequence can be continued or stopped based on the status of the test steps. Frohlich is silent, however, with respect to a test status of "postponed," based on a characteristic of the respective test step, as recited by claim 1. … Claim 1 also recites that the availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components. Frohlich fails to teach or suggest these features recited by claim 1.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the Vanderwall reference describes postponing the execution of a test as a pre-emptive scheduling decision. In contrast, the method recited by claim 1 always executes the test step and collects the data first. the objective technical problem is not merely to manage resources, as in the Vanderwall reference, but rather how to seamlessly integrate a required but potentially asynchronous human-in-the-loop evaluation into an automated test sequence without halting the sequence of test executions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “postponed” is indicative of one of test states and a mere kind of test outcomes. Under this interpretation, at least paragraphs 0083-0085 in Frohlich explicitly disclose presenting kinds of test outcomes (i.e., Passed, Failed or Aborted), which inherently or implicitly teaches “postponed”, a kind of test outcomes to set the status. Nonetheless, at least Col. 63 lines 2-11 in Vanderwall teaches “setting the status … to postponed”. At least Col. 63 lines 26-28 and 54-62 in Vanderwall teach a camera as a input device to capture/sense an image related to an environment or human. (See the modified detailed action set forth below).
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A computer implemented method for testing a system, the method comprising the following steps carried out by computer hardware components:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
“computer hardware components” are high level of generalities to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
determining one or more test cases for testing the system, each of the one or more test cases comprising at least one test step;
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“determining one or more test cases …” is a math or mental process.
for each of the one or more test cases, carrying out the steps of:
executing each of the at least one test step of the respective test case;
collecting data generated during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case; and
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“executing each of the at least one test step … collecting data” is a math or mental process by a software computer program or mathematical algorithm.
“collecting data …” is insignificant extra solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., data related to at least one test step).
in response to a characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator is available to provide input for evaluating the collected data:
evaluating the collected data and setting a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data; and
in response to the characteristic of the respective test step indicating that the human operator is not available to provide input for evaluating the collected data:
recording the collected data and setting the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed;
wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“in response to a characteristic of the respective test step … evaluating the collected data and setting a status … to passed or failed based on the collected data … recording the collected data and setting the status” is math or mental process.
“in response to the characteristic of the respective test step … recording the collected data … and setting the state …” may be an insignificant extra-solution activity to merely record the data which is performed by a generic computer.
“wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing …” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect data used for determining the availability.
“a camera” is a high level of generality to merely capture an image related to the environment.
1. Claims 1-4 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims -4 and 8-15 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “determining one or more test cases for testing the system, each of the one or more test cases” in the context of this claim may encompass manually selecting or determining what kinds of test cases (characteristics) are applied to a system, which is indicative of mental processes related to concepts performed by using a computer program/mathematical algorithm to execute mathematical calculations and/or in the human mind or by organizing human activities. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Similarly, “executing each of the at least one test step of the respective test case; collecting data generated during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case” in the context of this claim may encompass performing the test step and collecting the data, which is indicative of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind and executed by a computer program or a mathematical algorithm. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, “in response to a characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator is available to provide input for evaluating the collected data: evaluating the collected data and setting a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data; and in response to the characteristic of the respective test step indicating that the human operator is not available to provide input for evaluating the collected data … setting the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed” in the context of this claim may encompass manually evaluating or inferring the collected data and setting the pass/ failed/postponed status, which is indicative of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind and executed by a computer program or a mathematical algorithm. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator’s availability and unavailability may be indicative of data used for performing math or mental process such as the evaluating step and the setting step.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer system to perform mathematical calculations or mental processes of “determining one or more test cases for testing the system, each of the one or more test cases”, “executing each of the at least one test step of the respective test case; collecting data generated during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case” and “in response to a characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator is available to provide input for evaluating the collected data: evaluating the collected data and setting a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data; and in response to the characteristic of the respective test step indicating that the human operator is not available to provide input for evaluating the collected data … setting the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed”. The limitation of “wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect data used for determining the availability. The additional element of the camera is a high level of generality merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic camera to capture an image related to the environment, where the captured environment is indicative of routine data used for performing math or mental process such as the evaluating and/or the setting step.
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to test a system for executing each test step of each test case, evaluating the data, setting the fail/pass/postpone status of test step(s) of each test case, and the camera to capture the environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Further, claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to executing each test step of each test case, evaluating the data and setting the fail/pass/postpone status of test step(s) of each test case. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The limitations of “collecting data generated during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case” and “recording the collected data” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather and record data, which are performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The computer hardware components are recited at a high-level of generality to perform a generic computer function of calculating, evaluating and setting the data related to test steps of a system such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as presented in the table above. Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “collecting data generated during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case” and “recording the collected data” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather and record data, which are performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The limitation of “wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect data used for determining the availability. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the computer system to perform “determining one or more test cases for testing the system, each of the one or more test cases”, “executing each of the at least one test step of the respective test case; collecting data generated during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case” and “in response to a characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator is available to provide input for evaluating the collected data: evaluating the collected data and setting a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data; and in response to the characteristic of the respective test step indicating that the human operator is not available to provide input for evaluating the collected data: recording the collected data and setting the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed; wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 8-15, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 1, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation of “if the status of the respective test step is set to postponed: retrieving the respective recorded collected data …” in Claim 2 and “presenting the filtered one or more test cases to a human operator for evaluation; and/or presenting the filtered one or more test steps to a human operator for evaluation” in Claim 8 are insignificant extra-solution activities to merely load/retrieve data and present/display data (test cases) which is executed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The limitations of “setting the status for the respective test step to passed or failed based on the retrieved recorded collected data” recited in Claim 2, “setting the status for the one or more test cases to postponed if the status of one or more test steps of the one or more test cases is set to postponed” recited in Claim 3, and “filtering the one or more test cases for which the status is set to postponed; and/or filtering the one or more test steps of the one or more test cases for which the status is set to postponed” in Claim 4 in the context of this claim may encompass manually setting the pass/ failed/postponed status, which is indicative of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind and executed by a computer program or a mathematical algorithm. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
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 1-4 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohlich et al. (US 20130019126 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Frohlich”) (US family application of EP 2546749 A1 cited in IDS dated 12/30/2023). in view of Vanderwall et al. (US 10747651 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Vanderwall” cited in IDS dated 6/23/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Frohlich teaches a computer implemented method for testing a system, the method comprising the following steps carried out by computer hardware components (abstract, “Methods and systems are provided for computer software testing using test suite data”):
determining one or more test cases for testing the system, each of the one or more test cases comprising at least one test step (at least paragraphs 0079-0080 teach selecting the test cases type to execute);
for each of the one or more test cases, carrying out the steps of:
executing each of the at least one test step of the respective test case (at least paragraph 0082 teaches executing the test);
collecting data (outcome) during and/or after the execution of the at least one test step of the respective test case (at least paragraphs 0083-0084 teach presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps … stores the test results in report files); and
in response to a characteristic of the respective test step indicating that a human operator is available to provide input for evaluating the collected data (at least paragraphs 0082-0083 teach “executes the test …, shows the tests progress and accepts control from the operator … presents the outcome”; at least paragraph 0083 teaches defining a plurality of testing goals and a testing strategy):
evaluating the collected data and setting a status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to passed or failed based on the collected data (at least paragraph 0083 teaches presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps), and
in response to the characteristic of the respective test step indicating that the human operator is not available to provide input for evaluating the collected data (at least paragraphs 0082-0083 teach “executes the test …, shows the tests progress and accepts control from the operator … presents the outcome”; Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), at least paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088 teach “executes the test … shows the tests progress and accepts control from the operator … … presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps”): recording the collected data and setting the status for the at least one test step of the respective test case to postponed (at least paragraphs 0083-0085 teach “presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps … stores the test results in report files … presents the test results as raw data, presents the test results in a processed format (Statistics)”).
Frohlich fails to explicitly disclose “postponed” regarding setting the status of the test case. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “postponed” is indicative of one of test states and a mere kind of test outcomes. Under this interpretation, at least paragraphs 0083-0085 in Frohlich explicitly disclose presenting kinds of test outcomes (i.e., Passed, Failed or Aborted), which inherently or implicitly teaches “postponed”, a kind of test outcomes to set the status. Nonetheless, Vanderwall teaches setting the status … to postponed (Col. 63 lines 2-11, “testing of FieldA may be postponed until at least 20% of resources are available. … testing of FieldA may be postponed until those minimal resources are available for at least 30 minutes”; Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), “testing of FieldA postponed” is indicative of setting status of the FieldA test to postponed.).
Frohlich further fails to explicitly disclose, but Vanderwall teaches wherein availability of the human operator is detected automatically by a camera capturing an environment in front of a test arrangement that includes the computer hardware components (at least Col. 63 lines 26-28 and 54-62 teach a camera as a input device to capture/sense an image related to an environment or human, “The testing process may be initiated, and the method 900 may include, at step 902, determining the goals of the testing process. … according to input from another type of input device (e.g., video camera”).
Frohlich and Vanderwall are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a computer software testing using test suite control data and testing technologies. evaluating the tested data (i.e., executed test quality) based on a predefined threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frohlich to incorporate the teachings of Vanderwall by providing operations for setting setting status of the FieldA test to postponed as well as providing a camera to detect availability of the human operator, taught by Vanderwall at least at Col. 63 lines 2-11, and Col. 63 lines 26-28 and 54-62.
Regarding Claim 2, Frohlich teaches further comprising the following steps carried out by the computer hardware components:
for each of the one or more test cases, carrying out the steps of:
for each of the at least one test step of the respective test case, if the status of the respective test step is set to postponed:
retrieving the respective recorded collected data (at least paragraphs 0081-0082 teach loading stored test specification or data from a file); and
setting the status for the respective test step to passed or failed based on the retrieved recorded collected data (at least paragraphs 0082-0083 teach “executes the test … presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps”).
Regarding Claim 3, Frohlich teaches further comprising the following step carried out by the computer hardware components:
setting the status for the one or more test cases to postponed if the status of one or more test steps of the one or more test cases is set to postponed (at least paragraphs 0082-0083 teach “executes the test … abort the tests… presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps”).
Regarding Claim 4, Frohlich teaches further comprising the following steps carried out by the computer hardware components:
filtering the one or more test cases for which the status is set to postponed; and/or
filtering the one or more test steps of the one or more test cases for which the status is set to postponed (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this claimed limitations are indicative of executing the tests and selecting/presenting the test result to set as “postpone”, taught by at least paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088 teach “executes the test … abort the tests… presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps” and continuing or stopping (i.e., postponing) test execution, “defining 212 whether a test execution sequence shall continue or stop after the occurrence of at least one of an error in a test object and a fail event in the test system, based on the results obtained in all the previous steps”).
Regarding Claim 8, Frohlich teaches further comprising the following steps carried out by the computer hardware components:
presenting the filtered one or more test cases to a human operator for evaluation (at least paragraphs 0082-0083 teach “executes the test … shows the tests progress and accepts control from the operator … … presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps”); and/or
presenting the filtered one or more test steps to a human operator for evaluation (at least paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0088 teach “executes the test … shows the tests progress and accepts control from the operator … … presents the outcome (such as Passed, Failed or Aborted) of test steps”).
Regarding Claim 9, Frohlich teaches wherein the characteristic of the respective test step indicates a computational effort for evaluating the collected data of the at least one respective test step (at least paragraph 0086 teaches “designing a plurality of test cases, and a plurality of test suites for said defined testing strategy … parametrizing the a test automation framework with the test suites, running the test automation framework on said code of a software application, and analyzing the results obtained”).
Regarding Claim 10, Frohlich fails to explicitly disclose, but Vanderwall teaches wherein the step of evaluating the collected data and setting the status for the at least one respective test step to passed or failed based on the collected data is carried out if the characteristic of the respective test step indicates that the computational effort for evaluating the collected data of the at least one respective test step is lower than or equal to a first threshold (Col. 56, lines 29-34, “hypothesis tests having a test runtime that is less (or greater, and/or equal) to a threshold may be selected for execution, while the others may be skipped. As another example, hypothesis tests having a test quality that is greater (or less, and/or equal) to a threshold may be selected for execution”).
Frohlich and Vanderwall are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a computer software testing using test suite control data and testing technologies. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this claimed limitations are indicative of evaluating the tested data (i.e., executed test quality) based on a predefined threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frohlich to incorporate the teachings of Vanderwall by providing operations for evaluating a test quality of each test step based on the threshold, taught by Vanderwall at least at Col. 56, lines 29-34.
Regarding Claim 11, Frohlich fails to explicitly disclose, but Vanderwall teaches wherein the step of recording the collected data and setting the status for the at least one respective test step to postponed is carried out if the characteristic of the respective test step indicates that the computational effort for evaluating the collected data of the at least one respective test step is higher than a second threshold (Col. 56, lines 29-34, “hypothesis tests having a test runtime that is less (or greater, and/or equal) to a threshold may be selected for execution, while the others may be skipped. As another example, hypothesis tests having a test quality that is greater (or less, and/or equal) to a threshold may be selected for execution”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this claimed limitations are indicative of evaluating the tested data (i.e., executed test quality) based on a predefined threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frohlich to incorporate the teachings of Vanderwall by providing operations for evaluating a test quality of each test step based on the threshold, taught by Vanderwall at least at Col. 56, lines 29-34.
Regarding Claim 12, Frohlich teaches wherein the collected data is a state of the system (at least paragraph 0086 teaches “designing a plurality of test cases, and a plurality of test suites for said defined testing strategy … parametrizing the a test automation framework with the test suites, running the test automation framework on said code of a software application, and analyzing the results obtained”).
Regarding Claim 13, it is a system type claim dependent on claim 1, and has same limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites a test arrangement and is dependent on claim 13 and has same limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim depending on claim 1 and has same limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moreaux et al. (US 20020091968 A1) teaches automated testing of an graphical user interface (GUI) of a software application includes creating a test file of a plurality of test steps in a text file format, where the test file may be created using any variety of text editor, the test file is used as input to a test harness, in execution, the test harness opens the test file and begins using each line of the test file as a test step.
Arieli et al. (US 20090254885 A1) teaches managing and organizing the set of configurations of tests independently of the definition and execution of scenario suit of the tests, and managing the setups and teardown configurations for any type of test of any type of tested item, recovery protocol for defining the needed configurations when tests fail, and hierarchic configuration tree is designated for a group of tests.
Yuan et al. (US 20090254885 A1) teaches a software code testing system includes sub-engines and a test case database storing test cases.
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 BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
