DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 9 June 2026 responsive to the 10 March 2026 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1 and 4 are amended.
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Attempted Examiner Interview
Examiner contacted Applicant in an attempt to expedite the application to allowance but Applicant’s representative (Nobuhisa Yoda, Reg. No 75,114) indicated that he would not be able to obtain client’s permission for any changes within the time constraints set forth by the examiner. Nothing of substance was otherwise discussed and examiner indicated that he would proceed with a written Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The remaining claims would be allowable by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 or 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts with respect to the objection to a title will be submitted upon indication of allowable subject matter. (Remarks, p. 6).
This objection is accordingly maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the withdrawn rejections.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected to because it is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Creating Input and Output for Use in Regression Testing.” See pars. [0001] and [0004] of the specification.
9. The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide clear support or antecedent basis for the term “distinct” in claims 1 and 4.
See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments unless reproduced herein.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim refers to “verifying” that a third output being distinct represents a correct result at lines 24-25 of the claim but it is not clear what component of the claimed apparatus actually performs this verifying. For example, the claim language recites that that test script causes the test target system to perform “using the stored input and verifying.” It is not clear from this language whether the test script causes the test target system to perform the verifying or some other component. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the test script causes the test target system to perform the verifying
As to claims 2-3 and 5-6, they are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 4, the claim includes the indefinite language as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. For example in claim 4, is it is not clear whether the script performs the verifying that a resulting third output represents a correct result or if this verifying is a step of the method implemented by the computer.
As to claim 7, it is dependent on claim 4 but does not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights