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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 02/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant’s arguments filed on 02/24/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the previously issued 101 abstract idea rejection is withdrawn.
Per 103 rejection, applicant argued the cited prior art do not teach “Target-platform grammar checking, Semantic validation against target execution constraints, Rejection or correction of invalid translated commands”. However, these limitations are not explicitly recited in the claim 1. Claim 1 merely states “validate that the equivalent commands and responses conform to syntactic and semantic rules of the second platform”, which is suggested by West (paragraphs [0054]-[0057]; the conversion process include syntax analysis and semantic analysis; external validation logic can include steps that validate a generated test case against an application metadata repository; the behavior of the validation can be controlled through additional validation rules).
Furthermore, the new limitations are rejected under new grounds of rejection using a new reference (Le).
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
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 1-4, 10-12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0160322) hereinafter West, in view of Le et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0113783) hereinafter Le, in view of Roth (US PGPUB 2019/0188116).
Per claim 1, West discloses A multi-platform test framework implemented in a system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors, the memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereupon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to execute the multi-platform test framework, the multi-platform test framework configured to generate a target test script indicative of commands and responses for verifying (paragraphs [0022][0023][0055]; a system with a processor and memory to generate test scripts containing interaction sequences for different execution environments); the multi-platform test framework further configured to: access a source test script encoding commands and responses for verifying a function in a first node configured to operate on a first platform of the computing environment (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0036][0037][0010]; importing test cases that are written in one or more scripting languages, test cases contain one or more application states, external interaction sequences (commands and responses) and input data; test cases are executed to guarantee proper functioning of the system (verifying a function)); using a translation layer to translate the commands and responses of the source test script to equivalent commands and responses usable to verify the function in a second node configured to operate on a second platform, wherein the translation comprises syntactic and semantic translation of the encoded commands and responses of the source test script, and wherein the syntactic and semantic translation enables equivalency of the commands and responses between the first platform and the second platform and configurations of the first platform and second platform; (Fig. 9, paragraphs [0039][0040][0047][0048][0049][0055]; test cases are first converted into an abstract syntax tree form, then generating new test cases from the AST, the new test cases are mapped into a test script for a different platform; the language mapping used can map external interactions (commands and responses), captured as events on an application object, to appropriate statements (equivalent of the commands and responses) in the scripting language; more than one language mapping can be provided at the same time, this allows generation of test scripts for multiple test execution environments; the conversion process include syntax analysis and semantic analysis); validate that the equivalent commands and responses conform to syntactic and semantic rules of the second platform (paragraphs [0054]-[0057]; external validation logic can include steps that validate a generated test case against an application metadata repository; the behavior of the validation can be controlled through additional validation rules); output the validated commands and responses as a target test script encoding commands and responses usable for verifying the function in the second node configured to operate on the second platform (paragraph [0055]; more than one language mapping can be provided at the same time, this allows generation of test scripts for multiple test execution environments).
While West discloses using a translation layer to translate test scripts (commands) from one platform to a target platform, West does not explicitly teach wherein the translation layer: identifies a platform and version of the second node; and applies translation rules selected based on the identified platform and version. However, Le suggests the above (claim 1; paragraphs [0007][0010]; translate program code (test instructions) from a source format to a target format, including determining the target platform and determining the version of the target platform, based on the determined target platform and version, select rules to translate program code to the target format). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West and Le to applies translation rules selected based on the target’s platform and version, to ensure the translated test scripts are compatible with the target platform (correct translation is performed).
West does not explicitly teach execute the target test script to verify the virtual function in the second node and a target test script indicative of commands and responses for verifying virtual functions implemented in a virtualized computing environment executing a plurality of virtual machines or containers. However, Roth suggests execute the target test script to verify the virtual function in the second node and a target test script indicative of commands and responses for verifying virtual functions implemented in a virtualized computing environment executing a plurality of virtual machines or containers (paragraphs [0002][0026][0037]; a software test automation controller using a generated test script to test one or more software applications in a target software test environment or platform; test scripts are executable across multiple software platforms, to perform the sequence of test steps, the multiple software platforms may be defined as being one or more operating systems and virtual machine systems; software testing involves verify the system design against actual operability; i.e. executing a test script to verify virtual functions in a virtual environment comprised of virtual machines). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify West and Le with teachings of Roth to executing a converted (from a first platform to a second platform) test script to verify virtual functions of the second platform (a virtual environment comprised of virtual machines); in order to ensure the second platform performs properly (for software quality control).
Per claim 2, West further suggests wherein translation layer abstracts the encoded commands and responses of the source test script from underlying details of the first node or second node (paragraphs [0036][0039]; test cases are then converted to an abstract representation (AST) which includes one or more application states, external interaction sequences and input data).
Per claim 3, West further suggests wherein the translation layer includes a mapping component configured to map commands and responses between nodes (paragraphs [0055]; the conversion of test cases from an internal representation to a scripting language can be through platform specific mapping. The platform specific mappings include language mappings and other environment mappings. The language mapping used can map external interactions, captured as events on an application object, to appropriate statements in the scripting language. More than one language mapping can be provided at the same time. This allows generation of test scripts for multiple test execution environments).
Per claim 4, West further suggests performing a consistency check of the commands and responses (paragraphs [0057][0049]; Logic provides that components of a test case definition, namely application states, external interaction sequences and input data, are consistent with each other and with an application object model, logic can be external validation logic. The external validation logic can include steps that validate a generated test case against an application metadata repository).
Per claim 10, West further suggests wherein the first node is a test tool or device under test (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0036][0039]; test cases for a first execution environment (first node) are then converted to an abstract representation (AST) which includes one or more application states, external interaction sequences and input data; the first execution environment represents a device under test).
Per claim 11, Le further suggests “wherein the first node or second node comprises a type and version” (claim 1; paragraphs [0007][0010]; translate program code (test instructions) from a source format to a target format, including determining the target platform (type) and determining the version of the target platform, based on the determined target platform and version, select rules to translate program code to the target format).
Per claim 12, West further suggests wherein the translation layer comprises rules for converting input strings into output strings, wherein: strings are command patterns; and translations include string manipulation rules (paragraphs [0043][0047][0051][0056]; test cases are converted to an abstract representation (AST) which includes one or more application states, external interaction sequences and input data; external interaction sequences include events such as creation/deletion/modification of an instance of an object (commands); memory stores rule-based generation of test cases from an abstract representation).
Claims 14, 17-19 recite similar limitations as claims 1, 10-12. Therefore, claims 14, 17-19 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1, 10-12.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Le, in view of Roth, in view of Smith et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0324426) hereinafter Smith.
Per claim 5, West discloses translating a test script, West does not explicitly teach wherein the translating the commands and responses comprises resolving dependencies between the commands and responses and resources available to the second node. However, Smith suggests the above (claims 1-4; paragraphs [0040]-[0043]; analyzing a test script to determine dependencies and to load test resources). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West, Le, Roth and Smith to analyze the test script to resolve dependencies and to load test resources, so the test script can be properly executed using the allocated resources.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Le, in view of Roth, in view of Vecera et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0055633) hereinafter Vecera.
Per claim 7, West discloses executing a test script to test a system, West does not explicitly teach the test script includes a declarative statement indicating a goal state and a set of fields indicating configuration data. However, Vecera suggests the above (paragraph [0015]; executing a software test, specifying a set of declarative test instructions that will be used to run the test; the declarative test instructions can specify the configuration of the test clients, which tests should be run (a goal), which external commands and scripts should be run, each of these instructions is translated into imperative test tasks that are executed to run the tests). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West, Le, Roth and Vecera to execute a test script containing a declarative goal and configuration data, which are needed for successful execution of a software test.
Claims 8-9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Le, in view of Roth, in view of Bell (US PGPUB 2024/0107341).
Per claim 8, West discloses translating a test script from one platform to another platform, West does not explicitly teach “wherein the first platform is a 5G platform and the second platform is a Any-G platform”. However, Bell suggests the above (paragraph [0070]; using a test script to test a set of communication devices, the communication devices include 2G/3G/4G/5G devices (i.e. devices supported by different service provider platforms)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West, Le, Roth and Bell to translate a test script from one platform (5G platform) to another platform (3G/4G platform), so the test script can be utilized by different types of mobile communication platforms for more reusability.
Per claim 9, West discloses translating a test script from one platform to another platform, West does not explicitly teach “wherein the first platform is a first service provider platform and the second platform is a second service provider platform”. However, Bell suggests the above (paragraph [0070]; using a test script to test a set of communication devices, the communication devices include 2G/3G/4G/5G devices (i.e. devices supported by different service provider platforms)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West, Le, Roth and Bell to translate a test script from one platform (5G service provider platform) to another platform (3G/4G service provider platform), so the test script can be utilized by different types of mobile communication platforms for more reusability.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 8-9.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Le, in view of Roth, in view of Grechanik et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0217302) hereinafter Grechanik.
Per claim 6, West discloses translating a test script from one platform to another platform, West does not explicitly teach “in response to receiving a revision to the source test script, updating the equivalent commands and responses to implement the revision”. However, Grechanik suggests the above (paragraphs [0021][0022][0316]; transforming a test script from one GUI application (first platform) to another GUI application (second platform); if the script analysis logic determines if the current test script is modified, the script analyzer outputs change specifiers that may include change guide messages and transformed test script statements; i.e. implementing a revision to the transformed test script). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West, Le, Roth and Grechanik to implement a revision to the transformed test script after the original test script is modified, so the transformed test script is always up to date with the latest change.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Le, in view of Roth, in view of Pedoe et al. (US patent 9436681) hereinafter Pedoe.
Per claim 13, West discloses translating a test script from one platform to another platform, West does not explicitly teach “wherein the translation layer comprises a translation graph wherein:
nodes of the translation graph comprise string match expression patterns; and edges of the translation graph comprise one or more of: string substitution regular expressions; string manipulation rules; or expressions”. However, Pedoe suggests using a translation graph to perform a translation process (column 4, line 16-25; each translation template includes a pattern of fixed string expressions, the template graph represents the patterns of the translation templates, i.e., the regular expression portions of the templates, the edges of the template graph represent strings or variables from the templates that can be bound to strings of the input). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine West, Le, Roth and Pedoe to utilize an existing technique described in Pedoe (using a translation graph with regular expression and strings) to perform a script translation process.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193