Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/606,106

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TEST DATA HEALING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 15, 2024
Examiner
NAHAR, QAMRUN
Art Unit
2199
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
SAP SE
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
612 granted / 696 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
711
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 696 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindo (US 2009/0133033). Per Claim 1: Lindo teaches: - a test data repository storing test data (par. 0095); a memory storing processor-executable program code; and a processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code to cause the system to (par. 0095): change a state of the stored test data from a first state to a second state in response to execution of test executable code, the execution using the first state test data; store the second state test data ([0287-0288] Embodiments facilitate the skip-ahead (or "fast forward") and rewind functions by creating and recording state point data during the recording phase. State point data captures the state of memory values associated with a program under test at a specified point in time during program execution. In an embodiment, a user can jump to any state point, at any time. Similarly, any `State Point` can be rewound to by restoring the original memory state.) - detect a difference between the first state test data and the second state test data by comparing the stored second state test data to the first state test data; and restore the stored second state test data to the first state test data ([0336] In step 1722, the process creates and stores a list of changes that occurred in the particular page between the time at which the copy was stored (at step 1710) and the current time. The list of changes is based on results of the comparison operations of step 1720. The list of changes covers all changes to all memory pages for which changes were detected. The list of changes may be stored as part of a state point using the organizational arrangement of FIG. 15. The terms "deltas" or "differences" may be used to refer to the changes. Using a list of changes captures memory state efficiently and without storing a copy of the entire memory, which could comprise gigabytes. Consequently, many state points can be stored to permit moving among many points of program execution. [0289] Moving to a different state point is accomplished by skipping code execution and restoring the recorded results of that execution to memory. In this way, embodiments provide techniques for creating and storing snapshots of data relating to the state of a system under test for use in restoring the system to the same state at a future point in time, to support a skip-ahead or fast-forward function when execution of the program is replayed, and to support a rewind function during replay of execution.). Per Claim 2: Lindo teaches: - wherein the difference is detected by a job (par. 0336). Per Claim 3: Lindo teaches: - wherein the job is executed in response to a trigger (par. 0288). Per Claim 4: Lindo teaches: - wherein the trigger is one of: a schedule and the storing of the second state test data (par. 0288 and 0289). Per Claim 5: Lindo teaches: - wherein the stored test data is validated by a data governance tool prior to execution of the test executable code (par. 0093). Per Claim 6: Lindo teaches: - wherein the validated data is stored in the test data repository in a machine-readable format (par. 0098). Per Claim 7: Lindo teaches: - convert the test data to a machine-readable format from a non-machine-readable format prior to storage in the test data repository (par. 0098). Per Claim 8: Lindo teaches: - wherein the execution of test executable code using the first state test data is via a testing application external to the system (par. 0098). Per Claim 9: Lindo teaches: - automatically establish a connection with the testing application based on data received from an onboarding process (par. 0098 and 0099). Per Claim 10: Lindo teaches: - wherein the data received from the onboarding process includes at least one of a testing application system type, a testing application system Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and a testing application system identifier (par. 0105). Per Claims 12-14 & 16-17: These are method versions of the claimed system discussed above (claims 1-3 and 6-7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Lindo. Per Claim 15: Lindo teaches: - wherein the stored test data is validated master data (par. 0071). Per Claim 18 & 20: These are medium versions of the claimed system discussed above (claims 1 and 5, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Lindo. Per Claim 19: This is a medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claims 2 and 3), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Lindo. 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. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindo (US 2009/0133033) in view of Welguisz (US 2011/0238878). Per Claim 11: The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and further, Lindo does not explicitly teach wherein a tag is received via the onboarding process and the tag identifies objects of the stored test data for restoration to the first state. However, Welguisz teaches wherein a tag is received via the onboarding process and the tag identifies objects of the stored test data for restoration to the first state (par. 0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Lindo to include wherein a tag is received via the onboarding process and the tag identifies objects of the stored test data for restoration to the first state using the teaching of Welguisz. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to detect failures during normal operations (Welguisz, par. 0005). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Katoh (US 2019/0287016) teaches a method for detecting a difference in test data. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm. 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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. /QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602227
A METHOD FOR ASSESSING QUALITY OF OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602219
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS CAPABLE OF PREVENTING DELAY OF EXECUTION OF PERIODICALLY EXECUTED PROCESSING, METHOD OF CONTROLLING INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602482
Systems and methods for updating a network appliance
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596537
GENERALIZED INTERMEDIATE AND LOWER LEVEL SOURCE CODE REPRESENTATIONS FOR STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596533
SELECTING A CUSTOM FUNCTION FROM AVAILABLE CUSTOM FUNCTIONS TO BE ADDED INTO A PLAYBOOK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+9.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 696 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month