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 § 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, 8, 10, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Wojciak et al (US 20190361799 A1) in view of Li et al (US 10467220 B2)
Per claim 1, Wojciak teaches
(Currently Amended) A method for dynamic Combinatorial Test Design (CTD) modeling, the method comprising:
querying, by a processing device and before a test case is generated from a CTD model, a system under test (SUT) to obtain a true system state of the SUT, wherein the SUT is to be tested based on the CTD model, and wherein querying the SUT is performed while the SUT is executing one or more processes; (FIG. 7, step 702, [0059] the customer usage data – i.e, “a true system state of the SUT – is obtained prior to the test case being generated in step 708. Because the SUT would need to be operational to respond to the query, it teaches that it is being queried while SUT is “executing one or more processes”)
receiving, by the processing device and from the SUT based on the querying, system configuration information indicating the true system state of the SUT (FIG. 7, step 702, obtaining, by a processor, customer usage data for a plurality of customer, furthermore, [0053] the customer usage data includes system configuration data about customer usage pattern), wherein the system configuration information includes one or more system value sets each corresponding to an attribute of the CTD model, and wherein the one or more system value sets include values of a configuration of the SUT indicated by the true system state; and ([0054] the identified customer system configuration includes data such as “a set of attribute with value range” – i.e, configuration of the SUT indicated by the true system state. [0056] the information can be used to define a functional coverage model for the CTD tool to define things such as the variables – i.e, an attribute of the CTD model – and their respective values)
…[generating], by the processing device, the CTD model based on the received system configuration information ([0056] the functional coverage model for the CTD tool is based off of the input values of the outlier customer system configuration), wherein the CTD model is modified to cause the test case to include values corresponding to the values of the configuration of the SUT. ([0056] the functional coverage model is used to define the test space. Since the test case design tool “develop and create new test cases that over the outlier system configuration,” it is implied that the functional coverage model is modified appropriately)
Wojciak fails to teach modifying [the testing model].
However, Li teaches modifying [the testing model] (FIG. 2B; col 6, lines 4-37: when new data comes in, the testing model is modified so that the new constraints can be tested)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art to teach modifying the testing model when new data is available (Li, col 6 lines 4-37) because it has a predictable effect of being able to test for new constraints that may have been introduced by the new data set.
Per claim 8, Wojciak in view of Li teaches
(Original) The method of claim 1, and further comprising:
receiving, by the processing device, updated system configuration information indicating a change in configuration of the SUT; and (FIG. 7, step 702, obtaining, by a processor, customer usage data for a plurality of customer, furthermore, [0053]-[0054] the customer usage data includes system configuration data about customer usage pattern and it can be further analyzed in order to determine the outlier system configuration information – i.e, updated system configuration information indicating a change in configuration of the SUT),
modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model based on the updated configuration information. ([0056] the functional coverage model for the CTD tool is based off the input values of the outlier customer system configuration)
Per claim 10, the claim recites similar claim limitation as claim 1. It further recites:
An apparatus for dynamic Combinatorial Test Design (CTD) modeling, the apparatus comprising:
a processing device; and (Wojciak [0042])
memory operatively coupled to the processing device, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions (Wojciak [0062])
Per claim 16, it recites similar claim limitation as claim 8 and thus is rejected for similar reasons.
Per claim 18, the claim recites similar claim limitation as claim 1. It further recites:
A computer program product for dynamic Combinatorial Test Design (CTD) modeling, comprising a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises computer program instructions (Wojciak, [0062])
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojciak in view of Li in view of Hicks et al (US 11106567 B2).
Per claim 2, Wojciak in view of Li teaches
(Original) The method of claim 1,
Wojciak in view of Li fails to teach explicitly
wherein the CTD model models inputs to the SUT as a plurality of attributes, and wherein each attribute includes a set of attribute values.
However, Hicks teaches
wherein the CTD model models inputs to the SUT as a plurality of attributes, and wherein each attribute includes a set of attribute values. (Hicks, FIG. 3, step 302, col 3 lines 16-17: inputs to a SUT are modeled as a collection of attribute-value pairs)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the testing method of Wojciak in view of Li to teach inputting to the system under test as a plurality of attributes including a set of corresponding attribute values to generate test cases based on those inputs (Hicks, col 3 lines 16-17). Such a modification would predictably allow the testing method to be able to predictably test for the specified conditions in the SUT.
Per claim 3, Wojciak in view of Li in view of Hicks teaches
(Original) The method of claim 2, and further comprising:
identifying, by the processing device, one or more of the attributes of the CTD model that correspond to the system value sets. (Wojciak [0056] the functional coverage model is used to define the test space. Since the test case design tool “develop and create new test cases that over the outlier system configuration,” it is implied that the functional coverage model is modified appropriately; in order to modify it, identifying the relevant attribute to modify is implicit)
Per claim 4, Wojciak in view of Li in view of Hicks teaches
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 2, wherein modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model, includes modifying one or more of the attribute values of the CTD model based on the received system configuration information. (Wojciak [0056] the functional coverage model is used to define the test space. Since the test case design tool “develop and create new test cases that over the outlier system configuration,” it is implied that the functional coverage model is modified appropriately)
Per claim 5, Wojciak in view of Li in view of Hicks teaches
(Original) The method of claim 4, wherein modifying one or more of the attribute values of the CTD model includes changing abstract values in the CTD model to concrete values. (Hicks, (col 6 lines 4-38) when an architectural restriction is found, the test space may be restricted by setting the attribute to that specific value(s))
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art in order to teach changing the abstract value to concrete values because if architectural restriction has been identified in the data set, by setting the abstract value to concrete value, it would have a predictable result of reducing the test space which will aid in the scalability of testing (Hicks, col 6 lines 4-38)).
Per claim 6, Wojciak in view of Li in view of Hicks teaches
(Original) The method of claim 2, wherein modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model, includes removing attribute values to scale down the CTD model. (Wojciak [0056] the functional coverage model is used to define the test space. Since the test case design tool “develop and create new test cases that over the outlier system configuration,” it is implied that the functional coverage model is modified appropriately which includes deleting attributes if it is not part of identified outlier values)
Per claim 7, Wojciak in view of Li in view of Hicks teaches
(Original) The method of claim 2, wherein modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model, includes adding attribute values to scale up the CTD model. (Wojciak [0056] the functional coverage model is used to define the test space. Since the test case design tool “develop and create new test cases that over the outlier system configuration,” it is implied that the functional coverage model is modified appropriately which includes adding attributes if it did not exist before)
Per claim 9, Wojciak in view of Li teaches
(Original) The method of claim 1, and further comprising:
…
executing the set of test cases to obtain execution results. (Wojciak, [0057] test cases are executed in order to obtain results)
Wojciak in view of Li fails to teach
generating a set of test vectors based on the modified CTD model, wherein the set of test vectors provides a desired amount of coverage of a test space that includes all possible combinations of attributes values of the modified CTD model;
generating, for the set of test vectors, a corresponding set of test cases; and
However, Hicks teaches
generating a set of test vectors based on the modified CTD model, wherein the set of test vectors provides a desired amount of coverage of a test space that includes all possible combinations of attributes values of the modified CTD model; (FIG. 3, step 310 generate a new unique set of CTD vectors that provides complete pairwise coverage of the test space using the modified CTD model)
generating, for the set of test vectors, a corresponding set of test cases; and (FIG. 3, step 312, generate a new set of test cases from the new set of CTD vectors)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art in order to teach the intermediary step of building out a test vector since it is an implementation details that enables defining the specific attribute-values to test (Hicks, col 8 lines 49-60).
Per claims 11-14, they recite similar claim limitations as claims 2-5 respectively and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Per claim 15, it recites similar claim limitations as the combination of claims 6 and 7 and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Per claim 17, it recites similar claim limitation as claim 9 and thus is rejected for similar reasons.
Per claim 19, 20, they recite similar claim limitations as claims 2, 4 respectively and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tzoref-Brill (US 20120324414 A1) teaches a way to model and analyze a system’s test space using a Binary Decision Diagram, or BDD. It also takes into account restrictions to filter out invalid combinations of values.
Arbel et al (US 20220261337 A1) teaches a processing device automatically generating test sequences for exercising functional behaviors for each boundary mode. The tests are created by CTD model.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYO LISA RUSIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/K.L.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
