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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 15 and 18 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 2-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: a comma “,” is needed to separate the claim number for each dependent claim and the following “wherein” for the clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 15 and 18 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 15 and 18 similarly recite “an apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured: to select a test case, the selected test case being associated with (i) a test script comprising functional code for implementing the selected test case for testing an information technology asset and (ii) a test case description; to generate, utilizing a first machine learning model, first pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the functional code of the test script for the selected test case; to generate, utilizing a second machine learning model, second pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the test case description for the selected test case; to determine a stability of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on a similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode; and to automatically control one or more characteristics of the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 15 and 18 of “to select a test case, the selected test case being associated with (i) a test script comprising functional code for implementing the selected test case for testing an information technology asset and (ii) a test case description” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may select a test case, the selected test case being associated with (i) a test script comprising functional code for implementing the selected test case for testing an information technology asset and (ii) a test case description with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 15 and 18 of “to generate, utilizing a first machine learning model, first pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the functional code of the test script for the selected test case” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “generating pseudocode (designing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform a generate, utilizing a first machine learning model, first pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the functional code of the test script for the selected test case with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 15 and 18 of “to generate, utilizing a second machine learning model, second pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the test case description for the selected test case” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “generating pseudocode (designing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may generate, utilizing a second machine learning model, second pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the test case description for the selected test case with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 15 and 18 of “to determine a stability of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on a similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a stability of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on a similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 15 and 18 of “to automatically control one or more characteristics of the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “controlling characteristics (i.e. changing parameters)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may control one or more characteristics of the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements such as “wherein the test case description for the selected test case comprises a text summary of the selected test case”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 3 recites additional elements such as “the test case description for the selected test case comprises at least one of: one or more design documents for software to be tested on the information technology asset; and one or more software requirement specifications for the software to be tested on the information technology asset”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “the test case description comprises acceptance criteria for the selected test case”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5, 16 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the first machine learning model comprises a first large language model and the second machine learning model comprises a second large language model, the second large language model being different than the first large language model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 6, 17 and 20 of “generate one or more recommendations for modifying the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “generating recommendations” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may generate one or more recommendations for modifying the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “generating the one or more recommendations for modifying the functional code of the test script for the selected test case comprises utilizing the first machine learning model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “generating the one or more recommendations for modifying the functional code of the test script for the selected test case comprises utilizing a large language model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 9 of “the large language model takes the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode as a text comparative prompt input and produces at least one of the one or more recommendations for modifying the functional code of the test script for the selected test case as output” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “recommending” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may produce at least one of the one or more recommendations for modifying the functional code of the test script for the selected test case as output using the large language model taking the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode as a text comparative prompt input with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 10 of “a large language model that takes the functional code of the test script for the selected test case as a prompt and produces the first pseudocode as an output” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “producing pseudocode” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may produce the first pseudocode as an output using a large language model that takes the functional code of the test script for the selected test case as a prompt with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “a large language model that is tuned utilizing a set of one or more historical stable test cases”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 12 recites additional elements such as “tune the second machine learning model utilizing a set of one or more historical test cases having determined stabilities exceeding a designated stability threshold”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 13 of “generating pseudocode for the set of one or more historical test cases utilizing the first machine learning model based at least in part on functional code of test scripts of the set of one or more historical test cases” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “generating pseudocode” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may generate pseudocode for the set of one or more historical test cases utilizing the first machine learning model based at least in part on functional code of test scripts of the set of one or more historical test cases with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “training the second machine learning model utilizing test case descriptions for the set of one or more historical test cases as input and the generated pseudocode for the set of one or more historical test cases as output”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “determining the stability of the test script for the selected test case comprises computing a cosine similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compute a cosine similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Reasons for Allowance
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Challa (US PGPub 20220012168), in view of Fong (US 20180349256), in view of Pokhariyal (US Patent 7380238), in view of Christensen (US PGPub 20090327994) and further in view of Du (US PGPub 20250094137) failed to disclose of an apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured: to select a test case, the selected test case being associated with (i) a test script comprising functional code for implementing the selected test case for testing an information technology asset and (ii) a test case description; to generate, utilizing a first machine learning model, first pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the functional code of the test script for the selected test case; to generate, utilizing a second machine learning model, second pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the test case description for the selected test case; to determine a stability of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on a similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode; and to automatically control one or more characteristics of the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Challa, Fong, Pokhariyal, Christensen and Du discloses of an apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured: to select a test case, the selected test case being associated with (i) a test script comprising functional code for implementing the selected test case for testing an information technology asset and (ii) a test case description; to generate, utilizing a first machine learning model, first source code for the test script based at least in part on the functional code of the test script for the selected test case; to generate, utilizing a second machine learning model, second source code for the test script based at least in part on the test case description for the selected test case; to determine a stability of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on a similarity between the first source code and the description; and to automatically control one or more characteristics of the functional code of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on the determined stability of the test script for the selected test case.
Challa teaches that additionally, the user may select and/or de-select test scenarios based on a regression strategy for execution (e.g., in Selenium or another testing framework). In the example above, test cases for each of the 4 scenarios may result in 4 different use cases, each having a unique identifier (e.g., “Test Case #”). The description of the use cases (e.g., “Test Case Description”) may describe the use case being tested. A set of test cases (e.g., human readable descriptions of the processing flows) may be automatically generated and machine learning logic may be used to automatically generate testing scripts for testing the scenarios associated with the different test cases. Once generated, the testing scripts may be executed against the application to test particular processing flows. The test scripts may be generated by mapping a set of functions, data, and keywords to the flows identified within the specification 128.
Fong teaches that in accordance with an aspect, there is provided a computer implemented system for generating one or more test automation scripts for one or more test cases based on received one or more natural language strings representing a natural language description of the one or more test cases. Claim 1, A computer implemented system, implemented on one or more processors operating in conjunction with computer memory, for generating one or more test automation scripts for one or more test cases based on received one or more natural language strings representing a natural language description of the one or more test cases.
Pokhariyal teaches that the first application uses the description of the new code to establish whether the functionality of the new code corresponds to the description of the functionality of the new code. When the new code is not authorized to be added to the first application or the actual functionality of the new code does not correspond to the description of the functionality, the first application does not load the new code. Optionally, the first application transmits a message to the second application stating that the new code was not successfully received. Conversely, when the first application determines that the new code is authorized to be added and that the actual functionality of the new code corresponds to the description of the functionality, the first application loads the new code dynamically, i.e., while the first application is running, in the same process as the first application or in a different process.
Christensen teaches that this may indicate that the source code is currently synchronized with the specification and an appropriate display may show this indication. The source code may then be unlocked at block 608. If there are errors detected at 606, an indication that the specification is not synched with the source code may be displayed 609. Because the specification is locked by the development platform, the developer may be directed to modify or update the source code and repeat the process at block 610 until the compilation process is successful.
Du teaches that the visual programming platform can process the natural language description of the task with a machine learning coding system that includes one or more machine-learned models to generate a set of pseudocode as an output of the machine learning coding system. As an example, the one or more machine-learned models can include one or more generative sequence processing models. One example of a generative sequence processing model is a so-called “large language model.
However, the prior-art, Challa, Fong, Pokhariyal, Christensen and Du failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “generate, utilizing a first machine learning model, first pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the functional code of the test script for the selected test case; to generate, utilizing a second machine learning model, second pseudocode for the test script based at least in part on the test case description for the selected test case; to determine a stability of the test script for the selected test case based at least in part on a similarity between the first pseudocode and the second pseudocode” in the claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Challa, Fong, Pokhariyal, Christensen and Du failed to teach the system of claim 1, the product of claim 15 and the method of claim 18 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
6. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights