DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method comprising: receiving a request to generate one or more test cases associated with a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the request specifies a component of the GUI; identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component; determining, based on the DOM associated with the GUI, one or more properties associated with the component and the plurality of additional components of the GUI; generating, based on the one or more properties, one or more test cases for the component and for each of the additional components; and providing instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the one or more test cases”.
The limitations of “A method comprising: component and for each of the additional components; and providing instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the one or more test cases”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases associated with a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the request specifies a component of the GUI” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases associated with a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the request specifies a component of the GUI” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the request is received from claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein providing the instructions to update the GUI comprises: ‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting data indicative of an updated GUI including the GUI and the one or more test cases”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein each test case of the one or more test cases comprises one or more steps to complete a test procedure of the component or an additional component of the plurality of additional components”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, comprising: grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “causing display, by a client device, of the one or more properties associated with the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM, wherein the one or more properties are usable to assist in completing a test procedure of the component or an additional component of the plurality of additional components” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “causing display, by a client device, of the one or more properties associated with the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM, wherein the one or more properties are usable to assist in completing a test procedure of the component or an additional component of the plurality of additional components” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more properties comprise a component type, a data type, an input, or a combination thereof”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1 comprising: determining, based on the DOM, a total quantity of components included as part of the GUI; determining a code coverage value based on the one or more test cases and the total quantity of components included as part of the GUI; and providing the instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the code coverage value”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein generating one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties comprises: identifying respective display data and a respective component type for each of the component and the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties; determining a respective test case structure for each of the component and the plurality of additional components based on the respective component type of each of the component and the plurality of additional components, wherein each respective test case structure comprises an instruction associated with the respective component type and one or more input fields; and replacing the one or more input fields of each respective test case structure with the respective display data to form the one or more test cases”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, comprising: determining respective identifiers associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM, wherein the instructions to update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate the respective identifiers”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI); identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the specified component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the specified component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component; determining one or more properties associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM; determining respective test case structures for the specified component and each additional component based on the one or more properties and a mapping of component types to test case structures; generating one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties and the respective test case structures; and providing instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the one or more test cases”.
The limitations of “properties and a mapping of component types to test case structures; generating one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties and the respective test case structures; and providing instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the one or more test cases”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional element of “from the ML model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional element of “from the ML model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI); identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the specified component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component; determining respective display data and a respective component type associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM; determining a respective test case structure for each of the specified component and the plurality of additional components based on the respective component type of each of the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein each respective test case structure comprises an instruction associated with the respective component type; combining each respective test case structure with the respective display data to form one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components; and providing instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the one or more test cases”.
The limitations of “A precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory, computer readable medium” and “processing circuitry” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory, computer readable medium” and “processing circuitry” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory, computer readable medium” and “processing circuitry” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a non-transitory, computer readable medium” and “processing circuitry” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions to update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate each respective identifier of the respective identifiers adjacent to a corresponding test case of the one or more test cases”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the DOM comprises a markup language representation of the GUI, and wherein parsing the DOM comprises recursively parsing the DOM to generate a multi-level tree of nodes, wherein each node of the multi-level tree specifies properties of a particular component, and wherein a parent node of the tree corresponds to the specified component and each sub-level of the tree comprises at least one child node with a structural relationship to the parent node”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATHIAMMAL et al. (‘BHAGAVATHIAMMAL’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170192882) in view of Clarke et al. (‘Clarke’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 7210097) and further in view of Shang (ADM-RD-SH) et al. (‘Shang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220019521) and further in view of Xiong et al. (‘Xiong’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170031879).
As per claim 1, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
A method comprising: (see abstract and background)
receiving a request to generate one or more test cases associated with a graphical user interface (GUI),
determining, based on the DOM associated with the GUI, one or more properties associated with the component and the plurality of additional components of the GUI; (DOM element tracker with event capture for components including component type, paragraphs [0030]-[0031])
generating, based on the one or more properties, one or more test cases for the component and for each of the additional components; (user creating test cases using event capture for DOM elements, paragraphs [0030]-[0032])
and providing instructions to
BHAGAVATHIAMMAL does not explicitly indicate “identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component”.
However, Clarke discloses “identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component” (improved DOM parsing where hierarchal relationships among the XML components are maintained in a Digital Document table that uses a primary key to identify each component, column 4, lines 30-68, where one of skill in the art would know that hierarchical relationships can be multiple levels deep and therefore could represent structural relationships between additional components and additional sets of additional components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL and Clarke because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a DOM parser that can provide a wrapper class which loads components as needed for more efficient memory usage when parsing large documents (see Clarke, column 2, line 55 through column 3, line 30). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL nor Clarke explicitly indicate “wherein the request specifies a component of the GUI”.
However, Shang discloses “wherein the request specifies a component of the GUI” (user selects object in testing environment, paragraphs [0031],[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke and Shang because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more easily test a shadow DOM portion of a tree that is normally not accessible (see Shang, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more quickly and easily find potential errors in code elements that are typically difficult to test.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “update the GUI”.
However, Xiong discloses “update the GUI” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 2,
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “the request is received from a client device capable of displaying the GUI, and wherein the instructions to update the GUI are provided to the client device to cause the client device to update the GUI”.
However, Xiong discloses “the request is received from a client device capable of displaying the GUI, and wherein the instructions to update the GUI are provided to the client device to cause the client device to update the GUI” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 4,
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “providing the instructions to update the GUI comprises: transmitting data indicative of an updated GUI including the GUI and the one or more test cases”.
However, Xiong discloses “providing the instructions to update the GUI comprises: transmitting data indicative of an updated GUI including the GUI and the one or more test cases” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026]; update web element list to reflect results of the test, paragraph [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 5, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
each test case of the one or more test cases comprises one or more steps to complete a test procedure of the component or an additional component of the plurality of additional components. (test cases include test steps for element types, paragraph [0044])
As per claim 6, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
causing display, by a client device, of the one or more properties associated with the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM, wherein the one or more properties are usable to assist in completing a test procedure of the component or an additional component of the plurality of additional components. (test case with labels and actions performed by user on the DOM element, and element types with expected output displayed associated with DOM element, paragraphs [0042]-[0044])
As per claim 7, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
the one or more properties comprise a component type, a data type, an input, or a combination thereof. (paragraph [0030])
As per claim 9, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
generating one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties comprises: identifying respective display data and a respective component type for each of the component and the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties; (test case generation for UI element type includes associated labels, paragraph [0044])
determining a respective test case structure for each of the component and the plurality of additional components based on the respective component type of each of the component and the plurality of additional components, wherein each respective test case structure comprises an instruction associated with the respective component type and one or more input fields; (test case for text box UI element includes associated labels, paragraph [0044])
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL nor Clarke explicitly indicate “and replacing the one or more input fields of each respective test case structure with the respective display data to form the one or more test cases”.
However, Shang discloses “and replacing the one or more input fields of each respective test case structure with the respective display data to form the one or more test cases” (replacing element in testing environment and can include input tag element, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke and Shang because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more easily test a shadow DOM portion of a tree that is normally not accessible (see Shang, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more quickly and easily find potential errors in code elements that are typically difficult to test.
As per claim 10, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
determining respective identifiers associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM, wherein the instructions to
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate the respective identifiers”.
However, Xiong discloses “update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate the respective identifiers” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026]; update web element list to reflect result of test, paragraph [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 11, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
A system, comprising: (see abstract and background)
processing circuitry; and a memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: (paragraph [0024])
receiving a request to generate one or more test cases,
determining one or more properties associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM; (DOM element tracker with event capture for components including component type, paragraphs [0030]-[0031])
determining respective test case structures for the specified component and each additional component based on the one or more properties and a mapping of component types to test case structures; (test cases using event capture for DOM elements and mapping details to various categories, paragraphs [0030]-[0032])
generating one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the one or more properties and the respective test case structures; (user creating test cases using event capture for DOM elements, paragraphs [0030]-[0032])
and providing instructions to
BHAGAVATHIAMMAL does not explicitly indicate “identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the specified component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the specified component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component”.
However, Clarke discloses “identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the specified component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the specified component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component” (improved DOM parsing where hierarchal relationships among the XML components are maintained in a Digital Document table that uses a primary key to identify each component, column 4, lines 30-68, where one of skill in the art would know that hierarchical relationships can be multiple levels deep and therefore could represent structural relationships between additional components and additional sets of additional components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL and Clarke because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a DOM parser that can provide a wrapper class which loads components as needed for more efficient memory usage when parsing large documents (see Clarke, column 2, line 55 through column 3, line 30). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL nor Clarke explicitly indicate “wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
However, Shang discloses “wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)” (user selects object in testing environment, paragraphs [0031],[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke and Shang because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more easily test a shadow DOM portion of a tree that is normally not accessible (see Shang, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more quickly and easily find potential errors in code elements that are typically difficult to test.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “update the GUI”.
However, Xiong discloses “update the GUI” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 12, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
the one or more properties comprises a respective component type of each of the specified component and each additional component. (component type, paragraph [0030])
As per claim 13, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
the respective component type comprises a button, a text field, or an image. (text box, paragraph [0044])
As per claim 14, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
the mapping of component types to test case structures is stored in a database accessible by the processing circuitry. (test case repository, paragraphs [0019],[0028])
As per claim 16, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
A non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: (see abstract and background)
receiving a request to generate one or more test cases,
determining respective display data and a respective component type associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM; (DOM element tracker with event capture for components, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]; expected output for test cases associated with DOM elements, paragraph [0044])
determining a respective test case structure for each of the specified component and the plurality of additional components based on the respective component type of each of the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein each respective test case structure comprises an instruction associated with the respective component type; (test cases using event capture for DOM elements and mapping details to various categories, paragraphs [0030]-[0032])
combining each respective test case structure with the respective display data to form one or more test cases for the component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components; (user creating test cases using event capture for DOM elements, paragraphs [0030]-[0032])
and providing instructions to
BHAGAVATHIAMMAL does not explicitly indicate “identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the specified component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component”.
However, Clarke discloses “identifying a plurality of additional components associated with the component based on the request and a document object model (DOM) associated with the GUI by parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components, wherein parsing the DOM comprises identifying a set of additional components having structural relationships with the specified component and parsing each respective additional component of the set of additional components to identify additional sets of additional components having structural relationships with each respective additional component” (improved DOM parsing where hierarchal relationships among the XML components are maintained in a Digital Document table that uses a primary key to identify each component, column 4, lines 30-68, where one of skill in the art would know that hierarchical relationships can be multiple levels deep and therefore could represent structural relationships between additional components and additional sets of additional components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL and Clarke because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a DOM parser that can provide a wrapper class which loads components as needed for more efficient memory usage when parsing large documents (see Clarke, column 2, line 55 through column 3, line 30). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL nor Clarke explicitly indicate “wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
However, Shang discloses “wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)” (user selects object in testing environment, paragraphs [0031],[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke and Shang because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more easily test a shadow DOM portion of a tree that is normally not accessible (see Shang, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more quickly and easily find potential errors in code elements that are typically difficult to test.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “update the GUI”.
However, Xiong discloses “update the GUI” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 17, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
the operations comprise: determining respective identifiers associated with the specified component and each additional component of the plurality of additional components based on the DOM, wherein the instructions to
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate the respective identifiers”.
However, Xiong discloses “update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate the respective identifiers” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026]; update web element list to reflect result of test, paragraph [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 18,
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke nor Shang explicitly indicate “the instructions to update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate each respective identifier of the respective identifiers adjacent to a corresponding test case of the one or more test cases”.
However, Xiong discloses “the instructions to update the GUI cause the GUI to indicate each respective identifier of the respective identifiers adjacent to a corresponding test case of the one or more test cases” (update the objects in the GUI, paragraph [0026]; update web element list to reflect result of test, paragraph [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang and Xiong because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that all possible combinations of browser GUIs are tested to reduce the risk that the GUI will not render properly (see Xiong, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of not having unviewable/improperly rendered webpages.
As per claim 19, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
a respective display data of the specified component or an additional component of the plurality of additional components comprises an input response behavior. (test cases have that displayed expected output associated with DOM element, paragraph [0044])
As per claim 20, BHAGAVATHIAMMAL teaches
the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the display data differently from the test case structure. (expected output displayed associated with DOM element, paragraph [0044])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATHIAMMAL et al. (‘BHAGAVATHIAMMAL’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170192882) in view of Clarke et al. (‘Clarke’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 7210097) and further in view of Shang (ADM-RD-SH) et al. (‘Shang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220019521) and further in view of Xiong et al. (‘Xiong’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170031879) and further in view of Guo et al. (‘Guo’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20150242380).
As per claim 8,
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang nor Xiong explicitly indicates “determining, based on the DOM, a total quantity of components included as part of the GUI; determining a code coverage value based on the one or more test cases and the total quantity of components included as part of the GUI; and providing the instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the code coverage value.”
However, Guo discloses “determining, based on the DOM, a total quantity of components included as part of the GUI; determining a code coverage value based on the one or more test cases and the total quantity of components included as part of the GUI; and providing the instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the code coverage value” (testing function including code and determining test coverage, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang, Xiong and Guo because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being insured that all functions of widget have been fully tested (see Guo, background). This gives the user the advantage of having more efficient testing with reliable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATHIAMMAL et al. (‘BHAGAVATHIAMMAL’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170192882) in view of Clarke et al. (‘Clarke’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 7210097) and further in view of Shang (ADM-RD-SH) et al. (‘Shang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220019521) and further in view of Xiong et al. (‘Xiong’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170031879) and further in view of Singh et al. (‘Singh’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200019488).
As per claim 15,
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang nor Xiong explicitly indicates “generating the one or more test cases comprises: providing, as input, the respective component types to a machine learning (ML) model trained on previously tested DOMs; receiving, from the ML model, one or more natural language outputs comprising respective test case structures; and generating the one or more test cases based on the one or more properties and the respective test case structures”.
However, Singh discloses “generating the one or more test cases comprises: providing, as input, the respective component types to a machine learning (ML) model trained on previously tested DOMs; receiving, from the ML model, one or more natural language outputs comprising respective test case structures; and generating the one or more test cases based on the one or more properties and the respective test case structures” (generate test scripts using machine learning trained using historical test case documents and DOMs with test instructions in natural language, paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang, Xiong and Singh because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing automated testing for complex business scenarios requiring sequences of GUI views (see Singh, background). This gives the user the advantage of reducing time and resources spent on when testing software products.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BHAGAVATHIAMMAL et al. (‘BHAGAVATHIAMMAL’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170192882) in view of Clarke et al. (‘Clarke’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 7210097) and further in view of Shang (ADM-RD-SH) et al. (‘Shang’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220019521) and further in view of Xiong et al. (‘Xiong’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20170031879) and further in view of O’Neill (Publication Number 20250232364).
As per claim 21,
BHAGAVATHIAMMAL does not explicitly indicate “the DOM comprises a markup language representation of the GUI, and wherein parsing the DOM comprises
However, Clarke discloses “the DOM comprises a markup language representation of the GUI, and wherein parsing the DOM comprises
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL and Clarke because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a DOM parser that can provide a wrapper class which loads components as needed for more efficient memory usage when parsing large documents (see Clarke, column 2, line 55 through column 3, line 30). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang, Xiong nor Singh explicitly indicate “recursively [parsing]”.
However, O’Neill discloses “recursively [parsing]” (paragraph [0269]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine BHAGAVATHIAMMAL, Clarke, Shang, Xiong, Singh and O’Neill because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by use a subset of the DOM that represents the initial viewport of the webpage to reduces the amount of compute and storage resources that are needed to process the webpage (see O’Neill, paragraph [0177]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong One, that the claimed “receiving a request to generate one or more test cases, wherein the request specifies a component of a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “parsing the DOM to identify a hierarchy of structural relationships between the specified component and the plurality of additional components” and “providing instructions to update the GUI, wherein the instructions cause the GUI to indicate the one or more test cases” are not human mental processes because they could not be performed in the human mind and therefore are not abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One (see applicant arguments, pages 4-5). However, the “receiving” step was not described as being an abstract idea but the additional element of data-gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity, as shown in the rejections of record. With respect to the “parsing” and “proving instructions to update” steps, the applicant argues more specifically that these are “features directly related to additional components of a computing system (e.g. the DOM and the GUI) and are, therefore, unrelated to human mental processes” (applicant arguments, page 5). However, the human mind can perform the parsing of DOM components and can provide instructions, as claimed, since parsing of DOM data structure and providing instructions are regularly performed by software professionals simply using their mind or using their mind with the aid of a pen and paper. The further argument that these claimed steps are related to “additional components of a computing system” are not convincing because there is no “computing system” found in any of the claims. Claim 11 does describe a “system”, but the 35 USC 101 rejections of record make clear that this system would be considered the additional element of generic hardware recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the system (see the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 11, above). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, that the claims “provide an improvement to both a technical field and the functioning of a computer” because “the claims provide an improvement to the field of GUI testing and, consequently, provide a direct improvement to GUIs”, as shown at paragraph [0069] of the specification as “identifying associated components based on the DOM may enable determination of structural relationships between the associated components and a parent component. These structural relationships may not be apparent based on a visual inspection of the GUI” and at paragraph [0076] of the specification as “[p]reviously, test cases were manually developed for each component of a GUI in an error-prone, time-consuming, and/or computational expensive process .... Automatically generating test cases for components based on the DOM allows for comprehensive testing of the components” and that therefore “the claimed systems and methods include steps for identifying and generating test cases for GUI components that may be overlooked or missed in traditional GUI testing systems” (applicant arguments, pages 5-6). However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The applicant has not discussed any additional elements nor performed an evaluation of whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant seems to be arguing that the consideration described in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) is met, i.e improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, however this consideration was not used in the evaluation of any additional elements and how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the requirements of Step 2A, Prong Two, have not been met and these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that the newly added Clarke and O’Neill references, in combination with previously cited references, teach the amended claims as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights