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 .
This is in response to Application filed 04/11/24. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1. The claim 1, 11 AND 20 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (independent claim).
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
Steps (a), (b), and (c) are mental processes (i.e., defining and mapping) which can be performed in the human mind or by a human by using pen and paper)
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
“A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to...”
said system comprising,
“…define at least one test automation code base associated with a continuous testing
cycle; for the at least one test automation code base, define at least one automated test
and criteria associated with the at least one automated test; and
map the at least one automated test to a command and parameter to trigger the at
least one automated test.…”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the
claim are generally stated and amount to no more than defining a test automation code and mapping the automated test to a command parameter.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply defining and mapping does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 – 10 also depend on claims 11 and are also ineligible.
Claim 11 (independent claim).
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
Steps are mental processes (i.e., defining and mapping) which can be performed in the human mind or by a human by using pen and paper)
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
Claim 11 recites the additional limitations of: “..computer implemented method…”.
Said method comprising,
“…define at least one test automation code base associated with a continuous testing
cycle; for the at least one test automation code base, define at least one automated test
and criteria associated with the at least one automated test; and
map the at least one automated test to a command and parameter to trigger the at
least one automated test.…”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the
claim are generally stated and amount to no more than defining a test automation code and mapping the automated test to a command parameter.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., stating it’s a method and simply defining and mapping does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor is there any physical transformation or elements integrating the software with the underline hardware to accomplish said task. Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 12 – 19 also depend on claims 11 and are also ineligible.
Claim 20 (independent claim).
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
Steps are mental processes (i.e., defining and mapping) which can be performed in the human mind or by a human by using pen and paper)
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
Claim 20 recites the additional limitations of:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium...” (hereinafter CRM)
CRM comprising,
“…define at least one test automation code base associated with a continuous testing
cycle; for the at least one test automation code base, define at least one automated test
and criteria associated with the at least one automated test; and
map the at least one automated test to a command and parameter to trigger the at
least one automated test.…”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the
claim are generally stated and amount to no more than defining a test automation code and mapping the automated test to a command parameter.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply defining and mapping does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application even if stating it’s a CRM. Such algorithm could simply reside on a word program and still be a written down mental process.
Therefore, claims are ineligible.
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, 2, 10 – 12, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Mason US 20230130027 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Mason anticipates, A computer system/A computer-implemented method/ A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
at least one processor (FIG. 3); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to (FIG. 3, shows memory and processor):
define at least one test automation code base associated with a continuous testing
cycle [0028, shows code bases also see 0052, see Organized test cycles (i.e. continuous test cycles), defined environments, automation and Group test case];
for the at least one test automation code base, define at least one automated test
and criteria associated with the at least one automated test [0081, shows user base criteria, also see 0036 and 0058 for more on test automation]; and
map the at least one automated test to a command and parameter to trigger the at
least one automated test [see 0036 for mapping and execution of tests also refer to 0058, see section on mapping examples].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the computer system of claim 1, wherein the criteria associated with the at least one automated test defines an expected pass rate for the at least one automated test and filter attributes for the at least one automated test [0074, shows filtering testing information as well as in 0095, shows scoring based on passed or failed tests].
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one test automation code base includes at least a first test automation code base that defines at least a first automated test and a second test automation code base that defines at least a second automated test, the first automated test and the second automated test being triggered in sequence or parallel “0056,, shows, “… new test cycles (e.g., where a test cycle can represent … new test run (e.g., one or more iterations of a series of test cases for one or more environments also see 0116 shows a sequence).
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) 3 – 9 and 13 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason US 20230130027 A1 in view of claim 1 and further in view of Duggal et al. US 20240078172 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Mason discloses all the claimed limitations as applied in claim 1 above. Mason doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein determine a condition triggering automation testing with a DevSecOps cycle; and responsive to determining the condition triggering the automation testing within the DevSecOps cycle, initiate the continuous testing cycle.
However, Duggal in an analogous art and similar configuration discloses that in [0002, “…DevSecOps,”…integrates security testing into the practice… tailored to unique requirements of network automation…”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before filling the invention to combine Mason and Duggal because it would enable integrating security testing for network automation as suggested by Duggal above.
Regarding claims 4, the computer system of claim 3, wherein the condition triggering the automation testing includes determining a code commit associated with computer program code of a particular application [Mason, 0036, see accepting test command i.e. commit].
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the computer system of claim 3, wherein initiating the continuous testing cycle includes loading the at least one test automation code base [Mason, 0028, see test code base].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the computer system of claim 5, wherein the condition triggering automation testing within the DevSecOps cycle includes application release information [Duggal, 0002, shows automation testing for DevSecOps].
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the computer system of claim 6, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the at least one processor to:
for the at least one test automation code base, identify the at least one automated test by comparing the application release information to the criteria associated with the at least one
automated test [Mason, 0116, shows comparing test results].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the computer system of claim 7, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the at least one processor to:
obtain the command and parameter mapped to the at least one automated test; and
automatically trigger execution of the at least one automated test using the obtained
command and parameter [Mason, 0058, shows mapping].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the computer system of claim 8, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the at least one processor to:
determine completion of the at least one automated test; and
compare a result of the completed at least one automated test to the criteria associated
with the at least one automated test to determine whether the completed at least one automated test passed [0092 – 0093, shows completion and performing scoring of tests, also see 0099 – 0100, shows comparing results to goal].
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only [0060 – 0080].
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192