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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clements (US20180287906A1).
Clements discloses:
1. A method of test script generation and execution, the method comprising:
capturing, by a test script generation and execution device, an execution of a test-suite on a base device-under-test (DUT), wherein capturing the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT comprises recording at least one of: (par 55: DUT 230 may provide, to user device 210 and via collaboration platform 220, audio and/or video information that is generated by DUT 230 (e.g., generated based on DUT 230 executing a test suite, based on an input received from user device 210, or the like))
a video of a screen associated with the base DUT during the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT; and (par 55)
a plurality of input events associated with the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT;
generating, by the test script generation and execution device, configuration data based on at least one of the video of the screen associated with the base DUT during the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT (par 91) and the plurality of input events associated with the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT; (par 76)
generating, by the test script generation and execution device, a test script corresponding to the configuration data; and (par 76)
executing, by the test script generation and execution device, the test script on at least one secondary DUT (e.g., DUT 1). (par 76, 80-81; fig 5)
2. The method of claim 1, wherein capturing the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT further comprises:
identifying one or more objects within the video of the screen associated with the base DUT during the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT, wherein the one or more objects are identified based on at least one of: image processing (par 69), optical character recognition (OCR), and machine learning (ML). [examiner’s note: various codecs to improve video quality]
4. The method of claim 1, wherein capturing the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT further comprises:
recording a sequence of the plurality of input events associated with the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT. (par 57)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of input events associated with the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT comprises:
at least one keyboard input; and (par 40)
at least one mouse input. (par 40)
6. The method of claim 5, wherein executing the test script on the at least one secondary DUT comprises at least one of:
executing a keyboard action on the at least one secondary DUT corresponding to the keyboard input associated with the base DUT, in association with the one or more objects; and (par 40, 76, 80-81; fig 5: 520)
executing a mouse action on the at least one secondary DUT corresponding to the mouse input associated with the base DUT, in association with the one or more objects.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected as being the system implemented by the method of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected as being the medium implemented by the method of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements (US20180287906A1) in view of Wang et al. (TWI780797B).
Clements discloses:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein capturing the execution of the test-suite on the base DUT further comprises:
However, Clements does not explicitly disclose, while Wang teaches:
identifying and recording a location of each of the one or more objects. (p 3: Infer the category and location information of the image in the shooting video)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine video for DUT of Clements with video for DUT of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid test results depending on manual judgment. (Wang: p 2)
Claim(s) 7-8, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements (US20180287906A1) in view of JANARTHANAN et al. (US 20210294728 A1).
Clements discloses:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the keyboard action is executed via one of:
However, Clements does not explicitly disclose, while JANARTHANAN teaches:
a keyboard simulator; and (par 26: keyboard & mouse simulation)
a robotic arm configured to press one or more keys of the keyboard associated with the at least one secondary DUT.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine video for DUT of Clements with video for DUT of JANARTHANAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have least amount of manual intervention for generating test scripts for DUTs. (JANARTHANAN: par 4)
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the mouse action is executed via one of:
However, Clements does not explicitly disclose, while JANARTHANAN teaches:
a mouse simulator; and (par 26: keyboard & mouse simulation)
a robotic arm configured to perform a mouse action associated with the at least one secondary DUT.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected as being the system implemented by the method of claim(s) 6-8, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected as being the medium implemented by the method of claim(s) 6-8, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 103, the Remarks state, “Clements fail to disclose the aforementioned feature of the claimed invention of generating intermediate configuration data derived from visual screen content and/or input events, where the configuration data serves as an abstraction layer prior to test script generation… This configuration data is not itself an executable script, but instead functions as an intermediate representation that enables subsequent script generation independent of the base DUT's operating system or UI framework.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Clements discloses generating config. data based on a video of the screen associated with the based DUT in par 91. The claims do to recite intermediate config. data where the config. data serves as an abstraction layer.
The Remarks state, “Clements do not disclose execution of a test script on a secondary DUT that is different from the base DUT, where the test script is generated from configuration data derived from visual and/or input-based capture of the base DUT… These systems do not address execution across heterogeneous DUTs having differing hardware architectures, operating systems, display characteristics, or interaction models. In contrast, the aforementioned feature of the claimed invention enables executing the generated test script on at least one secondary DUT that may differ from the base DUT in terms of…” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Clements discloses remote testing of DUTs in par 14, 16-17, 76, 80-81 and fig 1, 5. The claims do not recite different OS, hardware config, etc. between base DUT and secondary DUT.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights