CTNF 18/740,317 CTNF 101481 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to application filed 06/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being unclear whether in claim 4, the rules further comprise rules 5-8, are of the same rule set depended on in claim 3, or is a separate rule set. The examiner will interpret claim 4 as a separate rule set. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1. However, the limitations “performing a software analysis of the test automate”, “performing an analysis of historical data of the test automate”, “assigning an impact quotient to the test automate based on the software analysis, the analysis of the historical data, and a plurality of rules” and “comparing the impact quotient to an impact quotient threshold” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A. Under Prong 2 Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements. This claim recites the following additional elements “receiving a prompt to evaluate a test automate” and “responsive to the impact quotient being below the impact quotient threshold, disabling the test automate”. The additional elements “receiving a prompt to evaluate a test automate” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. Further, the additional element “responsive to the impact quotient being below the impact quotient threshold, disabling the test automate” fails to meaningfully limit the claim and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore direct to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the limitations “receiving a prompt to evaluate a test automate:” have been identified by the courts as mere data gathering which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation responsive to the impact quotient being below the impact quotient threshold, disabling the test automate” does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it’ to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-4, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 recites non-functional descriptive language that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5-10 recites additional mental steps by further adjusting impact quotients that are not eligible. Claim 11 recites additional mental steps by using a person’s opinion to further adjust impact quotient. Claim 12 and 18 recites further mental steps by updating the values previously rejected in 1, and contains a second prompt to re-evaluate, which is merely gathering and transmitting data. Claim 17 further recites merely recites generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception. Claim 15 and 20 is also rejected under the same rational as claim 1 for having similar limitations. In addition, claim 15 recites a “responsive to a determination that the second impact quotient…” which is merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca et al. (US 20080215921 A1) hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman . Regarding claim 1, Branca discloses A computer-implemented method comprising: responsive to the prompt: performing a software analysis of the test automate; (Branca [0038] discloses the current run of the test are available in the log for their analysis) performing an analysis of historical data of the test automate; and (Branca [0039] discloses that the log also stores historic information relating to previous runs of the test. Further each test case that was selected during the last run of the test on the corresponding component of the software application, the log includes a sequence of the previous results which were obtained during its last previous executions) assigning an impact quotient to the test automate based on the software analysis, the analysis of the historical data; (Branca [0040] discloses an estimator accessing the log, which previously discussed as the information of the previous tests and software analysis. After accessing the log, the effectiveness index is calculated from the previous results of the test case). comparing the impact quotient to an impact quotient (Branca [0041] discloses comparing the effectiveness indexes to a predefined threshold) and responsive to the impact quotient being below the impact quotient threshold, disabling the test automate. (Branca [0041] discloses when the effectiveness does not reach a predefined threshold, hence being below a threshold, the test case is discarded). Branca lacks explicitly receiving a prompt to evaluate a test automate; and a plurality of rules Eizenman teaches receiving a prompt to evaluate a test automate; (Eizenman [0185] – [0186] discloses making a request with metadata about the ongoing test. Then the listening time receives this metadata and stores it in memory, where once all data is received for analysis, it is now possible to report the test environment). and a plurality of rules (Eizenman [0222] and [0253] discloses a test impact analyzer using one or more rules and that in the core calculation service, the threshold service checks thresholds and rules set by the client/user are met or exceeded. Then the threshold service feeds back into a dashboard queue to show green or red indications of suitable indications of threshold exceeding. While Branca lacks explicitly a plurality of rules, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Eizenman to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of rules into the impact quotient assigned to the test cases). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca to incorporate the teachings of Eizenman to “receiving a prompt to evaluate a test automate” and “and a plurality of rules” in order to be able to have a more detailed impact analysis, thus allowing for better test automates to remain given specific parameters. Regarding claim 12, Branca in view of Eizenman discloses wherein the prompt is a first prompt, and wherein the impact quotient is above the impact quotient threshold, the method further comprising: receiving a second prompt to re-evaluate the test automate; responsive to the second prompt: performing an updated software analysis of the test automate; obtaining updated historical performance data for the test automate; and assigning an updated impact quotient to the test automate based on the updated software analysis of the test automate, the updated historical performance data for the test automate, and the plurality of rules; comparing the updated impact quotient to the impact quotient threshold; and responsive to the updated impact quotient being below the impact quotient threshold, disabling the test automate. (Branca [0004]-[0006] and [0013] and [0040]-[0043] discloses that this application is a regression test, used every time a new software application or major change occurs. This test ensures that previous test is still working correctly after the software changes are applied. In doing so, this application uses previous run information and current run information to determine test effectiveness and does this regression test for each run after a software update occurs. This application also shows that the estimator at each new run calculates the effectiveness of test, i.e. the updates impact values, and the selector then selects desired test during the new run of the test and disables the tests the are no longer effective based on the effectiveness index. In combination with Eizenman, the re-testing process can include prompting the re-evaluating by using the previously disclosed listening event. Based on [0043] of the specification, the re-evaluate limitation is in response to an event such as software update or release, therefore, this limitation is the same/similar as the reference discloses above). Regarding claim 13, Branca in view of Eizenman discloses The method of claim 12, wherein the second prompt is received at a predetermined interval and/or in response to a specified event. (Branca [0004]-[0006] and [0013] and [0040]-[0043] discloses a new run of the test occurring after a new software version is released or a major change has occurred). Regarding claim 14, Branca in view of Eizenman discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the specified event is selected from the group consisting of: an edit to the test automate; a scheduled software update, or a scheduled software release. (Branca [0004]-[0006] and [0013] and [0040]-[0043] discloses a new run of the test occurring after a new software version is released or a major change has occurred). With regards to claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media with similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above. The additional limitations describing a “second test automate” and “responsive to a determination” limitation is analyzed as being the previous test automate that is already enabled, therefore Branca [0039]-[0041] discloses scoring of the tests, discarding less than effective tests, and selecting desired test case based on the new effectiveness score, thus demonstrating maintaining the enabled status if the new tests are ineffective . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 5, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca et al. (US 20080215921 A1) hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala (US 10430320 B2) . Regarding claim 2, Branca in view of Eizenman discloses The method of claim 1 Branca in view of Eizenman lacks explicitly wherein each rule of the plurality of rules specifies a condition which, if met for the test automate, either increases or decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate Dhulipala teaches wherein each rule of the plurality of rules specifies a condition which, if met for the test automate, either increases or decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate (Dhulipala column 6, lines 6-14 and column 7, lines 1-18 discloses user-created rules to determine priority of test cases, where rules can be complexity, defects, and untested defects. This score can be represented in a scale between 1-100 and calculates a priority score for each test case. The program can assign higher values based on defects that are yet to be tested, causing the final priority score to increase or in other cases, lower values for defects that are yet to be tested. This function demonstrates the rules set by user can raise/lower priority scoring for each test case). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman to incorporate the teachings of Dhulipala to “wherein each rule of the plurality of rules specifies a condition which, if met for the test automate, either increases or decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to have different ways to evaluate the usefulness/impact of a test, thus allowing the system to accurate identify less useful/faulty tests to be removed therefore increasing the system’s efficiency and resource management. Regarding claim 5, Branca in view of Eizenman discloses The method of claim 1 Branca in view of Eizenman lacks explicitly wherein performing the software analysis of the test automate comprises: determining one or more action types associated with the test automate; and assigning a level of complexity to the test automate based on the one or more action types associated with the test automate, wherein assigning a low level of complexity to the test automate decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein assigning a high level of complexity to the test automate increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. Dhulipala teaches wherein performing the software analysis of the test automate comprises: determining one or more action types associated with the test automate; and assigning a level of complexity to the test automate based on the one or more action types associated with the test automate, wherein assigning a low level of complexity to the test automate decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein assigning a high level of complexity to the test automate increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. (Dhulipala column 6, lines 15-31 discloses assigning complexity of the component based on requirement and importance of the requirements, wherein assigning values is demonstrated where one component has 10 requirements receiving a 4 in a scale of 1-10 of complexity, while another component having 30 requirements receives a score of 8. This demonstrates marking the more important/complex components as having a higher impact while the lower/less important components have a lower impact. Further column 2, lines 1-12 prioritization of test cases rely on this complexity metric). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman to incorporate the teachings of Dhulipala to “wherein performing the software analysis of the test automate comprises: determining one or more action types associated with the test automate; and assigning a level of complexity to the test automate based on the one or more action types associated with the test automate, wherein assigning a low level of complexity to the test automate decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein assigning a high level of complexity to the test automate increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to have tests that cover more actions, thus improving resource efficiency. With regards to claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media with similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above. Regarding claim 20, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (Eizenman [0060] discloses storage non-transitory medium storing computer-executable instructions) for each test automate among a plurality of test automates: performing a software analysis of the test automate; (Similar limitation as claim 1, therefore rejected under the same rationale) performing an analysis of historical data of the test automate; (Similar limitation as claim 1, therefore rejected under the same rationale) determining an impact quotient of the test automate based on the software analysis of the test automate, the analysis of the historical data of the test automate, and a plurality of static rules, wherein each rule of the plurality of static rules specifies a condition which, if met for the test automate, either increases or decreases the impact quotient of the test automate; (Similar limitation as claim 2, therefore rejected under the same rationale) comparing the impact quotient of the test automate to an impact quotient threshold; and (Similar limitation as claim 1, therefore rejected under the same rationale) responsive to the impact quotient being below the impact quotient threshold, modifying a status of the test automate from enabled to disabled; and during a subsequent automatic testing process, executing a first subset of the plurality of test automates with an enabled status and excluding from execution a second subset of the plurality of test automates with a disabled status. (Branca [0039]-[0041] discloses running test cases, and test are selected based on the log containing both positive and negative test results. Test cases not selected during the last run of the set are invalided in the log and are automatically discarded in the next runs of the tests. The tests are selected based on the effectiveness index, where tests with low effective indexes are discarded from the testing group and not run. Thus demonstrating a group of tests that are enabled and running and a group of tests that are disabled and excluded from running) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca et al. (US 20080215921 A1) hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala (US 10430320 B2) in further view of Bhatnager et al. (US 12273255 B1) hereinafter Bhatnager . Regarding claim 3, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The method of claim 2, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly wherein the plurality of rules comprise at least one of: a first rule indicating that a minimum number of user actions in the test automate being below a user action threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a second rule indicating that the test automate ending with a page action decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a third rule indicating that the test automate including a static value for a specified field decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; or a fourth rule indicating that a number of consecutive prior executions of the test automate that resulted in failure for a same reason being above a failed execution threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. Bhatnager teaches wherein the plurality of rules comprise at least one of: a first rule indicating that a minimum number of user actions in the test automate being below a user action threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a second rule indicating that the test automate ending with a page action decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a third rule indicating that the test automate including a static value for a specified field decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; or a fourth rule indicating that a number of consecutive prior executions of the test automate that resulted in failure for a same reason being above a failed execution threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. (Bhatnager column 20, lines 34-46 discloses a test case weight may automatically decrease based on an observation that failures of the test case are repeatedly ignored by developers, thus teaching the fourth rule limitation. As indicated in the specification [0075], consecutive executions that have resulted in failures may indicated that a user noticed the failure did not act, which indicates that the user did not consider the test automate to be very impactful, thus showing the same/similar reasoning as Bhatnager for decreasing test case weight.) It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnager to “wherein the plurality of rules comprise at least one of: a first rule indicating that a minimum number of user actions in the test automate being below a user action threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a second rule indicating that the test automate ending with a page action decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a third rule indicating that the test automate including a static value for a specified field decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; or a fourth rule indicating that a number of consecutive prior executions of the test automate that resulted in failure for a same reason being above a failed execution threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to identify tests with low impacts that are repeatedly running and failing/using system resources to delete them and consolidate those resources and improve test and system efficiency. Regarding claim 8, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The method of claim 1, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly wherein performing the software analysis of the test automate further comprises: determining that the test automate is associated with at least two test types; and responsive to determining that the test automate is associated with that least two test types, increasing the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. Bhatnager teaches wherein performing the software analysis of the test automate further comprises: determining that the test automate is associated with at least two test types; and responsive to determining that the test automate is associated with that least two test types, increasing the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. (Bhatnager column 6, lines 29-40 discloses the test case repository consisting of a variety of test types, such as connectivity tests, performance tests, behavior verification for different portions of network service, and network packet content analysis. It would be obvious that in combination that multiple test types would further increase test performance and efficiency, thus would increase an efficiency/impact score). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnager to “wherein performing the software analysis of the test automate further comprises: determining that the test automate is associated with at least two test types; and responsive to determining that the test automate is associated with that least two test types, increasing the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to have tests that have multiple features, thus saving system resources from needing to make a test for each specific case. Regarding claim 9, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The method of claim 1, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly wherein the performing the analysis of the historical data of the test automate comprises: determining a frequency of execution of the test automate; and comparing the frequency of execution of the test automate to an execution frequency threshold, wherein the frequency of execution of the test automate being above the execution frequency threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein the frequency of execution of the test automate being below the execution frequency threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. Bhatnager teaches wherein the performing the analysis of the historical data of the test automate comprises: determining a frequency of execution of the test automate; and (Bhatnager column 3, lines 34-44 discloses extracting frequency and recency information which are then used to determine a weight for individual test cases). comparing the frequency of execution of the test automate to an execution frequency threshold, (Bhatnager column 7, lines 23-34 discloses the weight being adjusted over time as certain features are less used, where the feature’s usage or weight is compared to threshold). wherein the frequency of execution of the test automate being above the execution frequency threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, (Bhatnager column 3, lines 34-44 and column 7, lines 23-34 discloses a higher weight is given to tests that run more frequently). and wherein the frequency of execution of the test automate being below the execution frequency threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. (Bhatnager column 3, lines 34-44 and column 7, lines 23-34 discloses a lower weight is given to tests that run less frequently). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnager to “wherein the performing the analysis of the historical data of the test automate comprises: determining a frequency of execution of the test automate; and comparing the frequency of execution of the test automate to an execution frequency threshold, wherein the frequency of execution of the test automate being above the execution frequency threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein the frequency of execution of the test automate being below the execution frequency threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to determine whether the tests implemented are being used or not and eliminating wasteful/less impactful tests while keep more impactful/constantly-used tests, thus increasing test efficiency. Regarding claim 11, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The method of claim 1, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly obtaining an opinion regarding the test automate from a functional expert, wherein the assigning the impact quotient to the test automate is further based on the opinion regarding the test automate from the functional expert. Bhatnager teaches obtaining an opinion regarding the test automate from a functional expert, wherein the assigning the impact quotient to the test automate is further based on the opinion regarding the test automate from the functional expert. (Bhatnager column 20, lines 15-46 discloses decreasing test case score based on developer feedback) It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Bhatnager to “obtaining an opinion regarding the test automate from a functional expert, wherein the assigning the impact quotient to the test automate is further based on the opinion regarding the test automate from the functional expert” in order to allow the developer/expert to personally identify tests they deem as invaluable/valuable, thus allowing the system better efficiency and flexibility . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca et al. (US 20080215921 A1) hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala (US 10430320 B2) in further view of Bhatnager et al. (US 12273255 B1) hereinafter Bhatnager in further view of Carroll et al. (US 20250238354 A1) hereinafter Carroll . Regarding claim 4, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala in further view of Bhatnager discloses The method of claim 3 Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala in further view of Bhatnager lacks explicitly wherein the plurality of rules further comprises at least one of: a fifth rule indicating that the test automate including an export as a last step increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a sixth rule indicating that the test automate being configured to receive an input as an import parameter increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a seventh rule indicating that the test automate including one or more checks increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; or an eighth rule indicating that the test automate having a percentage of successful prior executions above a successful execution threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. Carroll teaches wherein the plurality of rules further comprises at least one of: a fifth rule indicating that the test automate including an export as a last step increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a sixth rule indicating that the test automate being configured to receive an input as an import parameter increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a seventh rule indicating that the test automate including one or more checks increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; or an eighth rule indicating that the test automate having a percentage of successful prior executions above a successful execution threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. (Carroll [0073] and [0076] and [0087] discloses testing processing verifying that the web application responds correctly to user inputs, updates the UI, and maintains correct state throughout the test session, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the testing process. This function demonstrates the seventh rule limitation, as the test consists of multiple checks demonstrating a high impact/effectiveness and thus in combination, increase the impact score of the test). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala in further view of Bhatnager to incorporate the teachings of Carroll to “wherein the plurality of rules further comprises at least one of: a fifth rule indicating that the test automate including an export as a last step increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a sixth rule indicating that the test automate being configured to receive an input as an import parameter increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; a seventh rule indicating that the test automate including one or more checks increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate; or an eighth rule indicating that the test automate having a percentage of successful prior executions above a successful execution threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to ensure reliable performance, reliability, and effectiveness when conducting the testing process . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca et al. (US 20080215921 A1) hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala (US 10430320 B2) in further view of Ellis et al. (US 9417994 B2) hereinafter Ellis . Regarding claim 6, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The method of claim 5, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly assigning the low level of complexity to the test automate in response to at least one of: a determination that the one or more action types associated with the test automate are all click actions; or a determination that the test automate includes a number of optional actions above an optional action threshold. Ellis teaches assigning the low level of complexity to the test automate in response to at least one of: a determination that the one or more action types associated with the test automate are all click actions; or a determination that the test automate includes a number of optional actions above an optional action threshold. (Ellis column 4, lines 57-67 and column 5, lines 54-66 and, column 13, lines 30-56 discloses the test consisting of clicking action and describes the action as simple while adding in other controls/actions would be more complicated, therefore it would be obvious that the test automation only consisting of clicking actions would result in a low level of complexity). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Ellis to “assigning the low level of complexity to the test automate in response to at least one of: a determination that the one or more action types associated with the test automate are all click actions; or a determination that the test automate includes a number of optional actions above an optional action threshold” in order to identify less impactful/helpful actions and save system resources. Regarding claim 7, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The method of claim 5, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly assigning the high level of complexity to the test automate in response to at least one of: a determination that the test automate includes one or more actions that are not click actions; or a determination that the test automate does not include a number of optional actions above an optional action threshold. Ellis teaches assigning the high level of complexity to the test automate in response to at least one of: a determination that the test automate includes one or more actions that are not click actions; or a determination that the test automate does not include a number of optional actions above an optional action threshold. (Ellis column 4, lines 57-67 and column 5, lines 54-66 and, column 13, lines 30-56 discloses adding more actions steps other than clicking actions would make the test more complicated/complex, therefore it would be obvious that a high level complexity would not consist of only clicking actions). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Ellis to “assigning the high level of complexity to the test automate in response to at least one of: a determination that the test automate includes one or more actions that are not click actions; or a determination that the test automate does not include a number of optional actions above an optional action threshold ” in order to identify and keep high level tests, increasing testing efficiency and usefulness . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca et al. (US 20080215921 A1) hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman in further view of Priyanka et al. (US 20230222051 A1) hereinafter Priyanka . Regarding claim 10, Branca in view of Eizenman discloses The method of claim 1 Branca in view of Eizenman lacks explicitly wherein the performing the analysis of the historical data of the test automate comprises: determining a failure rate of the test automate over a specified time period; and comparing the failure rate to a failure rate threshold, wherein the failure rate being above the failure rate threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein the failure rate being below the failure rate threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. Priyanka discloses wherein the performing the analysis of the historical data of the test automate comprises: determining a failure rate of the test automate over a specified time period; and (Priyanka [0080] and [0081] discloses evaluating a failure rate of a test based on the captured data over time during the lifetime of the test. Then the score is based on the failure rate during this time period) comparing the failure rate to a failure rate threshold, (Priyanka [0080] and [0081] discloses defect/failure score from 1-3 is compared against a threshold number of failures) wherein the failure rate being above the failure rate threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and (Priyanka [0080] and [0081] when the number of test failure is more than the threshold of failures, the test is given a defective score of 3, thus it would be obvious that a test that is highly defective would have a lower impact score) wherein the failure rate being below the failure rate threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate. (Priyanka [0080] and [0081] when the number of test failure is less than the threshold of failures, the test is given a defective score of 1, thus it is obvious that a test that is not defective would have a higher impact score). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman to incorporate the teachings of Priyanka to “wherein the performing the analysis of the historical data of the test automate comprises: determining a failure rate of the test automate over a specified time period; and comparing the failure rate to a failure rate threshold, wherein the failure rate being above the failure rate threshold decreases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate, and wherein the failure rate being below the failure rate threshold increases the impact quotient assigned to the test automate” in order to identify tests that fail too often, indicating either false alarms or errors within the test, therefore allowing the necessary actions to be taken which results in an increase in testing efficiency/accuracy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca hereinafter Branca in view of Eizenman et al. (US 20240403199 A1) hereinafter Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala (US 10430320 B2) in further view of Halaharvi (US 20240248821 A1) . Regarding claim 17, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala discloses The system of claim 16 Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala lacks explicitly wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise computer-executable instructions that implement a scheduler service, and wherein the request to evaluate the first test automate and the second test automate is received from the scheduler service at a predetermined interval and/or in response to a specified event. Halaharvi teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise computer-executable instructions that implement a scheduler service, and wherein the request to evaluate the first test automate and the second test automate is received from the scheduler service at a predetermined interval and/or in response to a specified event (Halaharvi [0138] discloses a continuous scheduler component which generates a continuous schedule that is provided to a continuous execution plan component. The continuous exaction plan component generates a plan based on scores and then controls execution of the plan. While Halaharvi lacks explicitly in response to a specified event, as disclosed previously, Branca discloses the specified event being when a major change or software update occurs, thus it would be obvious to combine). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala to incorporate the teachings of Halaharvi to “wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise computer-executable instructions that implement a scheduler service, and wherein the request to evaluate the first test automate and the second test automate is received from the scheduler service at a predetermined interval and/or in response to a specified event” in order to have a scheduler control when the tests need to be re-evaluated and pruned, thus improving system efficiency and test control. With regards to claim 18, it is a system claim with similar limitations to claim 12, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12 above. Further, the “modifying” limitation using factors is described in the specification [0066] as software analysis, historical analysis, and expert opinion, which were taught in Branca in the rejection above, along with the “re-evaluation” limitation. Regarding claim 19, Branca in view of Eizenman in further view of Dhulipala in further view of Halaharvi discloses The system of claim 18, wherein the third plurality of factors comprises the plurality of static rules and at least one of: (See claim 2 rejection) an updated software analysis of the second test automate; or an updated analysis of the historical data of the second test automate. (Branca [0004]-[0006] and [0013] and [0040]-[0043] discloses that each run would conduct the regression test and evaluate the effectiveness of the test case, which consists of both the current test and historical runs of the test. Therefore, upon a software update, the values being testing would updated as well. See claim 12 rejection) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhat et al. (US 11989119 B2) hereinafter Bhat discloses in Column 1, lines 28-52 the same motivation for pruning unwanted test cases which is done using a risk index score and prioritizing useful test cases to free up computer resources. Further in Wong (20230185700 A1) abstract and [0020] discloses selecting test cases by using ranking of historical test data to determine which tests are run . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193 /Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 10 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 11 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 12 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 13 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 14 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 15 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 16 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 17 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 18 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 19 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 20 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 21 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 22 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 23 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 24 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/740,317 Page 25 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights