FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0333973 to Chauhan et al. (hereinafter Chauhan) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0005537 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0184691 to Murchison, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,290 to Landis et al. (hereinafter Landis), and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0064518 to Abu Taha et al. (hereinafter Abu Taha).
Chauhan discloses:
1. A system comprising:
a first set of one or more computing devices comprising hardware configured to emulate one or more execution environments (para. [0101] and Fig. 4, computing device 402); and
one or more computing devices configured to implement a software testing service (para. [0101] and Fig. 4, computing device 402) configured to:
perform a test execution of a given instance of software that is to be tested via the software testing service, wherein the test execution comprises a plurality of individual tests (paras. [0036]-[0037], [0047]);
detect a failure occurring with respect to a test of the test execution (para. [0056]);
automatically, in response to detecting the failure, running a plurality of virtualized computing instances using the first set of one or more computing devices, wherein the plurality of virtualized computing instances are configured to emulate test conditions for the test for which the failure occurred (paras. [0048], [0061]-[0066]);
repeat a plurality of executions of the test with relation to which the failure occurred, using the virtualized computing instances, a threshold number of times (paras. [0062], [0086]);
store execution logs for the repeated test (paras. [0057]-[0059]); and
determine, using a trained machine learning model, a root cause of the failure, wherein the stored execution logs are provided to the machine learning model for use in generating an inference result used in determining the root cause of the failure (para. [0073]).
Chauhan does not disclose expressly automatically, in response to detecting the failure, instantiate a plurality of computing instances.
Chen teaches automatically, in response to detecting the failure, instantiate a plurality of computing instances (paras. [0025], [0031], [0037]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chauhan by instantiating the computing instances, as taught by Chen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify inconsistent test results and different potential causes, as discussed by Chen (para. [0018]).
Chauhan further does not disclose wherein the execution environment and software is of a vehicle.
Murchison teaches testing an execution environment and software of a vehicle (paras. [0013], [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chauhan by implementing the disclosed method in an execution environment and software of a vehicle, as taught by Murchison. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because testing is required when changes are made to the AV stack, as discussed by Murchison (paras. [0018]-[0019]), which relates to testing a new version of software, which is the goal discussed by Chauhan (para. [0003]). In this manner, it would have been obvious to combine Chauhan with Chen and Murchison to achieve the invention as recited in claim 1.
Chauhan further does not disclose concurrently repeating a plurality of executions of the test.
Landis teaches concurrently repeating a plurality of executions of the test (col. 15, lns. 7-17 and lns. 33-35).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chauhan by concurrently repeating a plurality of executions of the test, as taught by Landis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the failing test result with increased urgency and priority, as discussed by Landis (col. 15, ln. 60-col. 16, ln. 2).
Chauhan further odes not disclose expressly using a trained machine learning model which was trained using training data comprising determined root causes for prior failures.
Abu Taha teaches using a trained machine learning model which was trained using training data comprising determined root causes for prior failures (paras. [0052], [0054], [0101]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chauhan using a model trained by determined root causes for prior failures, as taught by Abu Taha. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify reoccurring types or patterns of root causes of failures, as discussed by Abu Taha (paras, [0053], [0055]).
Modified Chauhan discloses:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle software testing service is further configured to:
automatically expand execution log generation to include execution logs for one or more tasks included in the one or more tests with relation to which the failure occurred (Chauhan - paras. [0057]-[0059] and [0085]-[0087]),
wherein the stored execution logs include bus or network logs for communications between software elements performing the tasks associated with the test and include the automatically expanded execution logs generated with regard to execution of the one or more tasks (Chauhan - para. [0059]).
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle software testing service is further configured to:
determine a reproducibility measure for the failure based on results of the repeated test (Murchison – para. [0021]).
4. The system of claim 3, wherein said determining the root cause is performed in response to determining the reproducibility measure for the failure satisfies a first reproducibility threshold (Landis – col. 15, lns. 7-17).
9. The system of claim 1 wherein modifying the re-test execution plan comprises:
modifying one or more computing contexts in which the repeated execution of the test is performed (Chauhan – para. [0073]).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the modified one or more contexts comprises:
a modified hardware platform, a modified software platform, or a modified environmental condition for the first set of computing devices used to perform the repeated testing (Chauhan – para. [0073]).
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the modified one or more contexts comprises:
a modified runtime condition in which the repeated testing is performed, wherein to modify the runtime condition one or more additional preceding tests of the test execution are performed as part of repeating the test, wherein the one or more preceding tests preceded the one or more tests with relation to which the failure occurred (Chauhan – para. [0073]).
Claims 12 and 13 are a method identical to the steps performed by the system of claims 1 and 2, and are rejected under the same rationale.
16. The method of claim 12, wherein the given test run comprises an integration test for integration of a plurality of software modules to be deployed to a vehicle (Murchison – para. [0016]).
17. The method of claim 12, wherein the given test run comprises a software module test for a software module to be deployed to a vehicle (Murchison – para. [0016]).
Claims 18 and 20 are a non-transitory, computer-readable, storage media for performing steps identical to the steps performed by the system of claims 1 and 2, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 14, 15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, 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.
/PHILIP GUYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights