Detailed Action
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Applicants have filed a formal response dated January 23rd, 2026 in response to the September 23rd, 2025 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-15.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 14 and 15 are in independent form and these claims (1-15) are subject to following rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in the following Office Action below.
Response to the Amendments
3. (A). Objection to the Specification: Due to proper amendments to the specification previously applied objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
(B). Regarding art rejection: In regards to claims 1-15 Applicants arguments are not persuasive; therefore, rejection to the claims 1-15 have been maintained.
(C). Finality: Applicant's arguments filed January 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Response to the Arguments
4. As an initial mater Examiner likes to points out that the claims are interpreted in light of the specification; however, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next, based on the newly amended and included feature(s) in the specification cannot be consider as proper, and/or cannot be a basis for the argument in regards to the previously objected claimed feature of “process definition”.
Argument: Applicants contended that “Polk does not teach or suggest a system for composing an application from separate components, nor does it address the problem of testing dependencies between such components” (please see Remarks page 11, ¶[01]).
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants as it not clear which claim limitation or at least which claim(s) Applicants are referring to. There are no limitations in the claim set that may even implies “composing an application from separate components”, or “testing dependencies between such components” (please see Remarks page 11, ¶[01]). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element cannot be unclaimed feature(s) from the disclosure/specification as a basis for argument.
Further, Applicants describe “having the test script use an abstract reference to a process definition stored in a catalog. At application integration time, the system determines which "further software component" in the specific composition implements that process definition and then replaces the abstract reference with a concrete reference to that specific implementation, thereby creating a new version of the test script tailored to the composed application” (please see Remarks page 10, ¶[04]); in response to applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicants rely (i.e., “composing an application from separate components”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Argument: Applicants further argued that “Gangina's system generates a complete, executable script from predefined parts for a known application. Like Polk, Gangina does not teach or suggest a system for composing an application from separate components, nor does it address the problem of testing dependencies between such components” (please see Remarks page 11, ¶[02]). Similarly, there are no limitations in the claim set that may even implies “composing an application from separate components”, or “testing dependencies between such components” (please see Remarks page 11, ¶[01]). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element cannot be unclaimed feature(s) from the disclosure/specification as a basis for argument.
Argument: Applicants further argued that “Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references, he/she would not arrive at the claimed system or any other system for composing an application from separate components” (please see Remarks page 12, ¶[03]).
Response: rejection to the claims 1-15 were provided with sufficient reason or motivation, so it would show that why one ordinary skill artesian would combine those two inventors teaching. In order to rebut the fact finding made by the office personal in the case of a claim to combination, applicant must provide evidence or argument to demonstrate that:
(A) one of ordinary skill in the art could not have combined the claimed elements by known method (e.g. due to technological difficulties);
(B) the elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately; or
(C) the result of the claimed combination were unexpected. See MPEP § 2145.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion/rational to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988)and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
There are no articulated arguments provided for dependent claims 2-13; accordingly, Examiner is abstaining from responding to any particular issue for the claims 2-13. Moreover, independent claims 14 and 15 similar as the arguments provided for claim 1 above; therefore, response in regards to claims 14 and 15 are as similar as response to the arguments above.
Applicants failed to properly response to the art rejection to the claims 1-15; however, in all cases where reply to a requirement is indicated as necessary for further consideration of the claims, or where allowable subject matter has been indicated in an application, a complete reply must either comply with the formal requirements or specifically traverse each one not complied with. In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must properly reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that rejections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0263090 A1 herein after Polk) in view of Rajeswara Rao Gangina (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0089436 A1 herein after Gangina).
Per claim 1:
Polk discloses:
A system for automatic testing of a software application while said software application is running (At least see ¶[0004]- a web testing system, ¶[0007] -testing portion of an application running on a device), said system comprising at least one processor configured to:
obtain a test script specification associated with a software component of said software application (At least see ¶[0007] - each test associated with a test script), said test script specification comprising a plurality of test steps (At least see ¶[0054] all of the steps the system executes to perform a test; wherein ¶[0009] - test script may also cause a step),
control said software application by simulating user input according to said test steps specified in said test script (At least see ¶[0009] -test script cause a step of simulating input from a mouse, keyboard or game pad, also see ¶[0026] - allowing the tool to simulate certain inputs as if a live user had made them).
Polk sufficiently disclose the system as set forth above, but Polk does not explicitly disclose:
a test step of said plurality of test steps comprising a reference to a process definition stored in a catalog, said process definition not being implemented by said software component, determine whether a further software component of said software application implements said process definition, create a new version of said test script specification in which said reference to said process definition has been replaced with a reference to an implementation of said process definition in said further software component if said further software component has been determined to implement said process definition, create a test script based on said new version of said test script specification.
However, Gangina discloses:
a test step of said plurality of test steps comprising a reference to a process definition stored in a catalog (At least see ¶[0011] - actions that test scripts can perform on the webpage, e.g., enter data in text box, click a button, and so on, are stored in the database), said process definition not being implemented by said software component (At least ¶[0015] - metadata 108 defines activities that should be performed step by step process for testing activities),
determine whether a further software component of said software application implements said process definition (At least see ¶[0015] - metadata defines activities that should be performed when a website is opened and metadata includes a step-by-step process),
create a new version of said test script specification in which said reference to said process definition has been replaced with a reference to an implementation of said process definition in said further software component if said further software component has been determined to implement said process definition (At least see ¶[0004] - updating, by the code generator server, one or more rows within the test script in the database based on the change in steps of the metadata),
create a test script based on said new version of said test script specification (At least see ¶[0012] - using metadata, maintaining current test scripts is easier since changes made to subsequent generation of the scripts are reflected only in metadata).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 2:
Polk discloses:
software application is running on another system while said software application is being controlled by simulating said user input (At least see ¶[0009] - … test script may also cause a step of simulating input from a mouse, keyboard/used by user).
Per claim 3:
Gangina also discloses:
implementation of said process definition in said further software component is associated with a field or button, said field or button is associated with an identifier, and said at least one processor is configured to find, based on said identifier, an element in a webpage produced by said running software application and control said software application by simulating user input to said field or button based on information associated with said element (At least see ¶[0011] - automated web-testing framework operates based on a data driven approach with a combination of keywords using page object design pattern. In some embodiments, webpage details, as presented on screens of computing devices, and child objects within webpages are stored in a database as metadata. Additionally, actions that test scripts can perform on the webpage, e.g., enter data in text box, click a button, and so on, are stored in the database. The automated web-testing framework uses metadata and other data from the database to automatically generate scripts for testing a webpage. These scripts can then be executed on the web site for testing).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 4:
Gangina also discloses:
implementation of said process definition in said further software component is associated with a user interface plugin and with a test function in said user interface plugin and said at least one processor is configured to find said test function in a webpage produced by said running software application and call said test function on said webpage (At least see ¶[0029] -provide a domain and account agnostic framework for web and mobile applications automation. The disclosed embodiments further dispense with the need to write code to develop automation scripts. Rather, users may simply add new rows in a table to develop new scripts for script-less automation. The disclosed framework may be accessed through a Web user interface (UI), which facilitates script development, generation, and/or maintenance for non-technical users without specialized training. The embodiments described herein may be integrated with test management tools to track quality assurance (QA) results at an account level. The system is flexible to fit into a development process and provide cross-browser compatibility testing. Automated report and log generation provide execution status).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 5:
Gangina also discloses:
a further test step of said plurality of test steps comprises a further reference to a process implemented in said software component and both said test script specification and said new version of said test script specification comprise said further reference (At least see FIG. 1 and FIG. 3 with the associated text i.e., ¶[0014] and ¶[0030] through ¶[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 6:
Gangina also discloses:
to omit said test step from said new version of said test script specification if no further software component of said software application implements said process definition (At least see ¶[0060] - ExecutionHandler components reads a config.properties file in an automated application (e.g., web application 114) testing project and loads all the necessary environment variables from, for instance, the above-described ENV table. The ExecutionHandler component is responsible for Start/Stop of a Web driver, executing all the keywords (e.g., as described above with reference to step 304 of FIG. 3) corresponding to the test case).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 7:
Gangina also discloses:
omit said test step from said new version of said test script specification if no further software component of said software application implements said process definition and said test step has been marked as optional and generate an error message if no further software component of said software application implements said process definition and said test step has been marked as mandatory (At least see ¶[0060] - ExecutionHandler components reads a config.properties file in an automated application (e.g., web application 114) testing project and loads all the necessary environment variables from, for instance, the above-described ENV table. The ExecutionHandler component is responsible for Start/Stop of a Web driver, executing all the keywords (e.g., as described above with reference to step 304 of FIG. 3) corresponding to the test case, and creating an Excel report containing the execution status details for automated testing of the application).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 8:
Gangina also discloses:
said software component includes said test script specification (At least see ¶[0067] - server 104 can add and/or remove rows within the test script based on the change in the steps. In some embodiments, such processes at 406 are implemented to update the metadata stored in a database in communication with the code generator server 104).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 9:
Gangina also discloses:
process definition is implemented by a process which has been associated with a button provided by said further software component or by a process which specifies that data needs to be entered into a field provided by said further software component (At least see ¶[0011] - actions that test scripts can perform on the webpage, e.g., enter data in text box, click a button).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 10:
Gangina also discloses:
process definition is implemented by a further test script specification included in said further software component (At least see ¶[0014] - test suites will in turn invoke the process of automated code generation for the number of test scripts configured in each test suite based on the latest metadata, master data and test data).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 11:
Polk discloses:
search for said further software component in an application specification associated with said software application, said application specification specifying that said software application comprises one or more software components, said one or more software components including said software component (At least see ¶[0077] - task may be made to run on multiple machines, for statistical analysis, as well as to test performance of the task in varying computing environments. Alternatively, different portions of a task may be run on different machines. In addition, with appropriate audio buffering and audio recognition software, not just visual aspects but also audio aspects of an application can be tested).
Per claim 12:
Polk discloses:
control said software application by simulating user input according to said test steps specified in said test script based on application-specific test data associated with said software application (At least see ¶[0026] - cripting engine module 20 further may provide for a number of subsystems which provide features applicable to scripting tasks. In one implementation, a simulated input module 12 is provides that permits functions to access native input buffers of a system, allowing the tool to simulate certain inputs as if a live user had made them).
Per claim 13:
Gangina also discloses:
check whether said software application responds to said simulated user input in an unexpected manner and report results of said check (At least see ¶[0020] - web application 114 reports successes and failures of different items being tested in the test scripts to the testing manager 112 as different tests are completed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 14:
Polk discloses:
A computer-implemented method of automatic testing of a software application while said software application is running (At least see ¶[0004]- methods provide an automation suite designed to automate game and web testing, ¶[0007] -testing portion of an application running on a device), said method comprising:
obtaining a test script specification associated with a software component of said software application (At least see ¶[0007] - each test associated with a test script), said test script specification comprising a plurality of test steps (At least see ¶[0054] all of the steps the system executes to perform a test; wherein ¶[0009] - test script may also cause a step),
controlling said software application by simulating user input according to said test steps specified in said test script (At least see ¶[0009] -test script cause a step of simulating input from a mouse, keyboard or game pad, also see ¶[0026] - allowing the tool to simulate certain inputs as if a live user had made them).
Polk sufficiently disclose the system as set forth above, but Polk does not explicitly disclose:
a test step of said plurality of test steps comprising a reference to a process definition stored in a catalog, said process definition not being implemented by said software component, determine whether a further software component of said software application implements said process definition, create a new version of said test script specification in which said reference to said process definition has been replaced with a reference to an implementation of said process definition in said further software component if said further software component has been determined to implement said process definition, create a test script based on said new version of said test script specification.
However, Gangina discloses:
a test step of said plurality of test steps comprising a reference to a process definition stored in a catalog (At least see ¶[0011] - actions that test scripts can perform on the webpage, e.g., enter data in text box, click a button, and so on, are stored in the database), said process definition not being implemented by said software component (At least ¶[0015] - metadata 108 defines activities that should be performed step by step process for testing activities),
determining whether a further software component of said software application implements said process definition (At least see ¶[0015] - metadata defines activities that should be performed when a website is opened and metadata includes a step-by-step process),
creating a new version of said test script specification in which said reference to said process definition has been replaced with a reference to an implementation of said process definition in said further software component if said further software component has been determined to implement said process definition (At least see ¶[0004] - updating, by the code generator server, one or more rows within the test script in the database based on the change in steps of the metadata),
creating a test script based on said new version of said test script specification (At least see ¶[0012] - using metadata, maintaining current test scripts is easier since changes made to subsequent generation of the scripts are reflected only in metadata).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
Per claim 15:
Polk discloses:
A computer readable medium for storing instructions when executed on a computer system perform a method of automatic testing of a software application while said software application is running (At least see ¶[0010]- a non-transitory computer-readable medium, ¶[0007] -testing portion of an application running on a device) comprising:
obtaining a test script specification associated with a software component of said software application (At least see ¶[0007] - each test associated with a test script), said test script specification comprising a plurality of test steps (At least see ¶[0054] all of the steps the system executes to perform a test; wherein ¶[0009] - test script may also cause a step),
controlling said software application by simulating user input according to said test steps specified in said test script (At least see ¶[0009] -test script cause a step of simulating input from a mouse, keyboard or game pad, also see ¶[0026] - allowing the tool to simulate certain inputs as if a live user had made them).
Polk sufficiently disclose the system as set forth above, but Polk does not explicitly disclose:
a test step of said plurality of test steps comprising a reference to a process definition stored in a catalog, said process definition not being implemented by said software component, determine whether a further software component of said software application implements said process definition, create a new version of said test script specification in which said reference to said process definition has been replaced with a reference to an implementation of said process definition in said further software component if said further software component has been determined to implement said process definition, create a test script based on said new version of said test script specification.
However, Gangina discloses:
a test step of said plurality of test steps comprising a reference to a process definition stored in a catalog (At least see ¶[0011] - actions that test scripts can perform on the webpage, e.g., enter data in text box, click a button, and so on, are stored in the database), said process definition not being implemented by said software component (At least ¶[0015] - metadata 108 defines activities that should be performed step by step process for testing activities),
determining whether a further software component of said software application implements said process definition (At least see ¶[0015] - metadata defines activities that should be performed when a website is opened and metadata includes a step-by-step process),
creating a new version of said test script specification in which said reference to said process definition has been replaced with a reference to an implementation of said process definition in said further software component if said further software component has been determined to implement said process definition (At least see ¶[0004] - updating, by the code generator server, one or more rows within the test script in the database based on the change in steps of the metadata),
creating a test script based on said new version of said test script specification (At least see ¶[0012] - using metadata, maintaining current test scripts is easier since changes made to subsequent generation of the scripts are reflected only in metadata).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gangina into Polk’s invention provides advantages include: current scripts can be changed easier for large count of impacted scripts via an online portal; system test scripts can be re-used as regression/user acceptance testing (UAT) scripts and vice versa, which effort is saved for the applications that are planning to automate testing, and overall system and regression testing, wherein combining UAT with system testing or best coverage of scripts, and re-usability of Functions within scripts, avoidance of duplicate test scripts; and no manual scripting; therefore, provide substantial savings of human resources in terms of testing time and effort e.g., a reduction in regression testing, in turn, beneficially reduces the costs incurred, and increases the efficiency of resources utilized for, test automation (see ¶[0069]).
CONCLUSION
7. Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 For Examples:
Li et al. (US 20090019428 A1) discloses “techniques for analyzing transaction traces to enable process testing. An exemplary method (which can be computer-implemented) for analyzing testing coverage of one or more software modules to provide process coverage statistics, according to one aspect of the invention, can include steps of obtaining one or more coverage measures from a test specification document, performing a trace on each of the one or more coverage measures during a test, analyzing each trace to generate a run-time service choreography model for a process, wherein the model includes each of one or more service choreography patterns occurring in the process, and using the model to provide statistical data on test coverage according to a process definition”(please see [0006]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL A. CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-7750. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30PM 6:30PM Monday -Friday.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Public Search tool (for all users) – A link to the Patent Public Search Tool is available at www. Uspto.gov/PatentPublicSearch. To find a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, open the Patent Public Search tool by selecting “Start search”. Type the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication number in the “Search” panel without any punctuation and followed by an”.pn.”.
Should you have questions on access to the system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL A CHOWDHURY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights