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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/16/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner recommends that the applicant removes the reference numbers from the claim limitations (e.g. claim 1 line 1 the limitation “A system (100) for automated…” should be “A system for automated…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2A and Figure 2B are blurry. The type of elements displayed are not able to be determined because the text and icons are illegible. The examiner suggests that the applicant upload a clearer image of the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations, “Compare the elements and the properties of elements of the base version of the application with the elements and the properties of elements of the updated version of the application; classify the elements of the updated version of the application based on the comparison, the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application includes at least one of unchanged element, deletion of the element, addition of new element and updation of the element;” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. This limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a user can compare two text files and mark the differences. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements, ”store elements and properties of elements of a base version of the application… retrieve the elements and the properties of elements of the base version of the application; receive an updated version of the application; capture elements and properties of elements of the updated version of the application;” and “and generate a report (200B) with details of the classified elements”, do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of mere data gathering and outputting. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed at the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the additional elements, ”store elements and properties of elements of a base version of the application… retrieve the elements and the properties of elements of the base version of the application; receive an updated version of the application; capture elements and properties of elements of the updated version of the application;” and “and generate a report (200B) with details of the classified elements”, is merely gathering/outputting data which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine conventional activity.
Claim 1, further recites, ”a database (140) configured” and “a processor (120) configured”. These elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements recited in claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B; thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “capture the elements and the properties of elements of the updated application by scanning the updated application and identifying elements therein”, recites additional mental process under Prong 1. For example, a user can look at directory files of an application update and identify newly added files.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “identify the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application to determine whether the associated test scripts are to be updated based on the classification”, recites additional mental process under Prong 1. The additional elements, ”store elements, properties of elements and associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application”, “retrieve the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application” and “generate the report (200B) with details of the test script based on the identification”, can be classified as mere data gathering and outputting, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the element “wherein the properties of elements of the base application and the updated version of the application include at least one of Xpath, Class, CSS selector, Object ID, name, Tag Name, Coordinates, Label and href”, can be classified as field of use and technical environment as it simply links the abstract idea to a particular set of property types, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 5, the element “wherein the report (200B) includes a plurality of identification marks (202), each of the plurality of identification marks (202) indicates the elements of the updated version of the application as at least one of unchanged element, deleted element, added element and updated element”, which can be classified as mere data gathering and outputting, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the element “wherein the report (200B) comprises a plurality of interactive links, each interactive link provides access to the associated test script determined for updation based on the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application”, which can be classified as mere data gathering and outputting, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the element “wherein the report (200B) includes one or more modules arranged in a hierarchical structure corresponding with a hierarchical structure of the application, the one or more modules comprise a main module corresponding to a parent node and a one or more sub modules corresponding to child nodes of the parent node, and each of the one or more modules include an interactive link”, which can be classified as mere data gathering and outputting, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim set 8-14, the limitations recited in the claims are similar to those of claims 1-7 and thus are rejected for similar reasons as stated in the rejection of claims 1-7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The updated application" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chinn et. al (US 9,244,673 B2) hereafter Chinn.
Regarding claim 1, Chinn teaches:
A system (100) for automated analysis of an application, the system (100) comprising:
a database (140) configured to store elements and properties of elements of a base version of the application;
and a processor (120) configured to:
retrieve the elements and the properties of elements of the base version of the application; ( [Claim 13]”one or more processors configured … an application database storing a resident version of a software application.” [Col 5, Lines 19-33] “The method 300 begins with the application distribution system ingesting 310 a software application into the applications database of an application distribution center. Some embodiments of the present technology involve ingesting applications in an archive format including encrypted, compressed application files along with metadata describing the file directory structure, comments, etc. For example, some embodiments of the present technology involve ingesting files with an .ipa file extension into the applications database. Once ingested, the software applications become available for download by one or more of the computing devices over the internet… Next, an updated version of the software application is received in the application database of the distribution center 320.“) The files of initial ingested software application correspond to elements of a base version of an application in relation to the updated version later retrieved. The metadata of the initial application describes the file directory structure of the application package which corresponds to, properties of elements of the base version of the application. The processor and application database storing the application and metadata files correspond to, a database (140) configured to store elements and properties of elements of a base version of the application and a processor (120) configured.
receive an updated version of the application; ([Col 5, Lines 31-33] “Next, an updated version of the software application is received in the application database of the distribution center 320.“) The distribution center receives the updated version of the application which corresponds to, receive an updated version of the application.
capture elements and properties of elements of the updated version of the application; compare the elements and the properties of elements of the base version of the application with the elements and the properties of elements of the updated version of the application; ([Col 5, Lines 53-76] “comparing the application files involves first comparing the file size of the currently installed version of the software application with the file size of the updated version. If there is no difference in file size, the currently installed version is determined to be the most recent version and no update is needed. Conversely, if there is a difference detected in the file size, it can be inferred that an update is needed. In some embodiments of the present technology, comparing the files can involve comparing the file directory structure of the currently installed version with the updated version. Differences in the directory structure can indicate changes to the current version and that an update is needed. In some other embodiments of the present technology, comparing the files can involve a binary level comparison.”) The files of the updated application correspond to elements of the updated version of the application, the size of the files and directory structure of the files correspond to properties of the elements because they are metadata of the files that are used to make comparisons between the updated and currently installed application package, which corresponds to, compare the elements and the properties of elements of the base version of the application with the elements and the properties of elements of the updated version of the application.
classify the elements of the updated version of the application based on the comparison, the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application includes at least one of unchanged element, deletion of the element, addition of new element and updation of the element; and generate a report (200B) with details of the classified elements.
([Claim 1] “comparing, in an application distribution system, a first version of an application resident on said application distribution system with a received updated version of the application; creating, in the application distribution system, a manifest file describing differences between the first version of the application and the received updated version of the application; said manifest file including pointers to each of:file portions that are not changed in the updated version of the application with respect to the first version of the application, file portions that are deleted from the updated version of the application with respect to the first version of the application, and file portions that are changed in the updated version of the application with respect to the first version of the application; and distributing the manifest file“) Describing the elements of the updated application in a manifest file as “not changed”, “deleted” and “changed” corresponds to, classify the elements of the updated version of the application based on the comparison, the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application includes at least one of unchanged element, deletion of the element, addition of new element and updation of the element; and generate a report (200B) with details of the classified elements.
Regarding claim 2, Chinn teaches the system of claim 1, Chinn further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to capture the elements and the properties of elements of the updated application by scanning the updated application and identifying elements therein. ([Col 5, Lines 53-67] “comparing the application files involves first comparing the file size of the currently installed version of the software application with the file size of the updated version. If there is no difference in file size, the currently installed version is determined to be the most recent version and no update is needed. Conversely, if there is a difference detected in the file size, it can be inferred that an update is needed. In some embodiments of the present technology, comparing the files can involve comparing the file directory structure of the currently installed version with the updated version. Differences in the directory structure can indicate changes to the current version and that an update is needed. In some other embodiments of the present technology, comparing the files can involve a binary level comparison.”) Determinations made based on comparing the size of the application and hierarchical structure of the files and even the binary level examination performed on the update package correspond to scanning and thus, wherein the processor is configured to capture the elements and the properties of elements of the updated application by scanning the updated application and identifying elements therein.
Regarding claim 5, Chinn teaches the system of claim 1, Chinn further teaches:
wherein the report (200B) includes a plurality of identification marks (202), each of the plurality of identification marks (202) indicates the elements of the updated version of the application as at least one of unchanged element, deleted element, added element and updated element.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 above shows a manifest file comparing two versions of an application. The manifest file is annotated with symbols to highlight differences between the two files. Symbol ‘a’ is used to indicate an unchanged file that is copied, symbol ‘b’ represents an update to a file with the same name which is downloaded and symbol ‘c’ represents a file to be deleted which corresponds to, -- wherein the report (200B) includes a plurality of identification marks (202), each of the plurality of identification marks (202) indicates the elements of the updated version of the application as at least one of unchanged element, deleted element, added element and updated element.
Regarding claim 7, Chinn teaches the system of claim 1, Chinn further teaches:
wherein the report (200B) includes one or more modules arranged in a hierarchical structure corresponding with a hierarchical structure of the application, the one or more modules comprise a main module corresponding to a parent node and a one or more sub modules corresponding to child nodes of the parent node, and each of the one or more modules include an interactive link.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See figure 6 of the manifest and associated update actions which correspond to a report. The directories and files correspond to modules. The hierarchical structure of the application files displayed in the manifest, correspond to, a hierarchical structure corresponding with a hierarchical structure of the application. Directories (green) correspond to parent nodes, files (blue) correspond to child nodes of the parent node. Link B2 ( red) is a link corresponding to a file in directory B, however links (e.g. A,B,D) can be used for any unchanged file which corresponds to, and each of the one or more modules include an interactive link.
Regarding claim 8, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 1. Therefore claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 2. Therefore claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 5. Therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 7. Therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 7.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn et al. (US 9,244,673 B2) hereafter Chinn in view of Robertson et al. (US 7,421,683 B2) hereafter Robertson.
Regarding claim 3, Chinn teaches the system of claim 1, Chinn further teaches:
wherein the database (140) is configured to store elements, properties of elements [] of the elements of the base version of the application ( [Col 5, Lines 19-33] “The method 300 begins with the application distribution system ingesting 310 a software application into the applications database of an application distribution center. Some embodiments of the present technology involve ingesting applications in an archive format including encrypted, compressed application files along with metadata describing the file directory structure, comments, etc. For example, some embodiments of the present technology involve ingesting files with an .ipa file extension into the applications database.”) The database storing application update files and metadata describing the files corresponds to, wherein the database (140) is configured to store elements, properties of elements of the elements of the base version of the application.
and generate the report (200B) []
([Claim 1] “creating, in the application distribution system, a manifest file describing differences between the first version of the application and the received updated version of the application; said manifest file including pointers to each of:
file portions that are not changed in the updated version of the application with respect to the first version of the application, file portions that are deleted from the updated version of the application with respect to the first version of the application, and file portions that are changed in the updated version of the application with respect to the first version of the application; and distributing the manifest file“) The manifest file corresponds to a report.
Chinn does not teach: wherein the database (140) is configured to store … associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application; and the processor (120) is configured to: retrieve the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application, identify the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application to determine whether the associated test scripts are to be updated based on the classification, and generate the report (200B) with details of the test script based on the identification.
However, Robertson teaches: wherein the database (140) is configured to store [] associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application;
and the processor (120) is configured to: retrieve the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application,
([Claim 14] ”A system for managing test scripts used to test an application, the system comprising: a processor;” [Col 4, Lines 28-29]“Test scripts are usually stored as files on a disk or saved in a central repository for team development.” [Col 4, Line 65 – Col 5, Line 2] “In many large systems much of the data (both application data as well as auxiliary data about the application itself) is stored in an underlying database. The invention uses all auxiliary data in the database that describes the functionality, aesthetic, configuration or workflow of the system.” [Col 8, Lines 51-54] ”As a set of tests (scripts in our example) are created to cover all the functionality of a software application the need to maintain and update the scripts increases." [Col 9, Lines 1-6] “As changes are identified in the auxiliary data, all scripts that are equated to those objects will be flagged. The automated test software user can choose to update the test script based on the type of change to the object.”) The central repository storing the test scripts for auxiliary data objects corresponds to, wherein the database (140) is configured to store associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application. The test scripts cover all functionality of the application currently installed which corresponds to, associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application. Flagging test scripts based on the auxiliary data and providing them to the user corresponds to, and the processor (120) is configured to retrieve the associated test scripts.
identify the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application to determine whether the associated test scripts are to be updated based on the classification,([Col 4, Line 65 – Col 5, Line 2] “In many large systems much of the data (both application data as well as auxiliary data about the application itself) is stored in an underlying database. The invention uses all auxiliary data in the database that describes the functionality, aesthetic, configuration or workflow of the system.” [Col 7, Lines 49-69] “the invention can find changes in the underlying auxiliary data that may affect the functionality of a test script. If the auxiliary data that generates a user interface element has changed, the script may not work any longer if the UI reference has become invalid because of this change. By comparing the values in the auxiliary data mapping file to existing values in the auxiliary data system containing current auxiliary data information (e.g., a database) a list of all changes can be made. Once the list of changes is identified, the invention can organize changes into categories that describe how the test script might be affected.” [Col 7, Line 66 - Col 8 Line 3] “Embodiments of the invention categorize the changes, correlates them back to the test script that has been written and lets the user of the automated testing software decide how to update their test scripts to comply with any changes that have been made in the auxiliary data.”) The auxiliary data describing details of the application is categorized based on the type of change to determine if an associated test script also needs to be updated which corresponds to, identify the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application to determine whether the associated test scripts are to be updated based on the classification.
and generate the report (200B) [] of the test script based on the identification.
([Claim 1] “consulting the stored information to identify test scripts that reference a user interface object, property, functionality, data requirement, or workflow corresponding to the altered one of the auxiliary data items; and reporting the identified test scripts to a user.” ) Reporting the identified script to the user corresponds to and generate the report (200B) of the test script based on the identification.
Chinn and Robertson do not explicitly teach that the report has details of the test script however generating a report with change details is well known in the art as evidenced by Chinn above where the manifest file details changes to application files using symbols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chinn with, retrieve the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application, identify the associated test scripts of the elements of the base version of the application to determine whether the associated test scripts are to be updated based on the classification, and generate the report (200B) of the test script based on the identification, as seen in Robertson in order to identify and update affected test scripts concurrently with application updates to preserve the functionality of the application. [Robertson , Col 7 Lines 48-Col 8 Lines 3]
Regarding claim 4, Chinn teaches the system of claim 1. Chinn does not explicitly teach: wherein the properties of elements of the base application and the updated version of the application include at least one of Xpath, Class, CSS selector, Object ID, name, Tag Name, Coordinates, Label and href.
However, Robertson teaches: wherein the properties of elements of the base application and the updated version of the application include at least one of Xpath, Class, CSS selector, Object ID, name, Tag Name, Coordinates, Label and href.
([Col 4, Lines 40- 46 ] “Many applications … contain auxiliary data about the way the application works. This descriptive data may include (but is not limited to): Multiple different definitions of the UI structure (such as the name, type, and location of all user interface objects to be presented in the application).” [Col 4, Line 65 – Col 5, Line 2] “In many large systems much of the data (both application data as well as auxiliary data about the application itself) is stored in an underlying database. The invention uses all auxiliary data in the database that describes the functionality, aesthetic, configuration or workflow of the system.” [Col 7, Lines 49-69] “the invention can find changes in the underlying auxiliary data that may affect the functionality of a test script. If the auxiliary data that generates a user interface element has changed, the script may not work any longer if the UI reference has become invalid because of this change. By comparing the values in the auxiliary data mapping file to existing values in the auxiliary data system containing current auxiliary data information (e.g., a database) a list of all changes can be made.”)
The auxiliary data describing how the application works corresponds to properties of elements of the application. Auxiliary data is stored for the existing application which corresponds to a base application, and compared to auxiliary data for new change which corresponds to an updated version of the application. The auxiliary data contains definitions of UI structure such as type and name which correspond to, wherein the properties of elements of the base application and the updated version of the application include at least one of class and name.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chinn with, wherein the properties of elements of the base application and the updated version of the application include at least one of class and name, as seen in Robertson, in order to evaluate application changes at a UI level when determining affected test scripts that need to be updated concurrently to preserve the functionality of the application.
Regarding claim 6, Chinn in view of Robertson teach the system of claim 3, Chinn further teaches: wherein the report (200B) comprises a plurality of interactive links, each interactive link provides access to the [] script [] .([Col 8, Lines 49 -61]“FIG. 6 illustrates a process of updating an application file using a manifest file showing the differences between the file and an updated version of the file and using a scheme of links according to some embodiments of the present technology…As used herein, a hard link is a notation in a file directory which serves as a persistent or semi-persistent shortcut to a file in a local or distributed file system.”) The manifest file which corresponds to a report uses hard links to point to files which correspond to, wherein the report (200B) comprises a plurality of interactive links, each interactive link provides access to the [] script [] .
Chinn does not explicitly teach that the report is used to display associated test script determined for updation based on the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application.
However, Robertson suggests: associated test script determined for updation based on the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application.
([Col 7, Line 66 - Col 8 Line 3] “Embodiments of the invention categorize the changes, correlates them back to the test script that has been written and lets the user of the automated testing software decide how to update their test scripts to comply with any changes that have been made in the auxiliary data.”) Changes in the auxiliary data are classified and associated with test scripts allowing the user to update the test scripts in response to updates to the application which corresponds to, associated test script determined for updation based on the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chinn with, associated test script determined for updation based on the classification of the elements of the updated version of the application, as taught by Robertson in order to include affected test scripts in the interactive manifest generated by Chinn, allowing the user to manage changes to test scripts concurrently with update changes.
Regarding claim 10, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 3. Therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 4. Therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, it is method claim having similar limitations to those of claim 6. Therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 6.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9606900 B1, Discloses a method for correlating test scripts to application updates. Relevant to claims 1-14
US 8458310 B1, Discloses an update system that compares elements of an update to determine update requirements. Relevant to claims 1-14
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE O'CONNOR EMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 pm .
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.
/L.S.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights