DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1, 8-9 and 16-17 are amended. This action is made Final.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims amended 05/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-3, 8-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Zhang”, US 2015/0370688) in view Kathuria et al. (“Kathuria”, US 2022/0245060).
As per claim 1, Zhang teaches a method comprising:
traversing, by a computing device, during a build stage of an application build pipeline for an application and before execution of test automation of the application, through one or more locators stored in a web elements repository for the application to validate the one or more locators, wherein each locator of the one or more locators is for an element on a page of the application (Zhang, para.21, 29, locators used to find elements for testing/validation); and
responsive to a determination of a failure of a locator to identify a current element on a page of the application (Zhang, para.23, 26, 28, 32, 36, failure to locate element using locator), by the computing device:
identifying a new element on the page of the application, wherein the new element is identified based on the current element (Zhang, para.23-26, 28, 32-33, 36, identify UI elements on same page by comparing to current missing UI element 1 snapshot 121/dimension 321 via image/dimension comparison);
generating a new locator for the failed locator based on the new element (Zhang, para.27-28, 34, 36, new locator generated after missing UI element is located); and
updating a web elements repository for the application with the new locator (Zhang, Figs.1-3, Database 110/201/310, para.22, 31; para.27, 34, 36, new locator replaces previous locator).
However, Zhang does not teach traversing, during a build stage of an application build pipeline for an application and before execution of test automation of the application, through one or more locators stored in a web elements repository for the application. Kathuria teaches a method of application testing that includes traversing, during a build stage of an application build pipeline for an application and before execution of test automation of the application, through one or more locators stored in a web elements repository for the application (Kathuria, para.30-31, 58, smart object recognition process updates smart object repository 54 with every new build, repository provides an ability to traverse DOM to provide database of object locations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kathuria‘s teaching with Zhang’s method in order to increase testing efficiencies (Kathuria, para.19).
As per claim 2, the method of Zhang and Kathuria teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the new locator includes updating the failed locator with a new value corresponding to the new element (Zhang, Figs.1-3, Database 110/201/310, para.22, 31; para.27, 34, 36, new locator replaces previous locator).
As per claim 3, the method of Zhang and Kathuria teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the new element is identified based on a similarity of the new element to the current element (Zhang, para.23-26, 28, 32-33, 36, identify new UI elements on same page by similarity of current missing UI element 1 snapshot 121/dimension 321 via image/dimension comparison with the new UI elements).
As per claim 8, the method of Zhang and Kathuria teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the web elements repository stores, for each of the plurality of elements of the application, an element attribute and a locator used to identify the element on a page of the application (Zhang, Figs.1-3, Database 110/201/310, para.22, 31; para.27, 34, 36, new locator replaces previous locator; Kathuria, para.30-31, 58, smart object recognition process updates smart object repository 54 with every new build, repository provides an ability to traverse DOM to provide database of object locations).
Claims 9 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 10 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 2, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 11 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 3, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Zhang”, US 2015/0370688) and Kathuria et al. (“Kathuria”, US 2022/0245060) in view of Fernandes et al. (“Fernandes”, US 2020/0249964).
As per claim 4, the method of Zhang and Kathuria teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the new element is identified based on a similarity (Zhang, para.23-26, 28, 32-33, 36, predetermined similarity criteria). However, the method of Zhang and Kathuria does not teach identification based on a similarity score assigned to the new element based on how similar the new element is to the current element. Fernandes teaches a method of application testing wherein elements are identified based on a similarity score assigned to the new element based on how similar the new element is to the current element (Fernandes, para.61, 65, candidate element identified based on matching score with master frame element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Fernandes‘ teaching with the method of Zhang and Kathuria in order to identify elements most likely to be the missing element.
As per claim 5, the method of Zhang, Kathuria and Fernandes teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the similarity score represents a similarity of one or more attributes of the new element to one or more attributes of the current element (Fernandes, para.61, matching attribute values).
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 13 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 5, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Zhang”, US 2015/0370688) and Kathuria et al. (“Kathuria”, US 2022/0245060) in view of Li et al. (“Li”, US 2024/0264928).
As per claim 6, the method of Zhang and Kathuria teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the new locator replaces the failed locator (Zhang, Figs.1-3, Database 110/201/310, para.22, 31; para.27, 34, 36, new locator replaces previous locator). However, the method of Zhang and Kathuria does not explicitly teach wherein the new locator has a same name as the failed locator. Li teaches a method of application testing wherein the new locator has a same name as the failed locator (Li, para.107, 109-110, 116, 119-120, replacing old attributes/path of located object with new attributes/path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Li‘s teaching with the method of Zhang and Kathuria in replay the same test without failure.
As per claim 7, the method of Zhang and Kathuria teaches the method of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach wherein the new element has a same name as the current element. Li teaches a method of application testing wherein the new element has a same name as the current element (Li, para.107, 109-110, 116, 119-120, replacing old attributes/path of located object with new attributes/path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Li‘s teaching with the method of Zhang and Kathuria in order to replay the same test without failure.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ivanova et al. (US 2020/0192967) teaches a method of application build using a page objects library.
Malla et al. (US 2018/0173606) teaches a method of parsing objects and storing results in an object repository.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights