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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/07/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8 and 17 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 8 and 17 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and product respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 8 and 17 similarly recite “a method for artificial intelligence (AI) aided test development, comprising: receiving, as input to an AI model, a device under test (DUT) specification for a DUT; receiving, as input to the AI model, test resources of a test system; generating, via the AI model, test requirements based on the DUT specification and the test resources of the test system; and generating, via the AI model, a test design, wherein the test design includes at least a test hardware specification”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 8 and 17 of “generating, via the AI model/Generative AI model/the LLM, test requirements based on the DUT specification and the test resources of the test system” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “generating (drafting) test requirement”. For example, a human may generate test requirements based on the DUT specification and the test resources of the test system with a pen and paper or in a human 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 under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 8 and 17 of “generating, via the AI model/Generative AI model/the LLM,, a test design, wherein the test design includes at least a test hardware specification” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “generating (drafting) test design”. For example, a human may generate a test design, wherein the test design includes at least a test hardware specification with a pen and paper or in a human 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 under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 17 recite additional elements such as “receiving, as input to an AI model, a device under test (DUT) specification for a DUT”, “receive, as input, a device under test (DUT) specification for a DUT” and “receive, as input to a large language model (LLM), test resources of a test system;”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 17 recite additional elements such as “receiving, as input to the AI model, test resources of a test system”, “receive, as input, test resources of a test system” and “receive, as input to a large language model (LLM), test resources of a test system”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the test design further includes at least a software program”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the software program is executable to perform the test design”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the software program includes a graphical user interface”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 5 recites additional elements such as “the software program is generated based on a graphical programming platform, a graphical programming language, or a sequence based graphical programming platform”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “the software program is generated based on a code-based programming platform or code-based programming language”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “the software program is generated based on software programs used to train the AI model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “the Generative AI model is further trained via machine learning to receive, via local discovery, machine-readable hardware requirement”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “the machine-readable hardware requirements indicate available local system hardware components”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “the available local system hardware components include one or more local hardware resources reachable via a local system bus; and wherein the one or more local hardware resources include one or more of: a peripheral component interconnect (PCI)/enhanced PCI (ePCI) data acquisition card; a PCI/ePCI signal generator; a PCI/ePCI Field Programable Gate Array (FPGA); a PCI/ePCI controller; a PCI/ePCI vision card; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) device; a General Purpose Interface Bus (GPIB) device; or a serial device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 12 recites additional elements such as “the available local system hardware components include one or more remote hardware resources reachable via a local network connection or a local serial connection; and wherein the one or more remote hardware resources include one or more of: a peripheral component interconnect (PCI)/enhanced PCI (ePCI) data acquisition card; a PCI/ePCI signal generator; a PCI/ePCI Field Programable Gate Array (FPGA); a PCI/ePCI controller; a PCI/ePCI vision card; a Universal Serial Bus (USB) device; a General Purpose Interface Bus (GPIB) device; or a serial device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “the DUT specification is received via a user interface comprising a chat box based”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 14 recites additional elements such as “the DUT specification comprises at least one of: a database including information specifying the DUT; a virtual two-dimensional model of the DUT; a virtual three-dimensional model of the DUT; a software model of the DUT; a portable document format (PDF)-based document; a spreadsheet-based document; a word processor-based document; a presentation-based document; one or more images of the DUT; one or more videos of the DUT; a diagram of the DUT; performance data associated with the DUT; programming code; an engineering format-based file or document; a schematic of the DUT; a schematic associated with the DUT; a layout of the DUT; a layout associated with the DUT; a design of the DUT; a design associated with the DUT; a bill of materials (BOM) associated with the DUT; emails associated with and/or referring to the DUT and/or an aspect of the DUT; a chat transcript associated with and/or referring to the DUT and/or an aspect of the DUT; an audio recording associated with and/or referring to the DUT and/or an aspect of the DUT; or a video recording associated with and/or referring to the DUT and/or an aspect of the DUT”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 15 of “summarize the DUT specification” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “summarizing”. For example, a human may summarize the DUT specification with a pen and paper or in a human 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 under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 15 recites additional elements such as “present the summarization of the DUT to an end user”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 16 recites additional elements such as “query the end user regarding the DUT specification, including presenting leading questions to the end user”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 18 recites additional elements such as “the test design further includes at least one of: a test calibration sequence; test process documentation; a user manual associated with a test process; or a graphical user interface to display test results”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 20 recites additional elements such as “receive, via local discovery, machine-readable hardware requirements”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 20 recites additional elements such as “wherein the machine-readable hardware requirements indicate available local system hardware components, and wherein the available local system hardware components include one or more local hardware resources reachable via a local system bus and one or more remote hardware resources reachable via a local network connection or a local serial connection”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborating the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 8 and 17.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Kumar (US PGPub 20220091968), in view of Chirkin (US PGPub 20220283926), and further in view of Tahvili (US PGPub 20240241817) failed to disclose of a method for artificial intelligence (AI) aided test development, comprising: receiving, as input to an AI model, a device under test (DUT) specification for a DUT; receiving, as input to the AI model, test resources of a test system; generating, via the AI model, test requirements based on the DUT specification and the test resources of the test system; and generating, via the AI model, a test design, wherein the test design includes at least a test hardware specification, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Kumar, Chirkin and Tahvili discloses of a method for artificial intelligence (AI) aided test development, comprising: receiving, as input to an AI model, a device under test (DUT) specification for a DUT; receiving, as input to the AI model, test resources of a test system; generating, via the AI model, test requirements for the test system; and generating, via the AI model, a test design, wherein the test design includes at least a test hardware specification.
Individually, Kumar teaches of that a software application being developed can undergo validation testing to find out and eliminate errors before the product is released. The disclosed system can provide for automated validation testing of software applications and can include machine learning-based authoring of test cases and test steps using the product specification documents, and further generating test data. The system can track the changes in the product specification documents and accordingly update the test cases and test data with minimal or no manual intervention. The disclosed system can generate test cases [test design] and test data using the machine learning models and natural language processing from the specification data of the software application. Par 47, The test cases can also be designed for error or negative testing which helps discover how the application performs when put in abnormal situations. Par 50, The disclosed system can provide for automated validation testing of software applications and can include machine learning-based authoring of test cases and test steps using the product specification documents, and further generating test data.
Chirkin teaches that each test may be associated with corresponding metadata that indicates which capabilities (requirements) will be tested and which resources will be used for the test. At 105, the user may select and/or define, via the UI, one or more options to indicate a set of resources with which the user would like to test a set of capabilities [requirement]. These resources and/or capabilities may be predefined as resource blocks and stored within data store 120. Execution of an experiment is modeled in workflow 200. At 202, scenarios are resolved. During scenario resolution, a scenario resolver (e.g., a component of the execution engine 110 of FIG. 1) may be configured to determine coverage and variation specifications [A “variation” refers to a particular version of a scenario (e.g., operations for testing a particular capability in a particular manner).] to generate a set of (resource, requirement, and variation) tuples for each test in the experiment. The term “coverage” refers to a particular part of the matrix on which scenarios are to be run (e.g., a range of resources and requirement). The tuples may be utilized to generate an execution plan that includes programmatic instructions for executing each scenario corresponding to a tuple of the set of tuples. To ensure consistency across services in a cloud-computing environment, each resource may be required to pass a predefined set of requirements as a prerequisite to being released to the public. The execution plan comprises programmatic instructions for executing a test corresponding to each capability that is applicable to a given resource. FIG. 1 depicts an example of a computing environment 100 for generating execution plans to test capabilities of various resources deployed in the computing environment, in accordance with at least one embodiment. Par 46, he set of capabilities and/or resources from which this metadata may be generated may be obtained from the data store 120. Once generated, the metadata may be utilized by the execution engine 110 to generate an execution plan for the test.
Tahvili teaches that in summary, an AICTG system/method 100 according to some embodiments may be able to recommend a corresponding test case specification and test script for a given test requirement. The systems/methods may generate/select a test script for a new design requirement specification that is not in the training set. Therefore, the confidence score for those test requirements and test cases that the system has already evaluated may be higher for the newly created requirements and test specifications. However, in both scenarios the manual human work required may be decreased significantly.
However, the prior-art, Kumar, Chirkin and Tahvili failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “generating, via the AI model, test requirements based on the DUT specification and the test resources of the test system and generating, via the AI model, a test design including at least a test hardware specification” in the claim 1.
Claim 7 is the system claim, containing similar allowable subject matter as the claim 1, and Claim 17 is another system claim, also containing similar allowable subject matter as the claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Kumar, Chirkin and Tahvili failed to teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 7 and the system of claim 17 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights