DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed 4/17/24.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are submitted for prosecution on merits.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to an Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following 2 step Analysis
Step I:
The claim is directed to a method/process category
Step IIA:
Prong One:
The method contains steps of “determining” (test device is occupied), “determining” (usage status), “determining” (health status), “marking” (a device as), “assigning” (a case) and without presence of technical means to support these forms of activity, these activities are perceived as actions a human mind can easily perform, from identifying a object or a status, to marking it and assigning mentally, using only a mental faculty; that is, even the step of marking (or flagging as a logical step) and “assigning” can be considered an activity that falls into a mental process. The method is directed to a mental process – see MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong Two:
The limitations such as “determining” (test device is occupied), “determining” (usage status), “determining” (health status), “marking” (a device as), “assigning” (a case) when expressed in a very high level of generality without presence of concrete means to demonstrate that these forms of activity can improve upon a computer technical aspect, fall under the Abstract Idea type of activities. Hence, per prong two, the recited steps of determining, marking or assigning construed as activities that a human mind can perform via a mental process, a generic computer or via pen/paper cannot integrate the method of claim 1 into a Practical Application – MPEP 2106.04(d)
Step IIB:
There is no element in the claim that one can identify as “additional elements” that are capable to integrate the Abstract Idea per step IIA into a Practical Application.
Claim 1 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC 101 statute.
Claims 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are directed to an Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following 2 step Analysis
Claim 12:
Step I: this is a apparatus claim.
Step IIA
Prong one: the claim comprises computer stored instructions to perform action of “determining” (test device is occupied), “determining” (usage status), “determining” (health status), “marking” (a device as), “assigning” (a case); and when construed as a whole, and absent any teaching to prove that memory-stored instructions achieve a particular improvement to the act of determining, marking or assigning, these activities can be viewed as actions which can be performed via human mind, using a generic computer. The apparatus claim is directed to a Judicial Exception of an Abstract Idea type – see MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong Two:
The limitations such as “determining” (test device is occupied), “determining” (usage status), “determining” (health status), “marking” (a device as), “assigning” (a case) when expressed in a very high level of generality without presence of concrete means to demonstrate that these forms of activity can improve upon a computer technical aspect, fall under the Abstract Idea type of activities. Hence, per prong two, the recited steps of determining, marking or assigning construed as activities that a human mind can perform via a mental process, a generic computer or via pen/paper cannot integrate the method of claim 1 into a Practical Application – MPEP 2106.04(d)
Step IIB:
There is no element in the claim that one can identify as “additional elements” that are capable to integrate the Abstract Idea per step IIA into a Practical Application.
Claim 12 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC 101 statute.
Claim 20:
Step I: this claim is a medium/product category
Step IIA:
Prong One:
The product claim recites medium-stored instructions to perform steps of stored instructions to perform “determining” (test device is occupied), “determining” (usage status), “determining” (health status), “marking” (a device as), “assigning” (a case); and when construed as a whole, and absent any teaching to prove that memory-stored instructions achieve a particular improvement to the act of determining, marking or assigning, these activities can be viewed as actions which can be performed via human mind, using a generic computer. The apparatus claim is directed to a Judicial Exception of an Abstract Idea type – see MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong Two:
The limitations such as “determining” (test device is occupied), “determining” (usage status), “determining” (health status), “marking” (a device as), “assigning” (a case) when expressed in a very high level of generality without presence of concrete means to demonstrate that these forms of activity can improve upon a computer technical aspect, fall under the Abstract Idea type of activities. Hence, per prong two, the recited steps of determining, marking or assigning construed as activities that a human mind can perform via a mental process, a generic computer or via pen/paper cannot integrate the method of claim 1 into a Practical Application – MPEP 2106.04(d)
Step IIB:
There is no element in the claim that one can identify as “additional elements” that are capable to integrate the Abstract Idea per step IIA into a Practical Application.
Claim 20 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC 101 statute.
Analysis of dependent claims under Step IIB.
Claims 2 and 13 recite sending a reminder in response to a status and this can be viewed as an extra-activity that uses information from the mental process in the base claim.
Claims 3 and 14 recite assigning in terms of determining then assigning, but these activities can be construed as those that a human mind can perform; hence cannot render the judicial exception significantly much more than a Abstract Idea.
Claims 4 and 15 recite determining and sending a notification, and these activities cannot amount to significantly more than activities of a mental process.
Claims 5 and 16 recite determining a configuration, generating a test case and determining a matching test case; but activities that are based on result from a determining are viewed as extra-activities that are insignificant toward improving a computer technology or a solving a particular problem, hence cannot render the judicial exception significantly much more than an Abstract Idea
Claims 6 and 17 recite “determining” and “assigning” and cannot amount to significantly more than a Abstract Idea.
Claims 7 and 18 recite determining, generating a table and determining a matching device; but these activities can be construed as those that are based on result from a determining are viewed as extra-activities that are insignificant toward improving a computer technology or a solving a particular problem; hence cannot render the judicial exception significantly much more than an Abstract Idea.
Claims 8 and 19, recite determining based on assigning, and reserving a device; but activities construed as those that are based on result of a “assigning” (i.e. a mental process) cannot add significantly much more to the Abstract Idea state of the Judicial Exception.
Claim 9 recites determining a device in response to a determining, and assigning, all of which construed as activities that can be performed by a human mind or with pen and paper.
Claim 10 recites determining a number of tests and determining test cases, all of which construed as activities that can be performed by a human mind.
Claim 11 recites determining a duration, which appears to be a mental activity and cannot add significantly more to the Judicial Exception of the base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 20 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al, CN 103298016B (translation) 12-14-2016, 17 pgs (herein Gao) in view of Jin Chen, CN 102073548 (translation) 05-25-2011, pgs. (herein Jin) and JP 4179556 (translation) 11-12-2008, 18 pgs (herein ‘556)
As per claim 1, Gao discloses a method for assigning a test device, comprising
determining whether the test device is occupied (sub-control center … knows the current state of the test terminal 3 is idle …terminal 4 is running test case – top pg. 6; sub-control center … knows the test terminal 4 is in the idle state – pg. 6); and determining a usage status (polling to obtain state information … terminal state information comprises: test terminal is idle – bottom pg. 5; running test case failure at the test terminal based on the state information – pg. 3) of the test device in response to the test device being occupied (Note1: state information acquired at the control center about a terminal being idle or being affected by a test case failure reads on determination of a usage status of the test device in response to the device being not occupied or occupied);
determining a usage status of the test device (polling to obtain state information - bottom -pg. 5) in response to the usage status of the test device indicating that the device has not been used (polling to obtain state information … every predetermined time … predetermined time can be 3 minutes, 5 minutes … the state information comprises: test terminal is idle – bottom pg. 5) for a predetermined time period (see: 3 minutes, 5 minutes ,timeout no response – bottom pg. 5);
determining a health status (obtaining the abnormal state … by way of polling – pg. 13) of the test device in response to the device being used for a predetermined time (polling … predetermined time can be … 5 minutes … test timeout no response – bottom pg. 5);
marking the test device as unoccupied (recording the state information of the test terminal and transferring the test case … based on the state information – pg. 9; the state information comprises: test terminal is idle – bottom pg. 5); and assigning the test device to a test case (transmits the allocation to the corresponding test terminal, information of the test case – pg. 9).
Gao does not explicitly disclose
determining a health status of the test device in response to usage status indicating that the test device has not been used for more than a predetermined time period; and marking the test device as unoccupied and healthy (in response to status of the test device indicating that the test device is healthy)
Jin discloses polling (pg. 5, pg.13) after a predetermined time period to check whether a non-responsive device has a failure in fulfilling a task or whether the device is being idle, so that a test task can be assigned on basis of the idle state of the device (terminal 4 is in the idle state ,the test cases 001 are assigned to the test terminal 4 – pg 6) and a full healthy state of the device (assignment policy … allocating a predetermined number of test cases… is the normal capability of the test terminal – pg. 6)
Checking usability state of a test device is shown with the task assignment by ‘556 center control device where task manager computes utilization rates of CPUs of computing devices to identify a given CPU having a long idle time, thereby enabling assignment of a new task to the computing device having the identified CPU (pg. 4) thereby improving utilization by reducing the CPU idle time (from 60% to 5% - pg. 10); hence determining that a device has been unused for more than a predetermined time for assigning a task and bringing that idle time down is recognized.
Further, Jin discloses task assignment device receiving information from a pool of computing resources in regard to respective idle time of each computer in the pool (see Abstract) so that based on determination by a task allocation device that idle time of cell (of one or more computer capability) can finish a task in an idle state with a long compute time, then the free time coupled with strongest computing ability of the computer is assigned a task (para 0065-0066; claim 1, pg. 6; judging module, distribution module – para 0070-0071); hence, determination of usage status indicating that a device has not been used for more than a predetermined time period; and recording the device as unoccupied and sufficient healthy to carry out a long task is recognized.
Based on effect of checking status of a device after a predetermined period on operational health and idle state of a test device in Gao, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the health check and idle time check thereof so that health status intended to allocate a task would entail health status determination in response to utilization status indicating that the test device has not been used for more than a predetermined time period – as in ‘556 long idle time; the determination resulting in marking the test device as unoccupied and healthy (in response to the acknowledged status indicative that the test device is healthy in terms of strong capability of carrying out a long task- as in Jin; because
immediate enlisting action by a task assignment module using idle time length of a compute device as criterion for a device to be assigned a task (testing task) would optimize distribution of active resources, reduce non-productivity caused by the overall unused time of certain resources and improve effectiveness of the task allocation by the system; and
determination that a device has been unused in light of its longest idle time would enable the task management device to mark it as likely to be strongly capable of carrying out a long task, in that a predesignated task among others can be selected and assigned to the device in accordance with it being stable, healthy and improved chance that the device would be largely capable of completing the task without delay.
As per claim 12, Gao discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored therein, the
instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the electronic device to perform actions comprising:
determining whether a test device is occupied;
determining a usage status of the test device in response to the test device being occupied;
determining a health status of the test device in response to the usage status of the test
device indicating that the test device has not been used for more than a predetermined time period;
marking the test device as unoccupied and healthy in response to the health status of the
test device indicating that the test device is healthy; and
assigning the test device to a test case.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
As per claim 20, Gao discloses a computer program product, the computer program product being tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, the machine-executable instructions, when executed by a machine, causing the machine to perform actions comprising:
determining whether a test device is occupied;
determining a usage status of the test device in response to the test device being occupied;
determining a health status of the test device in response to the usage status of the test
device indicating that the test device has not been used for more than a predetermined time period;
marking the test device as unoccupied and healthy in response to the health status of the
test device indicating that the test device is healthy; and
assigning the test device to a test case.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
Claims 2, 13 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al, CN 103298016B (translation) 12-14-2016, 17 pgs (herein Gao) in view of Jin Chen, CN 102073548 (translation) 05-25-2011, pgs. (herein Jin) and JP 4179556 (translation) 11-12-2008, 18 pgs (herein ‘556), further in view of Xu Wei, CN 115858440 (translation), 3-28-2023, 16 pgs (herein Xu)
As per claim 2, Gao discloses according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time period is a first predetermined time period (see 5 minutes – pg. 5), and the method further comprises:
Gao does not explicitly disclose
sending, to an occupant of the test device, a reminder to release the test device in response
to the usage status of the test device indicating that the test device has not been used for a time
period that is shorter than the first predetermined time period and longer than a second
predetermined time period.
Gao discloses polling of state information from the test device using predetermined time in terms of every 3-minutes or 5 minutes interval, where an idle state or a non-response state can be detected as occurring between each interval time point, according to which, state information can be detected as “idle” per a time recordation that is shorter than the first time period -e.g. 5mn mark – or a current polling mark (first determined time period) but longer than the second time period being the earlier interval polling time set 5mn earlier (second predetermined time period)
Notification by a resource manager to instruct or remind an owner or holder of resources to release resources based on some criteria is shown in Xu; that is, resources in form of PCIe connected devices under hot-plug control of a dynamic management device are partitioned as slot positions to undergo re-arrangement by a management software that performs resource allocation, control release of the PCIe devices and redistributes one such PCIe device for servicing at a corresponding server (pg. 2-3) where the management device, via a resource release instruction issued to the hot plug module, causes a PCIe device to be released to its assigned server (pg. 3) using the established relation of the PCIe device with that server, based on the hot plug module notifying the management device for the latter to release the PCIe device, the release effected upon a pool of resources in form of plurality of PCIe devices marked as idle or possibly unmounted from a current server for the hot extraction (pg. 7-8) and re-distribution action by the management device. Hence, release notification sent to a resource management owner/handler of a pool of resources (PCIe devices) in accordance with the idle state of each such device so the handler of the pool via a hot extraction releases the device for use into another server application is recognized.
Based on the advent that occurrence of an idle state of a device can happen between a first polling time and a second polling time as in Gao approach, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement recognition of a idle state of a device by a test assignment module in Gao so that, in response to the usage status of the test device indicating that a given test device has not been used (idle) for a time period that is shorter than the first predetermined time period (second 5 mn interval polling) and longer than a second predetermined time period (first 5mn interval polling), the task management software would timely send a reminder or notification to the current owner of devices – as in Xu – to release the device on account of the idle or “not being used” state of the device; because
this hot notification for release of a device (test device) for re-enlisting it to another application (assignment to another test task) via a dynamic notification and hot extraction by which the device can be disconnected from an current ownership – as shown in Xu - would enable prompt re-distribution of any available resource to respond to real-time resource demand – e.g. that of an application such as test service -- thereby minimizing the cost of unutilized resources from a pool envisioned for an application or a service, boosting effectiveness in redistributing of resources by a pool management on basis of idle state monitoring thereby, the realization thereof in terms of dynamic release per hot notification as set forth above, which may bypass the preconfigured interval setting by which the idle state information about availability of the device resources is being normally polled, thereby minimizing delay in dispatching a resource (a test device) as soon as it becomes idle when demand for its utilization (test task) can be critical.
As per claim 13, Gao discloses electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the predetermined time period is a first predetermined time period, and the actions further comprise:
sending, to an occupant of the test device, a reminder to release the test device in response
to the usage status of the test device indicating that the test device has not been used for a time
period that is shorter than the first predetermined time period and longer than a second
predetermined time period.
(refer to rationale of claim 2)
Claims 3-4 ,14-15 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al, CN 103298016B (translation) 12-14-2016, 17 pgs (herein Gao) in view of Jin Chen, CN 102073548 (translation) 05-25-2011, pgs. (herein Jin) and JP 4179556 (translation) 11-12-2008, 18 pgs (herein ‘556), further in view of Chen et al, CN 106502235B(translation) 10-31-2016, 11 pgs (herein Chen) and Zheng, USPubN: 2023/0380012 (herein Zheng)
As per claims 3-4, Gao does not explicitly disclose method according to claim 1, wherein assigning the test device to the test case comprises:
(i) determining whether there are candidate test cases requesting to occupy the test device;
and assigning the test device to a test case with the highest priority among the candidate test
cases in response to there being the candidate test cases requesting to occupy the test device.
(ii) determining a matching test case that matches with the test device in response to there
being no candidate test case requesting to occupy the test device; and sending, to an owner of the matching test case, a notification that the test device is available.
As for (ii)
A given test case set to await allocation by a resource manager to a user’s test device on basis of the user’s roles is shown in the distribution of test by Chen, where information such as test type, test time, live state of test device - including idle state (pg. 5) - is being processed per a distribution front end (pg. 3) that establishes specific role or authority (pg. 2, 6) of the requesting client, so that assignment of a test to the client and pertinent test device can be given a corresponding priority (pg. 3 ) so that control of the test device (pg. 4) can be accordingly administered by the task distributing system, wherein conditions established by an available test device (pg. 6) can be provided as a notification and selection prompt according to which the user can initiate a test task issuing. Hence, sending a notification to owner of a specific test case by a processing front end on basis of an available test device in association prioritizing execution of the test on the device on account of user’s role even in situation where there is no plurality of test cases awaiting for a device match is recognized.
As for (i)
Zheng discloses intelligent distribution methods exploring test definition from a plurality of pending tests (para 0012-0013; Fig. 5) in light of a plurality or set of devices intended by their users to execute a corresponding target test (para 0014) under coordination of a test platform (para 0018) that seek satisfying of test requirement by the plurality of user devices for the tests to be permitted (para 0016; Fig. 1; para 0045), each pending test satisfying a requirement, a configuration or predicted usage data in the context of the user device (para 0054, 0059) as part of operation of the testing platform which collects information data from the user devices and usage data thereof that match pending tests and/or satisfy each test requirements, so that the pending tests can be organized based of test order or higher-to-lower priority (para 0057). Hence, plural test cases determined as candidate to occupy a test device based on some requirement and configuration criteria by which a test case candidate can be allocated to a matching test device with a established level of priority of execution is recognized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement allocation of test cases in conjunction with user as target devices in Gao so that the allocation manager would be configured for
determining whether there are candidate test cases requesting to occupy the test device – as in Zheng -, and accordingly assigning the test device to a test case with the highest priority – as in Zheng - among the candidate test cases in response to there being the candidate test cases requesting to occupy the test device; and
determining a matching test case that matches with the test device – as in Zheng - in response to there being no candidate test case requesting to occupy the test device – as per Chen from above; and accordingly sending, to an owner of the matching test case, a notification – as in Chen - that the test device is available; because
configuring management of test case implemented with software in conjunction with handler of test requests from users and distribution of test to user devices in accordance with the processing of test request so that the software is capable of determining among plurality of test case pending a target device match or allocation would benefit of this intelligent processing capability of the software to perform a) a first directional mapping that inter-correlates test type among plurality of awaiting test cases as well as requirements, conditions associated with the test type with characteristics of target devices intended to carry out the testing; and b) a second directional mapping that observes whether the type of the target device contextualized with role or authority of the device owner would match with the one or more test cases pending one such test-device mapping correspondence, according to which, not only a test of a given requirements setting can be set to execute on a hardware circuit that would support fast execution of the test in accordance to priority order thereof, but also enable a target host device to be set with architectural compliancy and self-sufficient processing power in order to achieving full completion of a test task.
As per claims 14-15, Gao discloses electronic device according to claim 12, wherein assigning the test device to the test case comprises:
determining whether there are candidate test cases requesting to occupy the test device;
and
assigning the test device to a test case with the highest priority among the candidate test
cases in response to there being the candidate test cases requesting to occupy the test device.
determining a matching test case that matches with the test device in response to there
being no candidate test case requesting to occupy the test device; and
sending, to an owner of the matching test case, a notification that the test device is available.
(refer to rationale of claims 3-4 from above)
Claims 6, 17 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al, CN 103298016B (translation) 12-14-2016, 17 pgs (herein Gao) in view of Jin Chen, CN 102073548 (translation) 05-25-2011, pgs. (herein Jin) and JP 4179556 (translation) 11-12-2008, 18 pgs (herein ‘556), further in view of Zheng, USPubN: 2023/0380012 (herein Zheng)
As per claim 6, Gao discloses method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning the test device for the test case (transmits the allocation to the corresponding test terminal, information of the test case – pg. 9);
Gao does not explicitly disclose said assigning in terms of:
receiving a reservation request for the test case; determining a matching test device that matches with the test case in response to receiving a reservation request for the test case; and assigning the test device for the test case based on the matching test device.
Zheng discloses servicing users request for allocation of test cases (requests tests from the testing platform – para 0026)from a testing platform that provides test case(s) to respective user’s test devices per effect of an intelligent distribution platform that includes exploring test definition from a plurality of pending tests (para 0012-0013; Fig. 5) in light of a plurality or set of devices intended by their respective users to execute a corresponding target test (para 0014) and so, under coordination of a test platform (para 0018) that seeks satisfaction of test requirements by the plurality of user devices for the pending tests to be permitted (para 0016; Fig. 1; para 0045); i.e. each pending test satisfying a requirement, a configuration or predicted usage data in the context of the user device (para 0054, 0059) as part of operations by the testing platform which collects information data from the user devices and usage data thereof that match pending tests and/or satisfy each test requirements, so that the pending tests can be organized based of test order or higher-to-lower priority (priority value assigned to the test in its definition data - para 0057)
Hence in response to a request for the test case, determining a matching test device that matches with the test case in response to receiving a reservation request therefor; and assigning the test device for the test case based on the matching is recognized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement distribution of test to targeted devices in accordance to analytic action of the control center in Gao so that responsive to a reservation request for the test case, the control software would perform
determining a matching test device that matches with the test case – as set forth in Zheng - in response to receiving a reservation request for the test case; thereby assigning the test device for the test case based on the matching test device; because
consideration of HW devices deemed proper for executing a given type of test cases and satisfying the requirements associated with that type necessitate substantial discovery in regard to correlating compliancy or disparity between conditions required to fulfill a test task and host settings that characterize capability of the HW device on which the test is to be carried out; and by implementing a control software upon reception at the front end incoming requests to match a desired test case to a target test device as set forth in Gao, so that equipping the software with this correlation capability to perform a bi-directional analysis that seeks to fit a desired host device with a test type in one direction and then match a test type with a compliant HW runtime host in the other direction, would ascertain that both ends of a assigned test task would be compliantly favorable to a test of a given type and the very environment in which to conduct the test task, thereby facilitating test deployment without compliancy setbacks, satisfying runtime requirements (e.g. prioritizing a test run), optimizing test distribution resources to match a request, and increasing likelihood for test completion on basis of well-chosen host device that responds well to the endeavor of achieving or realizing a desired task as part of fulfilling a request.
As per claim 17, Gao discloses electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the actions further comprise:
determining a matching test device that matches with the test case in response to receiving
a reservation request for the test case; and
assigning the test device for the test case based on the matching test device.
(refer to rationale of claim 6)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (pending resolution of any outstanding rejection of the base claim) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; that is, the subject matter being objected to including:
(claim 5), method according to claim 4, wherein determining the matching test case that matches with the test device comprises:
determining a configuration label for each test device of a plurality of test devices and a
configuration demand label for each test case of a plurality of test cases;
generating a test-device-to-test-case first matching table based on the configuration label
and the configuration demand label, entries in the test-device-to-test-case first matching table
comprising a specific test device and a list of test cases matching with the specific test device; and
determining the matching test case based on the test device and the test-device-to-test-case
first matching table.
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (pending resolution of any outstanding rejection of the base claim) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; that is, the subject matter being objected to including:
(claims 7-8) method according to claim 6, wherein determining the matching test device that matches with the test case comprises:
determining a configuration label for each test device of a plurality of test devices and a
configuration demand label for each test case of a plurality of test cases;
generating a test-case-to-test-device second matching table based on the configuration
label and the configuration demand label, entries in the test-case-to-test-device second matching
table comprising a specific test case and a list of test devices matching with the specific test case; and
determining the matching test device based on the test case and the test-case-to-test-device
second matching table.
wherein assigning the test device for the test case based on the matching test device comprises:
determining an available test device that is unoccupied and healthy among one or more
matching test devices; and
reserving at least one test device for the test case based on the configuration demand label
of the test case in response to there being no available test device.
Claims 9-11 for being dependent upon base claim 8 are also deemed belonging to an allowable subject matter (pending resolution of outstanding rejection of any relevant base claim)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM/Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on (571)272-3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3735 ( for non-official correspondence - please consult Examiner before using) or 571-273-8300 ( for official correspondence) or redirected to customer service at 571-272-3609. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
March 16, 2026