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 .
Claims 1-6, 8-15,and 17-22 are pending in this office action.
Claims 7 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are new added claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
neither Raman nor Bala recites the further-clarifying features of Applicant's independent claims relating to the use of a pre-configured test generation policy to guide how the "generating" of a plurality of test cases is carried out in accordance with Applicant's further clarified claim feature combination set forth herein above (with emphasis on the "pre-configured test generation policy" feature). Applicant directed particular attention to the examples provided by Applicant at paragraphs [0150-0168] of Applicant's claimed "test generation policy" that is used to generate the test case set including a plurality of test cases. For at least this reason, Applicant's claimed invention, recited in each of the independent claims 1, 8 and 17 is not rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Raman and Bala.
Examiner’s response:
The issue in the argument is to select test cases based on policy and path execution whiting the application under construction.
Raman discloses the following:
col4 lines 42-55“ For example, methodologies may be employed to create test cases based on a set of criteria, such as maximizing testing coverage. The methodologies may meet the criteria by, for example, increasing automation and efficient reporting of discovered defects. Accordingly, a robust testing platform embraces speed and data driven intelligence, which enable users to effectively and agility produce quality results”;
the method is to create a set of test cases based on set of criteria(policies) and coverage( path depth coverage) within the application(paths in application) to discover any defect or success whiting the paths.
Furthermore, Bala also discloses using a set of policy to create test cases from :
spelling, error:
[0025] “At 110, the input containing the requirement is subject to a natural language processing rule by a natural language processing software module. This rule may include noise reduction, spell checking, or other language normalization techniques”;
Incorrect syntax:
[0020] “However, human (or “natural”) language contain much ambiguity and can take many forms and syntax. Therefore, NLP techniques are employed to normalize input and enable a computer to “understand” human language”;
[0036] “In one embodiment, the pre-processing may require a logic engine applying a spell check function 38 on the text input in order to correct any misspellings or typos in the natural language. However, in another embodiment, pre-determined limits or thresholds may be put into place in order to prevent substantive changes to the input text that would alter the input requirement away from its intended meaning.”;
And violation of statement rule:
[0064] “In an embodiment, the natural language processing module may implement a spell check, and revise the monogram [(‘quantiy’)] to [(‘quantity’)]. The natural language processing module may implement noise reduction rules to eliminate redundant and low impact terms, resulting the following set of tokens: [(‘store’), (‘manager’), (‘require’), (‘quantity’), (‘pallet’)]”;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claims 1, 8 and 17 recites the limitation " receiving a test interface selection, from the plurality of interfaces, " in lines 8-9, 18-19 and 15-16 respectively . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-22 inherits the deficiency of respective independent claim and also rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, and 11 recite: “….selected from of a plurality of test interfaces for a previous test sub-step of the second test step…” in lines 3-4 and 4-5 respectively. It is not clear if “a plurality of test interfaces” refer to the one claimed in independent claim or it’s a different one. Claims are ambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6, 8-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al US10,073,763B1 in view of Balasubramanian et al US20190377736A1 hereinafter “Bala”.
Raman discloses a method, carried out by a test case generation apparatus, for generating a test case set comprising a plurality of test cases:
Col 5 lines 1-3 “ Beginning with requirements documentation, the described system generates test scenarios, which are used to create test cases once the application or system has been built.”;
providing, based on a first test step described in the test scheme, a test interface set comprising a plurality of test interfaces for implementing a second test step:
Col 11 lines 49-55 “The automation accelerator engine 122 parses a provided test scenario base on natural language processing techniques to determine the scenario's intent for the code base that is being testing along with any data relevant to the scenario. As an example, a scenario's intent may be to login to a given application or program, such as a web application, with a username and password or to complete a particular form in the web application with a certain set of information. In the proceeding example the username and password and the set of information are the data relevant to the scenario. The system correlates the intent with an object(s) on a selected page or screen of the web application”;
Col 14 lines 8- 13 “ For example, the determined intent could be at an elementary level (click, enter) or a business process level (login, fill out a form). A login may require a series of steps, such as 1) enter user name, 2) enter password, and 3) click sign on. Another example may be to create a purchase order, which could entail filling out a form with multiple steps.”;
receiving a test interface selection, from the plurality of interfaces, in accordance with a selection operation based on the provided plurality of test interfaces:
Col 14 lines 40-47 “ Based on the AI model, the script generator module 340, determines the action(s) to perform the determined intent to the correlated objects in the respective page of the UI being tested. The script generator module 340 generates the automated script by applying the selected template to the determined actions for the intent and correlated objects, the data read from the provided test scenario, and the step definitions from the test scenario (e.g., the feature file).”
generating, based on the test interface selection, the test case set:
col 11 lines 5-9 “The functional scenarios may be used by the automation accelerator engine 122 to generate automation test scripts. The non-functional scenarios may be employed by a testing team(s) to generate test cases specific to their respective areas, such as performance, security, and architectural testing.”;
wherein the test specification document includes a judgement statement resulting in the test scheme having a plurality of test paths:
Col 11 lines 36-48 “A test scenario and process map extractor receives (922) requirements documentation for a respective application or system through a UI. The requirements documentation is analyzed (924) by a terminology module to extract terminologies based on an entity term corpus, which are categorized by a test scenario element classifier based on a corpus of known terms. A semantic graph is generated (926) from standardized statements constructed from the categorized extracted terminologies. A process flow map for the application or system is generated (928) by identifying processes of the application or system and a respective relationship between each process from the semantic graph”;
wherein the method further comprises accessing, before the generating, a pre-configured test generation policy:
Col 6 lines11-20’ Furthermore, graphical representations, such as heat maps, may be created and employed for a quantitative analysis and selection of a set of test cases to execute. For example, a heat map may be created by determining system usage and failure patterns that may be extracted from production logs where functionalities that have a higher usage and/or a higher propensity to fail may indicate a condition for increased test priority. Heat maps may also be used to determine functionalities where change is occurring at an increased rate. These types of factors may also indicate a condition for increased test priority. Additionally, the code bases to be tested may be analyzed to set testing priorities based on a determined quality of various modules within the code based.”;
wherein a plurality of test cases are generated during the generating the test case set, based on the pre-configured test generation policy and the plurality of test paths:
col4 lines 42-55“ For example, methodologies may be employed to create test cases based on a set of criteria, such as maximizing testing coverage. The methodologies may meet the criteria by, for example, increasing automation and efficient reporting of discovered defects. Accordingly, a robust testing platform embraces speed and data driven intelligence, which enable users to effectively and agility produce quality results”;
wherein each test case of the plurality of test cases corresponds to a test path of the plurality of test paths:
Col 5 lines 36-67 “ The described system optimizes testing by employing AI and NLP techniques to, for example, remove duplicate test cases and/or test cases exercising the same execution paths”;
Col 10 lines 47-55 “Test scenario map builder 290 uses the generated semantics graphs and process maps to generate test scenarios maps 292 for the respective requirements documentation. The semantics graphs and process maps include, based on the requirements documentation, processes and functionality that may be tested for an application, valid and invalid operations for each functionality, expected outputs, and the relationships, such as a hierarchically relationship, between the various processes.”
But not explicitly:
the method comprising: obtaining a test specification document that comprises a test scheme described in a natural language;
Bala discloses:
the method comprising: obtaining a test specification document that comprises a test scheme described in a natural language;
[0031] “The received inputs 18 (e.g., software requirements, change requests, defects) are received as text information or natural language. This text information may be initially parsed by a number of pre-processing techniques as shown in 20. Pre-processing techniques include removing redundant language, vague terms, or low impact terms.”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bala into teachings of Raman to facilitate identification of relevant test cases from normalized keywords that allows an easy and efficient mode of verifying implementation of requirements in a software development effort. Furthermore, to enable a logic engine to utilize input or rules from a user or systems administrator to selectively allow, ignore, or convert special characters, while allowing the software development requirements contained in such instructions, requirements, or change requests to be quickly and efficiently implemented. [Bala 0004].
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Raman discloses:
wherein each test interface of the plurality of test interfaces comprises: a test interface function; or a test interface function and a parameter value of each of the test interfaces:
Col 12 line 52-59 “ As an example, a scenario's intent may be to login to a given application or program, such as a web application, with a username and password or to complete a particular form in the web application with a certain set of information. In the proceeding example the username and password and the set of information are the data relevant to the scenario. The system correlates the intent with an object(s) on a selected page or screen of the web application”;
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Raman discloses:
wherein the providing the test interface set comprises obtaining the plurality test interfaces corresponding to the second test step based on the first test step, and wherein the test interface set comprises the plurality test interfaces:
Col 13 lines 24- 32” For example, the scenario might read “to login, to enter a username, to enter a password, to click on submit, enter navigation.” The intent extractor module 314 extracts the various intents for this scenario (e.g., “click,” “login,” and “enter”). Once the intent has been identified, it may be correlated to the object(s) in the context file by the object correlator module 330 based the context file received from the application object scanner module 320 and selected through the control center 110 by users 112.”;
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and furthermore Raman discloses:
Receiving a first test interface selected from of a plurality of test interfaces for a previous test sub-step of the second test step; and obtaining, based on the first test interface, one or more test interfaces corresponding to a next test sub-step of the second test step:
Col 14 lines 1- Col 14 lines 1-10” the object correlator module 330 correlates the intent (e.g., login, enter, click) to the matched object from the context file. For the movie store example, the object correlator module 330 may return an object corresponding to a button or link that takes the user to the DVD movie store section of the site, which is then correlated with the intent or action of the scenario (e.g., click on the movie store link).The script generator module 340 generates an automated testing script based on the determined intent and the associated data from the provided scenario and the correlated object(s) from the provided context file. For example, the determined intent could be at an elementary level (click, enter) or a business process level (login, fill out a form). A login may require a series of steps, such as 1) enter user name, 2) enter password, and 3) click sign on. Another example may be to create a purchase order, which could entail filling out a form with multiple steps”;
Examiner interpretation:
Login: first display screen , the screen should include fields for username/password, after entering username/password click on login button/sign-on, and validate the credential: Those are set of interfaces of software that will be tested
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and furthermore Raman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein obtaining the test specification document comprises: receiving the test specification document; marking in the test specification document a statement that does not comply with a syntax rule ; presenting on a user interface, a correction suggestion for the statement; and updating the test specification document based on a selection from the user on the correction suggestion.
Bala discloses:
wherein obtaining the test specification document comprises: receiving the test specification document:
[0025] At 100 the system receives an input containing a software development requirement. This input may be in natural human language. At 110, the input containing the requirement is subject to a natural language processing rule by a natural language processing software module”;
marking in the test specification document a statement that does not comply with a syntax rule
[0036] “In one embodiment, the pre-processing may require a logic engine applying a spell check function 38 on the text input in order to correct any misspellings or typos in the natural language.”;
presenting on a user interface, a correction suggestion for the statement; and updating the test specification document based on a selection from the user on the correction suggestion.
[0064] “ In an embodiment, the natural language processing module may implement a spell check, and revise the monogram [(‘quantiy’)] to [(‘quantity’)]. The natural language processing module may implement noise reduction rules to eliminate redundant and low impact terms, resulting the following set of tokens: [(‘store’), (‘manager’), (‘require’), (‘quantity’), (‘pallet’)]. These monograms contained in the resultant set of tokens are saved as non-persistent or session-based search tokens. In this example embodiment, the natural language processing module is supervised, and therefore the tool receives user selection of certain monograms to the exclusion of other monograms, which may result in the following set of tokens: [(‘store’), (‘quantity’), (‘pallet’)].”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bala into teachings of Raman to facilitate identification of relevant test cases from normalized keywords that allows an easy and efficient mode of verifying implementation of requirements in a software development effort. Furthermore, to enable a logic engine to utilize input or rules from a user or systems administrator to selectively allow, ignore, or convert special characters, while allowing the software development requirements contained in such instructions, requirements, or change requests to be quickly and efficiently implemented. [Bala 0004].
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and furthermore Raman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the statement comprises: a first statement with a spelling error; a second statement with an incorrect syntax format; or a third statement that violates a statement writing rule.
Bala discloses:
wherein the statement comprises: a first statement with a spelling error; a second statement with an incorrect syntax format; or a third statement that violates a statement writing rule.
[0036] “This pre-processing step may involve “noise reduction,” i.e., the removal of redundant language, vague terms, low impact terms, or stop words (see 40, 42, 44). In one embodiment, the pre-processing may require a logic engine applying a spell check function 38 on the text input in order to correct any misspellings or typos in the natural language.’;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bala into teachings of Raman to facilitate identification of relevant test cases from normalized keywords that allows an easy and efficient mode of verifying implementation of requirements in a software development effort. Furthermore, to enable a logic engine to utilize input or rules from a user or systems administrator to selectively allow, ignore, or convert special characters, while allowing the software development requirements contained in such instructions, requirements, or change requests to be quickly and efficiently implemented. [Bala 0004].
Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are the device claim corresponding to method claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 above.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and furthermore Raman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the statement comprises a statement with a spelling error.
Bala discloses:
wherein the statement comprises a statement with a spelling error.
[0025] “At 110, the input containing the requirement is subject to a natural language processing rule by a natural language processing software module. This rule may include noise reduction, spell checking, or other language normalization techniques”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bala into teachings of Raman to facilitate identification of relevant test cases from normalized keywords that allows an easy and efficient mode of verifying implementation of requirements in a software development effort. Furthermore, to enable a logic engine to utilize input or rules from a user or systems administrator to selectively allow, ignore, or convert special characters, while allowing the software development requirements contained in such instructions, requirements, or change requests to be quickly and efficiently implemented. [Bala 0004].
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and furthermore Raman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the statement comprises a statement with an incorrect syntax format.
Bala discloses:
wherein the statement comprises a statement with an incorrect syntax format.
[0020] “However, human (or “natural”) language contain much ambiguity and can take many forms and syntax. Therefore, NLP techniques are employed to normalize input and enable a computer to “understand” human language”;
[0036] “In one embodiment, the pre-processing may require a logic engine applying a spell check function 38 on the text input in order to correct any misspellings or typos in the natural language. However, in another embodiment, pre-determined limits or thresholds may be put into place in order to prevent substantive changes to the input text that would alter the input requirement away from its intended meaning.”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bala into teachings of Raman to facilitate identification of relevant test cases from normalized keywords that allows an easy and efficient mode of verifying implementation of requirements in a software development effort. Furthermore, to enable a logic engine to utilize input or rules from a user or systems administrator to selectively allow, ignore, or convert special characters, while allowing the software development requirements contained in such instructions, requirements, or change requests to be quickly and efficiently implemented. [Bala 0004].
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and Raman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the statement comprises a statement that violates a statement writing rule.
Bala discloses:
wherein the statement comprises a statement that violates a statement writing rule.
[0064] “In an embodiment, the natural language processing module may implement a spell check, and revise the monogram [(‘quantiy’)] to [(‘quantity’)]. The natural language processing module may implement noise reduction rules to eliminate redundant and low impact terms, resulting the following set of tokens: [(‘store’), (‘manager’), (‘require’), (‘quantity’), (‘pallet’)]”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bala into teachings of Raman to facilitate identification of relevant test cases from normalized keywords that allows an easy and efficient mode of verifying implementation of requirements in a software development effort. Furthermore, to enable a logic engine to utilize input or rules from a user or systems administrator to selectively allow, ignore, or convert special characters, while allowing the software development requirements contained in such instructions, requirements, or change requests to be quickly and efficiently implemented. [Bala 0004].
Claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to method claims 1, 2, 2 ,5, 6, 3 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 2, 5, 6, 3 above.
Pertinent arts:
US 20180322036 A1:
Test case repository comprises a controlled repository of test cases associated to an application, feature, or capability etc. Additionally, test case repository manages various profile and non-functional parameters applicable to a test case. Parser module comprises a natural language parser for decomposing a test specification file into a structured format by identifying various components of the test specification file such as a feature, scenario, test case step, type of action, data parameters, UI elements or objects, etc.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAHIM BOURZIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-4:30).
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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at 571-270-2738. 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.
/BRAHIM BOURZIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights