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 July 6th, 2026 in response to the April 6th, 2026 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-20.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended, claims 5, 12 and 15 have been canceled, and claims 21-23 have been newly added. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-14 and 16-23 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 11 and 20 are in independent form and these claims (1-4, 6-11, 13-14 and 16-23) are subject to following rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in the following Office Action below.
Response to the Amendments
3. (A). Regarding art rejection: In regard to claims 1-20 Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive; therefore, previously applied rejections have been maintained, and an updated version of the rejections to the claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-14 and 16-23 under the same grounds are provided in the following office action.
(B). Regarding Claim Objection: Due to proper amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 objections to the claims 1, 8 and 15 have been withdrawn.
(C). Prior Art: Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 For Examples:
Yiting Zhang (US 20180246803 A1) discloses “software testing system first performs a training phase in which each test script in a set of scripts is performed. The system monitors an application during performance of each test script to identify which program code of the application is executed or invoked during testing. The system then associates each test script with an indication of which program code the test script executed. During a subsequent test of the application, the system determines program code of the application that was modified. The system identifies test scripts that were previously determined to execute program code corresponding to the modified program code. The system performs the identified test scripts to test the modified program code of the application” (please see ¶[0011]), and “system determines whether more than a threshold amount of program code has been modified (404). If a significant amount of program code has been modified, the system may be unable to identify test scripts which will sufficiently test the application because the indications of executed program code associated with the test scripts may no longer be applicable. The threshold may be a number of new or modified lines, a number of new or modified functions, a number new or modified files, a percentage of the overall program code which was modified, etc. In some implementations, the system may also analyze the program code to identify the type of modifications. For example, if a new file is added to the program code, the system will not have previously identified test scripts which will cause the program code in the new file to be executed” (please see ¶[0044]).
(D). Finality: Applicant's arguments filed July 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Further, Applicant's amendment necessitated the same ground(s); however, updated version 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a New Matter rejection.
Recited limitation “identify that subsequent testing should be initiated based on at least one of:
expiration of a predetermined time period, a number of changes to the software application exceeding a predetermined threshold, or a number of executions of the software application exceeding the predetermined threshold” in claim 1 a departure from the specification and the claims as originally filed.
The specification does not provide a clear support of “identify that subsequent testing should be initiated based on at least one of: expiration of a predetermined time period, a number of changes to the software application exceeding a predetermined threshold, or a number of executions of the software application exceeding the predetermined threshold” as claimed. The instant claims now recite limitations which were not clearly disclosed in the specification and recited in the claims as originally filed.
Obviousness is not the standard for the addition of new limitations to the disclosure as filed. It is noted that entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1977). New Matter is a written description issue.
Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences (Fed. Cir. 2013), the claimed invention is considered "as an integrated whole" rather than merely element by element. The instant specification does not particularly identify this particular combination of limitations.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16-19 and 21-23 depend on claims 1, 11 and 20 according to their statutory classes. Accordingly, claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16-19 and 21-23 are also rejected based on their dependency relationship.
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, 3-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidasch et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0164848 A1 -herein after Heidasch) in view of Bussa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0007894 A1 herein after Bussa).
Per claim 1:
Heidasch discloses:
A computing platform (At least see ¶[0008] - a system for testing an application or component) comprising:
at least one processor (At least see ¶[0026] one or more/multiple processors);
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (At least see ¶[0027] - on one computer or on multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network); and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (At least see ¶[0025] - one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer readable medium, e.g., a machine-readable storage device, a machine readable storage medium, a memory device), cause the computing platform to:
test input information comprising input information to validate successful performance of code for a software application (At least see ¶[0006] -test input data for application for use by a test process);
test the code by inputting the test input information into the software application and executing the code (At least see ¶[0024] -instrument the test application or component to test the internal functionality without code modification), wherein testing the code produces
initial test results (At least see ¶[0003] -an intelligent test framework that enables test data to be defined, and the test results and internal application or component states to be recorded);
store the test input information and the initial test results in a table (At least see ¶[0004] -test data and test results (test output as well as internal data) can be saved; ¶[0020] one or more tables for storing);
identify that subsequent testing should be initiated (At least see ¶[0004] next or subsequent tests are detected and initialized);
automatically identify the test input information and the corresponding initial test results using the stored table (At least see ¶[0017] -obtaining the test result (test output data) and recording test data (test input data), test results);
automatically test the software application by inputting the test input information into the software application and executing the software application, wherein testing the software application produces automated test results (At least see ¶[0007] -generating test input data for a test process to test the application or component, and generating a configuration of the test process based on a template. The method further includes executing the test process according to the configuration and based on the test input data to generate test output data; also see ¶[0020] and ¶[0023]);
compare the automated test results to the initial test results (At least see ¶[0023] -current test results will be compared with "reference" data, and the intelligent test framework then reports the test status and detail).
Heidasch sufficiently discloses the system as set forth above, but Heidasch does not explicitly discloses: intercept, during manual testing of a software application, identify that subsequent testing should be initiated based on at least one of: expiration of a predetermined time period, a number of changes to the software application exceeding a predetermined threshold, or a number of executions of the software application exceeding the predetermined threshold; based on identifying that the automated test results match the initial test results, cause deployment of the software application.
However, Bussa discloses:
intercept, during manual testing of a software application (At least see [0037] -During each run, the test data typically requires some corrections, and the user must manually update the test data to cover the various requirement changes),
identify that subsequent testing should be initiated based on at least one of:
expiration of a predetermined time period, a number of changes to the software application exceeding a predetermined threshold, or a number of executions of the software application exceeding the predetermined threshold (At least see [0037] - a code coverage test may be performed, in which a user may select a threshold percentage of lines of codes to execute. Accordingly, the prepared test data set may cover the threshold percentage of the test code to deem the test code a success);
based on identifying that the automated test results match the initial test results, automatically cause deployment of the software application (At least see ¶[0009] - result report interface may include a selectable option to push the test code for deployment in accordance based on an indication of success in the result report; also see Abstract: conducting automated web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment using artificial intelligence (AI) generated test data).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 3:
Heidasch discloses:
wherein the test input information comprises input information used to test an overall routine of the software application and one or more subroutines of the software application, wherein a first portion of the test input information is used to test the overall routine and a second portion of the test input information is used to test the one or more subroutines (At least see ¶[0019] - intelligent test framework 200 is configured to test an application or component in a running test process 204; [wherein application and/or component include routines and subroutines] -emphasis added).
Per claim 4:
Bussa also discloses:
wherein the second portion of the test input information is produced through execution of the overall routine (At least see ¶[0070] - a code coverage test may be performed, in which a user may select a threshold percentage of lines of codes to execute).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 6:
Heidasch discloses:
initial test results further comprise one or more error codes corresponding to testing of the code (At least see ¶[0017] - obtaining the test result (test output data) and tracing data (from debugging agent 104), and recording test data (test input data), test results (test output data) and internal application or component data (tracing data) for the creation of "reference" test data and/or result).
Per claim 7:
Bussa also discloses:
generating, using generative artificial intelligence and based on the test input information automated test input information (At least see ¶[0003] - delivery test deployment environment using an AI-generated test data set), wherein generating the automated test input information avoids generation of additional code (At least see ¶[0036] - a computing platform may employ artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models to automatically generate a test data set suitable for specific parameters associated with a test code); and
automatically testing the software application using the automated test input information (At least see ¶[0036] - based on an existing test data set and one or more parameters associated with executing the test code in a continuation integration and delivery environment).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 8:
Bussa also discloses:
based on identifying that the automated test results do not match the initial test results, identify whether a number of errors in the automated test results meets or exceeds a predetermined error threshold (At least see ¶[0070] - a code coverage test may be performed, in which a user may select a threshold percentage of lines of codes to execute. Accordingly, the prepared test data set may cover the threshold percentage of the test code to deem the test code a success).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 9:
Bussa also discloses:
based on identifying that the number of errors does not meet or exceed the predetermined error threshold, sending a notification to a user device indicating that the automated test failed (At least see ¶[0016] - Sending the test code output results may include at least one of: a success/failure status of the test code, a trace of any errors in the test code, an exception caught during execution of the test code, an error in the corrected test data set, or an explanation of a failure indication).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 10:
Bussa also discloses:
sending a notification to a user device indicating that the automated test failed and a request for updated test input information, receiving the updated test input information, and updating the table based on the updated test input information (At least see ¶[0074] - test data failures may be assessed and corrected. Where a test data failure has occurred, machine learning models may be training using reinforcement learning algorithms and/or supervised learning algorithms to connect to external web services/databases to generate a new test data set and use the new test data set as input to a subsequent test code execution).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 11:
Heidasch discloses:
A method (At least see ¶[0007] - a method for testing an application or component) comprising:
at a computing platform comprising at least one processor (At least see ¶[0026] - a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers), a communication interface (At least see ¶[0027] - on one computer or on multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network), and memory:
remaining limitations as depicted in this method claim are as similar as claim 1 above; as such, the remaining limitations are rejected using same rational as claim 1 above.
Per claim 13:
wherein the test input information comprises input information used to test an overall routine of the software application and one or more subroutines of the software application, wherein a first portion of the test input information is used to test the overall routine and a second portion of the test input information is used to test the one or more subroutines.
limitation as depicted in this method claim is as similar as claim 3 above; as such, the limitation is rejected using same rational as claim 3 above.
Per claim 14:
wherein the second portion of the test input information is produced through execution of the overall routine.
limitation as depicted in this method claim is as similar as claim 4 above; as such, the limitation is rejected using same rational as claim 4 above.
Per claim 16:
initial test results further comprise one or more error codes corresponding to testing of the code.
limitation as depicted in this method claim is as similar as claim 6 above; as such, the limitation is rejected using same rational as claim 6 above.
Per claim 17:
generating, using generative artificial intelligence and based on the test input information automated test input information, wherein generating the automated test input information avoids generation of additional code; and
automatically testing the software application using the automated test input information.
limitations as depicted in this method claim are as similar as claim 7 above; as such, the limitations are rejected using same rational as claim 7 above.
Per claim 18:
based on identifying that the automated test results do not match the initial test results, identify whether a number of errors in the automated test results meets or exceeds a predetermined error threshold.
limitation as depicted in this method claim is as similar as claim 8 above; as such, the limitation is rejected using same rational as claim 8 above.
Per claim 19:
based on identifying that the number of errors does not meet or exceed the predetermined error threshold, sending a notification to a user device indicating that the automated test failed.
limitation as depicted in this method claim is as similar as claim 9 above; as such, the limitation is rejected using same rational as claim 9 above.
Per claim 20:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that (At least see ¶[0025] - one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer readable medium, e.g., a machine readable storage device, a machine readable storage medium, a memory device), when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory (At least see ¶[0028] - processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output), cause the computing platform to:
remaining limitations as depicted in this product claim are as similar as claim 1 above; as such, the remaining limitations are rejected using same rational as claim 1 above.
Per claim 21:
Bussa also discloses:
wherein the code comprises annotations that demark testable code, and capture entry and exit of the testable code (At least see ¶[0094] -determining that a first set of tests passed based on the test output captured and based on determining that a second set of tests failed based on the test output captured).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
Per claim 22:
Bussa also discloses:
subsequent testing is initiated when a build is triggered during a test phase of a build cycle (At least see ¶[0088] - building and compiling the test code at step 210 may include identifying a selected test code environment and building and compiling the test code for execution in the selected test code environment).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bussa into Heidasch because Bussa provides efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with software testing by providing intelligent dynamic web service testing in a continuous integration and delivery environment by building a web service test data set based on historical data and test code deployment parameters by conducting automated web service testing to validate requirement changes in a continuous integration and delivery test deployment environment (please see ¶[0003]).
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidasch et al. in view of Bussa et al., and further in view of Surace et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0164848 A1 -herein after Surace).
Per claim 2:
Heidasch modified by Bussa sufficiently disclose the system as set forth above, but Heidasch modified by Bussa does not explicitly disclose: wherein the test input information comprises a username and a password.
However, Surace discloses:
wherein the test input information comprises a username and a password (At least see ¶[0041] test script data includes user name and passwords as an input).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Surace into Heidasch modified by Bussa because capability to develop test scripts and test scenarios using user logs of user activities with the software applications while running on a production server, which user logs recorded in various formats; as such, user logs may be processed, analyzed, and/or combined with other information to derive one or more test scripts, which may then be combined into a test scenario and/or executed individually to conduct tests of the software application under test on the same or a different server (please see ¶[0018] - ¶[0019]).
6. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidasch et al. in view of Bussa et al., and further in view of Wayne (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0061781 A1 -herein after Bryan).
Per claim 23:
Heidasch modified by Bussa sufficiently discloses the method as set forth above, but Heidasch modified by Bussa does not disclose: intercepting a method of the software application using a wrapper; determining, using the wrapper, whether an entry for the method exists in the table; and based on determining that the entry exists: fetching the test input information and the initial test results corresponding to the method from the table, and executing the method against the test input information.
However, Bryan discloses:
intercepting a method of the software application using a wrapper (At least see ¶[0050] call to the logging function or procedure is intercepted by an API wrapper);
determining, using the wrapper, whether an entry for the method exists in the table (At least see ¶[0044] - standard software practices for intercepting a call to a function or procedure to allow control to be transferred to a different function or procedure … Import Address table); and based on determining that the entry exists:
fetching the test input information and the initial test results corresponding to the method from the table (At least see ¶[0041] - code called by the marker call may check by examining the values of one or more programmable global environment parameters, input parameters, or other configuration data of the automated test execution system), and
executing the method against the test input information (At least see ¶[0042] - If the decision is to apply the test, the code initiates the stochastic test in such a way that the stochastic test is applied to the software under test in the particular state the software under test was at the time the code was executed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bryan into Heidasch modified by Bussa because Bryan provides a static test, while executed same sequence of commands are implemented in the same order, and implementing the commands operates the software and provides inputs to the software provide wide coverage of the software across many configurations; as such, automated test execution system can run static tests without human intervention, so that repeated testing is performed quickly and efficiently (please see ¶[0003]).
CONCLUSION
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