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 .
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites, when considered individually or as a whole, a method, device, and medium for traversing a page for identifying elements and updating a repository. The limitations “traversing through one or more locators to validate the one or more locators; responsive to a failure of a locator to identify a current element: identifying a new element; generating a new locator for the failed locator based on the new element; and updating a web elements repository” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of these limitations in the mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper” but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor to perform the steps. The processor is 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps 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. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 6-8, 10, 14-16 and 18, these claims does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require the performing of steps, which is an extension of the abstract idea because it can be performed in the mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3-5, 11-13 and 19-20, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely requires the identification of a new element based on similarity, which is an extension of the abstract idea because it can be performed in the mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (“Zhang”, US 2015/0370688).
As per claim 1, Zhang teaches a method comprising:
traversing, by a computing device, through one or more locators to validate the one or more locators, wherein each locator of the one or more locators is for an element on a page of an 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).
As per claim 2, Zhang 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, Zhang 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, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more locators validated are stored within the web elements repository for the application (Zhang, Figs.1-3, Database 110/201/310, para.22, 31; para.27, 34, 36, new locator replaces previous locator).
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.
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 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) in view of Fernandes et al. (“Fernandes”, US 2020/0249964).
As per claim 4, Zhang 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, Zhang 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 Zhang’s method in order to identify elements most likely to be the missing element.
As per claim 5, the method of Zhang 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) in view of Li et al. (“Li”, US 2024/0264928).
As per claim 6, Zhang 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, Zhang 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 replaces 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 Zhang’s method in replay the same test without failure.
As per claim 7, Zhang 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 Zhang’s method 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jakubiak et al. (US 2021/0311862) teaches a method of application testing wherein locator recommendations are generated.
Konyshev et al. (US 10,474,564) teaches a method of application testing wherein elements are identified by comparing signatures.
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