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 .
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “each of the first associated frequencies” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “a first associated frequency” in the singular. It is unclear whether the plural “frequencies” refers to the single recited “first associated frequency” determined for each combination or to a separately introduced plurality. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the first associated frequency determined for each of the plurality of combinations of categories.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “a highest frequency of the first associated frequencies” is indefinite for the same reason set forth above with respect to the plural “first associated frequencies” (claim 1 recites the term in the singular).
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “associated first frequencies received from a customer” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the “associated first frequencies” refer to the “first associated frequency” of claim 1 or to a distinct set of frequencies received from a customer, and it is unclear how a frequency that is determined by the method (claim 1) is also “received from a customer.”
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “each of the second associated frequencies” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, recites “a second associated frequency” in the singular. It is further noted that parallel method claim 2 associates the priority with the “first” associated frequencies whereas claim 9 associates the priority with the “second” associated frequencies, which appears to be an inadvertent inconsistency.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “a highest frequency of the first associated frequencies” lacks proper antecedent basis and is inconsistent with claim 9. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which introduces a priority associated with the “second” associated frequencies, yet claim 10 refers to a highest frequency of the “first” associated frequencies, and claim 8 recites “a first associated frequency” in the singular.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “associated first frequencies received from a customer” is indefinite for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5, and additionally because claim 12 depends from claim 9 (which is directed to the “second” associated frequencies).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the limitations “each of the first associated frequencies” (claim 16) and “a highest frequency of the first associated frequencies” (claim 17) are indefinite for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2 and 3, because independent claim 15 recites “a first associated frequency” in the singular.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process that covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and that are also mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the limitations “defining a plurality of combinations of categories,” “determining, for each of the plurality of combinations of categories, a first associated frequency of the received plurality of entries having values associated with the at least one of the categories of the respective combination of categories,” “generating a first matrix containing each of the plurality of combinations of categories and the first associated frequency,” “determining ... a second associated frequency of values of the plurality of values having a particular value associated with each of the categories of the combination of categories,” and “generating a second matrix having entries containing each of the combinations of categories and the values of the plurality of values having a highest second frequency,” as drafted, are processes that encompass a person counting occurrences, ranking values by frequency, and tabulating the results through observation, evaluation, and judgment, or with the aid of pen and paper, and constitute mathematical concepts (calculations of frequency and selection of a maximum). These limitations therefore fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element “computer-implemented” method, which is merely an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or to use a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim further recites “receiving a plurality of entries, each of the plurality of entries comprising a plurality of values, each of the plurality of values having an associated category of a plurality of categories” and “providing the entries of the second matrix to a test entity to test an application,” which do nothing more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, namely mere data gathering and outputting or applying the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the “computer-implemented” element is a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the receiving and providing limitations recite mere data gathering and outputting, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites a system corresponding to the method of claim 1 and recites the additional elements “at least one processor” and “at least one memory including instructions which when executed by the at least one processor causes operations,” which are generic computer components used as tools to implement the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 15 recites a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions which when executed by at least one processor causes operations,” which is likewise a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea and the same insignificant extra-solution receiving and providing limitations as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 recite “associating a priority with each of the ... associated frequencies” and “a highest priority is associated with a highest frequency,” which merely further narrow the abstract idea by ranking the frequencies, a mental and mathematical act, and add no additional element that integrates the exception into a practical application or provides an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 12 recite “determining the priority based on a combination of categories and associated first frequencies received from a customer,” which further narrows the abstract idea (determining a priority) and additionally recites “received from a customer,” mere data gathering that is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 13 recite “removing from the second matrix a first instance of a redundant combination of categories ... while maintaining a second instance,” which is a further mental and mathematical act of de-duplicating tabulated data and adds no additional element sufficient to integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “appending to the second matrix a third matrix containing a plurality of constant values,” which is a further mental and mathematical act of tabulating and concatenating data, and adds no additional element sufficient to integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 14, and 19 recite receiving “a second plurality of entries” (insignificant extra-solution data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “determining ... a third associated frequency,” “generating a third matrix,” “determining ... a fourth associated frequency,” and “generating a fourth matrix,” which merely repeat the same mental and mathematical acts for a second data set. These claims recite no additional element sufficient to integrate the exception or provide an inventive concept and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan (US 2013/0139003 A1) in view of Ur (US 2010/0275062 A1) and further in view of Finnerty (US 2016/0154805 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Patwardhan teaches:
A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of entries, each of the plurality of entries comprising a plurality of values, each of the plurality of values having an associated category of a plurality of categories (Para [0032], “the seed data 118-1 may be a production data which is the actual data or the production data on which the application to be tested, would eventually operate. The seed data 118-1 may be, for example, in form of a table”; Para [0031], “an average of a column of the seed data 118-1 or frequency distributions of data values in a column of the seed data 118-1”) Examiner Comments: Patwardhan receives seed/production data in the form of a table; the rows of the table are the claimed entries, the cell contents are the claimed values, and the columns of the table are the claimed categories with which the values are associated.
determining, [for each of the plurality of combination of categories and for each category of each combination of the plurality of combination of categories], a second associated frequency of values of the plurality of values having a particular value associated with each of the categories of the combination of categories (Para [0031], “frequency distributions of data values in a column of the seed data 118-1”) Examiner Comments: Patwardhan determines, for each column (category), the frequency distribution of the data values appearing in that column, which is the claimed second associated frequency of a particular value associated with a category.
providing the entries of the second matrix to a test entity to test an application (Para [0040], “the loading module 114 within the system 100 loads the data sets as test data 118-2 in a test database (not shown in the figure) for the purpose of testing an application”) Examiner Comments: Patwardhan provides the generated data sets to a test database (test entity) for the purpose of testing an application, reading on providing the entries to a test entity to test an application.
Patwardhan does not specifically teach:
defining a plurality of combinations of categories, each of the plurality of combinations of categories comprising at least one of the categories of the plurality of categories;
determining, for each of the plurality of combinations of categories, a first associated frequency of the received plurality of entries having values associated with the at least one of the categories of the respective combination of categories; and
generating a first matrix containing each of the plurality of combinations of categories and the first associated frequency.
However, Ur teaches:
defining a plurality of combinations of categories, each of the plurality of combinations of categories comprising at least one of the categories of the plurality of categories (Para [0056], “The requirement 420 provides that of the set of OS, mail client and browser, every two combinations should be tested. The requirement 422 provides that of the set of OS, browser, CPU and HBA (Host Bus Adapter) every three combinations of components should be tested”) Examiner Comments: Ur defines a plurality of combinations of components (categories), each combination comprising at least two or three of the categories, reading on the claimed defining of combinations of categories.
determining, for each of the plurality of combinations of categories, a first associated frequency of the received plurality of entries having values associated with the at least one of the categories of the respective combination of categories (Para [0048], “The report may indicate a number of times a task was executed by a test”) Examiner Comments: Ur determines, for a given combination of components (categories), the number of times entries corresponding to that combination occur, reading on determining a first associated frequency for each combination of categories.
generating a first matrix containing each of the plurality of combinations of categories and the first associated frequency (Para [0059], “The covered tests pane 440 comprises covered tests 450, 452 and 454 ... Covered test 450 indicates that a test was performed for which the browser was a Mozilla Firefox, The CPU was manufactured by Intel, the HBA was SCSI, the mail client was Microsoft Outlook and the OS was a 32 bit operating system”) Examiner Comments: Ur arranges the combinations of category values together with their associated counts in a table (matrix) of covered tests, reading on generating a first matrix containing the combinations of categories and the first associated frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination-of-categories definition and frequency tabulation of Ur with the production-data-based test data generation of Patwardhan in order to focus the generated test data on the most frequently occurring combinations of data categories, thereby producing a smaller, more representative test data set and reducing the number of tests required, as expressly taught by Ur (Summary/background).
Patwardhan and Ur do not specifically teach:
generating a second matrix having entries containing each of the combinations of categories and the values of the plurality of values having a highest second frequency.
However, Finnerty teaches:
generating a second matrix having entries containing each of the combinations of categories and the values of the plurality of values having a highest second frequency (Para [0032], “the MFV estimator 122 selects each column from the reservoir table (consolidated reservoir) and runs a query on the selected column”; Para [0024], “the MFV analysis obtains a descending list of most frequent values and associated frequencies ... The remaining top ‘n’ rows are the rows with the values having the highest frequencies”) Examiner Comments: Finnerty obtains, for each column (category), the most frequent values and their associated frequencies in descending order and selects the values having the highest frequencies, reading on selecting, for each category, the value having a highest second frequency for inclusion in the second matrix.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the most-frequent-value selection of Finnerty with Patwardhan and Ur in order to populate the resulting test data matrix with the values that most frequently occur in the production data for each category, so that the generated test data statistically resembles realistic data as desired by Patwardhan with minimal user input. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Finnerty operates on the same tabular, column-organized data used by Patwardhan and Ur.
Regarding Claim 2, Patwardhan, Ur, and Finnerty teach the method of claim 1. Finnerty further teaches associating a priority with each of the associated frequencies (Para [0024], “the MFV analysis obtains a descending list of most frequent values and associated frequencies”) Examiner Comments: Finnerty ranks the values and their associated frequencies in a descending list, thereby associating a priority (rank) with each associated frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the most-frequent-value selection of Finnerty with Patwardhan and Ur in order to populate the resulting test data matrix with the values that most frequently occur in the production data for each category, so that the generated test data statistically resembles realistic data as desired by Patwardhan with minimal user input. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Finnerty operates on the same tabular, column-organized data used by Patwardhan and Ur.
Regarding Claim 3, Patwardhan, Ur, and Finnerty teach the method of claim 2.
Finnerty further teaches, wherein a highest priority is associated with a highest frequency of the first associated frequencies (Para [0025], “The remaining top ‘n’ rows are the rows with the values having the highest frequencies”) Examiner Comments: Finnerty ranks the highest-frequency value at the top of the descending list, associating the highest priority with the highest frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the most-frequent-value selection of Finnerty with Patwardhan and Ur in order to populate the resulting test data matrix with the values that most frequently occur in the production data for each category, so that the generated test data statistically resembles realistic data as desired by Patwardhan with minimal user input. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Finnerty operates on the same tabular, column-organized data used by Patwardhan and Ur.
Regarding Claim 4, Patwardhan, Ur, and Finnerty teach the method of claim 1.
Patwardhan further teaches appending to the second matrix a third matrix containing a plurality of constant values (Para [0040], “the loading module 114 generates these temporary data sets by appending the non-transformed data in the primary data set 120-1 to the transformed data in the secondary data set(s) 120-2”) Examiner Comments: Patwardhan appends non-transformed (constant, retained) data values to the generated data set, reading on appending a third matrix containing a plurality of constant values.
Regarding Claim 5, Patwardhan, Ur, and Finnerty teach the method of claim 2.
Patwardhan further teaches determining the priority based on a combination of categories and associated first frequencies received from a customer (Para [0032], “the seed data 118-1 may be provided by a user of the system 100”) Examiner Comments: Patwardhan receives the seed data, including its column combinations and value frequencies, from a user (customer), and the priority is determined based on those customer-supplied frequencies; the priority determination is supplied by the combination with Finnerty.
Regarding Claim 6, Patwardhan, Ur, and Finnerty teach the method of claim 1.
Ur further teaches removing from the second matrix a first instance of a redundant combination of categories while maintaining a second instance (Para [0040], “The redundant tests 260 may define tests that are not illegal on the one hand, but are not required to be tested on the other”) Examiner Comments: Ur identifies redundant combinations of categories and removes them from the set of tests to be executed while retaining the necessary instance, reading on removing a first instance of a redundant combination while maintaining a second instance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination-of-categories definition and frequency tabulation of Ur with the production-data-based test data generation of Patwardhan in order to focus the generated test data on the most frequently occurring combinations of data categories, thereby producing a smaller, more representative test data set and reducing the number of tests required, as expressly taught by Ur (Summary/background).
Regarding Claim 7, Patwardhan, Ur, and Finnerty teach the method of claim 1.
Patwardhan further teaches receiving a second plurality of entries and generating additional matrices therefrom (Para [0034], “the transformation module 112 transforms the seed data 118-1 five times to generate the test data 118-2 which is five times the volume of the seed data 118-1 provided”) Examiner Comments: Patwardhan repeatedly processes additional pluralities of entries to generate additional (third and fourth) matrices of test data, reading on the recited receiving of a second plurality of entries and generating of third and fourth matrices; the frequency determinations are supplied by the combination with Ur and Finnerty as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 2 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 3 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 4 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 5 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 6 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 7 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15, is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method Claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method Claim 2 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method Claim 3 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18, is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method Claim 4 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method Claim 7 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-3451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/AMIR SOLTANZADEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights