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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al (CN108427637, Mao hereinafter) in view of Wu (CN110069400) and Roth (US20080010539).
Regarding claim 1, Mao discloses: A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 4, “The processor 12 can be in some embodiments a central processing unit … , for running the program code stored in the memory” (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 3, “...The memory 11 can also be to be equipped on the External memory equipment of the electronic device 1, such as the electronic device 1 in further embodiments Plug-in type hard disk, intelligent memory card (Smart Media Card, SMC), secure digital (Secure Digital, SD) card, Flash card (Flash Card)...”), the operations comprising:
receiving a user story triggering a modification to software applications (see Mao, Abstract, “...determines the change code of software systems to be tested, and according to the mapping relations between predetermined code and user's story number, determines the corresponding user's story number of the change code...”);
mapping the plurality of predetermined fields to test tags (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 10, “...user's story ‘registration’ number is ‘1’, user's story ‘login’ number is ‘ 2’...”); and
automatically identifying tests based on the mapped test tags (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 13, “...according to the mapping relations between predetermined user's story number and test cases... Change the corresponding user's story number mapped test cases of code...”);
Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
retrieving a plurality of predetermined fields from the received user story;
automatically executing the identified tests using the execution keys; and
transmitting an automated test status notification containing execution results of the identified tests.
However, Wu discloses:
retrieving a plurality of predetermined fields from the received user story (see Wu, page 5 paragraph 12, “...extracting the field label and expected result in initial user story model, obtained according to the field label... The quantity required of every field is taken...”); and
transmitting an automated test status notification containing execution results of the identified tests (see Wu, page 4 paragraph 18, “S3 sends the loophole list to the server for being used for leak analysis, receives the service for being used for leak analysis... Test report is generated after the feedback information of device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include retrieving a plurality of predetermined fields from the received user story and transmitting an automated test status notification containing execution results of the identified tests as taught by Wu, for the result of providing requirement-traceable targeted testing with automatic outcome reporting.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
automatically executing the identified tests using the execution keys;
However, Roth discloses:
mapping (see Roth, paragraph [0013], “...A software tester can then associate one or more keywords with test scripts that can later be selected for automating tests...”), (see Roth, paragraph [0025], “...the keyword engine component 106 can employ keywords from the glossary and identify test components... corresponding to the keywords...”); and
automatically executing the identified tests using the execution keys (see Roth, paragraph [0014], “...When a test script references a keyword, the improved software testing system can execute associated components and provide parameters identified in the glossary corresponding to the referenced keyword...”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include mapping to execution keys and automatically executing the identified tests using the execution keys as taught by Roth, for the result of providing a stored and reusable association between each identified test and an executable key to automatically drive execution.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Wu, and Roth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spektor et al. (WO2014027990, Spektor hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
providing the identified tests to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline.
However, Spektor discloses:
providing the identified tests to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline (see Spektor, paragraph [0011], “...the continuous deployment pipeline may include building the code, executing unit tests, deploying the code, running automated tests, staging the code, running end-to-end tests, and deploying the code to production....”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include providing the identified tests to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline as taught by Spektor, for the result of executing tests continuously and enabling faster and more reliable code changes.
Claims 3, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Wu, and Roth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Canter (US20200379891).
Regarding claim 3, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
wherein the test tags comprise test suite tags and test case tags, and the automatically identifying tests further comprise
identifying the tests associated with the test case tags in test suites of the test suites tags.
However, Canter discloses:
wherein the test tags comprise test suite tags and test case tags (see Canter, paragraph [0176], “...authorized users may add or delete suite tags from the test header attribute “Suite Tags.” This adds or removes the test to/from the associated test suite.”), (see Canter paragraph [0103], “...each prefix can have up to 50 tags, which are inherited by the tag field in test headers.”), and the automatically identifying tests further comprise
identifying the tests associated with the test case tags in test suites of the test suites tags (see Canter, paragraph [0103], “...The naming prefix repository provides user-standardized script name prefixing so that test identification by application-under-test modules or functionality can be separately identified and grouped into test suites...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include test suite tags, test case tags, and identifying the tests associated with the test case tags in test suites of the test suites tags as taught by Canter, for the result of allowing the system to resolve which tests to run.
Regarding claim 5, Mao discloses: wherein the mapping further comprises
using a plurality of reference files including (see Mao, Abstract, “...determines the change code of software systems to be tested, and according to the mapping relations between predetermined code and user's story number, determines the corresponding user's story number of the change code...”).
Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Roth discloses:
using a plurality of reference files including (see Roth, paragraph [0013], “...The specified keywords are stored in a glossary of keywords. As an example, the specified keywords can be stored in an extensible markup language (XML) document...”), (see Roth, paragraph [0023], “...a glossary 200 can include keywords 202 and runtime states 204. Keywords are commands or sets of commands that the improved software testing system can execute when executing a test script...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include an execution key reference file as taught by Roth, for the result of allowing the system to resolve each key to the commands that run the corresponding test.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Canter discloses:
using a plurality of reference files including a test suite reference file, (see Canter, paragraph [0121], “...Test scripts are added or deleted to Named Test Suite Collections...”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include a test suite reference file as taught by Canter, for the result of allowing the system to resolve which test belong to a given suite.
Regarding claim 6, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
generating the automated test status notification that contains the execution results of the identified tests including a pass test and a failed test,
wherein the automated test status notification further contains the test suite tags, test case tags, and a status of the execution results in a predetermined format.
However, Canter discloses:
generating the automated test status notification that contains the execution results of the identified tests including a pass test and a failed test (see Canter, paragraph [0178], “...When a user is authorized to execute tests (aside from the tests they author) they can perform Tier 1 maintenance on scripts that fail (or notify the test author to perform the maintenance). All tests being maintained under Tier 1 maintenance can be flagged as “Tier 1 Fix.” If the user is unable to resolve an issue encountered in an execution attempt, the test status “Tier 2 Fix” can be set. This will generate an email notification to the Automation Engineer...”), (see Canter, paragraph [0177], “...Test results are logged to the test step level with Pass or Fail outcomes...”),
wherein the automated test status notification further contains the test suite tags, test case tags, and a status of the execution results in a predetermined format (see Canter, paragraph [0178]), (see Canter, paragraph [0176], “...authorized users may add or delete suite tags from the test header attribute “Suite Tags.” This adds or removes the test to/from the associated test suite.”), (see Canter paragraph [0103], “...each prefix can have up to 50 tags, which are inherited by the tag field in test headers.”), (see Canter, paragraph [0177]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include generating the automated test status notification that contains the execution results of the identified tests including a pass test and a failed test and test suite tags, test case tags, and a status of the execution results in a predetermined format as taught by Canter, for the result of allowing recipients to easily determine which tests passed or failed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Wu, Roth and Canter as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gerber et al. (US20050251719, Gerber hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the test case tags comprise
a test creation and a test cleanup upon completion of the test creation.
However, Gerber discloses: wherein the test case tags comprise
a test creation and a test cleanup upon completion of the test creation (see Gerber, [0071], “Execution attributes are used to mark a method as a test method... Examples of execution attributes include “Setup”, “Step”, and “Teardown” attributes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include a test creation and a test cleanup upon completion of the test creation as taught by Gerber, for the result of ensuring that every test runs against a properly prepared isolated environment and leaves no residual state behind.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Wu, Roth and Canter as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US20190073293, Sharma hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
creating an assignment of defects for the failed test using a project tracking tool; and
sending the assignment of defects for the failed test to a software tester.
However, Sharma discloses:
creating an assignment of defects for the failed test using a project tracking tool (see Sharma, paragraph [0027], “...ML engine 105 uses the test management tool and its Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to file the failure or exception as a new defect...”), (see Sharma, paragraph [0031], “...logging the failure or exception as a defect or bug in the bug/defect tracking tool 106 i.e. for e.g. JIRA, Bugzilla etc., so that a developer can look at it to fix it.”); and
sending the assignment of defects for the failed test to a software tester (see Sharma, paragraph [0034], “...the notification of the stakeholders is done by an automated notification system 107, when the ticket is created or reopened in the defect tracking system. The notification is done via email or instant messaging about the respective ticket.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include creating an assignment of defects for the failed test using a project tracking tool and sending the assignment of defects for the failed test to a software tester as taught by Sharma, for the result of capturing, tracking, and delivering failures for remediation.
Claim 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al (CN108427637, Mao hereinafter) in view of Wu (CN110069400), Spektor et al. (WO2014027990, Spektor hereinafter), and Canter (US20200379891).
Regarding claim 8, Mao discloses: A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 4, “The processor 12 can be in some embodiments a central processing unit … , for running the program code stored in the memory”, the operations comprising:
automatically determining tests to execute (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 13, “...according to the mapping relations between predetermined user's story number and test cases... Change the corresponding user's story number mapped test cases of code...”) by:
converting (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 8, “Step S1 determines the change code of software systems to be tested, and according to predetermined code and user's story Mapping relations between number... determine the corresponding user's story number of the change code.”); and
determining test information including (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 10, “...a user's story number may map a corresponding test cases, it is also possible to which correspondence is more A test cases.”);
Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
receiving input data having a plurality of fields tied to requirements, with a project tracking tool that stores the requirements;
providing the determined test information to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline;
automatically executing the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites through the CI/CD pipeline; and
generating a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Wu discloses:
receiving input data having a plurality of fields tied to requirements, (see Wu, page 5 paragraph 12, “...extracting the field label and expected result in initial user story model, obtained according to the field label... The quantity required of every field is taken...”); and
converting the plurality of fields (see Wu, page 5 paragraph 12, “...extracting the field label and expected result in initial user story model, obtained according to the field label The quantity required of every field is taken... and is converted to hexadecimal desired value, will be described hexadecimal Desired value and the field label carry out the user's story model after permutation and combination is verified.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include receiving input data having a plurality of fields tied to requirements converting the plurality of fields as taught by Wu, for the result of driving test determination directly from the requirement-bearing content of the input.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
providing the determined test information to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline;
automatically executing the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites through the CI/CD pipeline; and
generating a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Spektor discloses:
providing the determined test information to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline (see Spektor, paragraph [0020], “...The test device 120 is also configured to execute a set of test scripts on the continuous deployment pipeline in an application under test environment to integrate the code changes for use in a software application.”);
automatically executing the one or more test cases (see Spektor, paragraph [0011], “... the continuous deployment pipeline may include building the code, executing unit tests, deploying the code, running automated tests...”); and
generating a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases (see Spektor, paragraph [0030], “...The determination of the performance value may also include correlating the performance value to a specific portion of the second code base, such as a line of code and/or a function. The performance value may be provided as a performance report via email and/or published via communication channels. The performance value may also be stored in a data store 180, such as a test result repository that stores the daily test results and stores the data for current and previous test results therein.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include providing the determined test information to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline, automatically executing the one or more test cases through the CI/CD pipeline, and generating a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases as taught by Spektor, for the result of automatically allowing tests to run and reporting results.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Canter discloses:
receiving input data (see Canter, Abstract, “A system for automating testing of a software product is provided including an automation test framework module configured to receive input from the framework to define and maintain test suite modules to test the software product including object requirements for tests based on user stories and/or requirements associated with the software product...”), (see Canter, paragraph [0135], “...The Third party test management tools include HP-ALM, IBM Test Manager, and others...”);
determining test information including one or more test suites (see Canter, paragraph [0121], “Test scripts are added or deleted to Named Test Suite Collections.”);
automatically executing the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites (see Canter, paragraph [0177], “...For test suites, tests will be executed in the order listed in the test suite”); and
generating a test status (see Canter, paragraph [0177], “...Test results are logged to the test step level with Pass or Fail outcomes...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include receiving input data tied to requirements, with a project tracking tool that stores the requirements, determining test information including one or more test suites, automatically executing the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites, and generating a test status containing test results of the executed one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Canter, for the result of automatically populating and driving the requirement-tied test suites with the appropriate test cases.
Regarding claim 13, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose: upon the receiving of the input data,
automating the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Spektor discloses:
automating the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites (see Spektor, paragraph [0007], “...The automation begins after a code change is committed to a source configuration management (SCM) tool. When the code change is committed to the SCM tool, the code change is assigned to a particular continuous deployment pipeline (CD pipeline or deployment pipeline). The code change moves through the continuous deployment pipeline as the code change is tested as part of a code base or an assembly of code.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include automating the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Spektor, for the result of eliminating the need for human intervention with regards to determining and executing tests.
Regarding claim 15, Mao discloses: A method, comprising:
automatically running, by a processing system including a processor, a test deterministic process (see Mao, Abstract, “...determines the change code of software systems to be tested, and according to the mapping relations between predetermined code and user's story number, determines the corresponding user's story number of the change code...”), (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 4, “The processor 12 can be in some embodiments a central processing unit (Central Processing Unit, CPU)...”) including:
converting (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 8, “Step S1 determines the change code of software systems to be tested, and according to predetermined code and user's story Mapping relations between number... determine the corresponding user's story number of the change code.”), (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 10, “...user's story " registration " number is " 1 ", user's story " login " number is " 2 "...”); and
determining test information including (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 10, “...a user's story number may map a corresponding test cases, it is also possible to which correspondence is more A test cases.”);
Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
receiving a user story having a plurality of fields tied to requirements, with a project tracking tool that stores the requirements;
incorporating, by the processing system, the test deterministic process to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline;
triggering, by the processing system, execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites, in the CI/CD pipeline; and
generating, by the processing system, a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Wu discloses:
receiving a user story having a plurality of fields tied to requirements (see Wu, page 5 paragraph 12, “...extracting the field label and expected result in initial user story model, obtained according to the field label... The quantity required of every field is taken...”),
converting the plurality of fields (see Wu, page 5 paragraph 12, “...extracting the field label and expected result in initial user story model, obtained according to the field label The quantity required of every field is taken... and is converted to hexadecimal desired value, will be described hexadecimal Desired value and the field label carry out the user's story model after permutation and combination is verified.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include receiving a user story having a plurality of fields tied to requirements and converting the plurality of fields as taught by Wu, for the result of driving the test process directly from a requirement-bearing user story held in a managed tracking tool.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
incorporating, by the processing system, the test deterministic process to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline;
triggering, by the processing system, execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites, in the CI/CD pipeline; and
generating, by the processing system, a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Spektor discloses:
incorporating, by the processing system, the test deterministic process to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline (see Spektor, paragraph [0023], “...The test engine 122 represents generally a combination of hardware and/or programming that execute a set of customized test scripts in the continuous deployment pipeline...”);
triggering, by the processing system, execution of the one or more test cases (see Spektor, paragraph [0007], “...The automation begins after a code change is committed to a source configuration management (SCM) tool. When the code change is committed to the SCM tool, the code change is assigned to a particular continuous deployment pipeline (CD pipeline or deployment pipeline). The code change moves through the continuous deployment pipeline as the code change is tested as part of a code base or an assembly of code.”); and
generating, by the processing system, a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases (see Spektor, paragraph [0047], “...The reporting may include distribution via push channels, such as email and/or publish cannels, such as a continuous delivery dashboard...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include incorporating the test deterministic process to a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline, triggering the execution of the one or more test cases, and generating a test status notification containing test results of the executed one or more test cases as taught by Spektor, for the result of embedding the deterministic test process into the integration and deployment flow.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Canter discloses:
receiving a user story (see Canter, paragraph [0135], “...The Third party test management tools include HP-ALM, IBM Test Manager, and others...”);
determining test information including one or more test suites (see Canter, paragraph [0121], “Test scripts are added or deleted to Named Test Suite Collections.”);
triggering, by the processing system, execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites, (see Canter, paragraph [0177], “...For test suites, tests will be executed in the order listed in the test suite”); and
generating, by the processing system, a test status (see Canter, paragraph [0177], “...Test results are logged to the test step level with Pass or Fail outcomes...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include receiving a user story tied to requirements, with a project tracking tool that stores the requirements, determining test information including one or more test suites, triggering the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites, and generating a test status containing test results of the executed one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Canter, for the result of automatically populating and driving the requirement-tied test suites with the appropriate test cases.
Regarding claim 16, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
automatically notifying, by the processing system, a group of developers and a group of testers of the test results via the test status notification.
However, Spektor discloses:
automatically notifying, by the processing system, a group of developers (see Spektor, paragraph [0047], “The performance values 388 are then reported in block 580. The reporting may include distribution via push channels, such as email and/or publish cannels, such as a continuous delivery dashboard...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include automatically notifying a group of developers of the test results via the test status notification as taught by Spektor, for the result of increasing the efficiency the notification of test results to the relevant parties.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Canter discloses:
automatically notifying, by the processing system, (see Canter, paragraph [0178], “...When a user is authorized to execute tests (aside from the tests they author) they can perform Tier 1 maintenance on scripts that fail (or notify the test author to perform the maintenance). All tests being maintained under Tier 1 maintenance can be flagged as “Tier 1 Fix.” If the user is unable to resolve an issue encountered in an execution attempt, the test status “Tier 2 Fix” can be set. This will generate an email notification to the Automation Engineer...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include automatically notifying a group of testers of the test results via the test status notification as taught by Canter, for the result of increasing the efficiency the notification of test results to the relevant parties.
Regarding claim 18, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose: upon the receiving of the user story,
automating, by the processing system, identification of the test information and execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Canter discloses:
automating, by the processing system, identification of the test information and execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites (see Canter, paragraph [0103], “...The naming prefix repository provides user-standardized script name prefixing so that test identification by application-under-test modules or functionality can be separately identified and grouped into test suites...”), (see Canter, paragraph [0177], “...For test suites, tests will be executed in the order listed in the test suite”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include automating identification of the test information and execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Canter, for the result of eliminating the need for human intervention with regards to identifying and executing tests.
Regarding claim 19, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose: in response to the user story,
executing, by the processing system, a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information and execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites.
However, Canter discloses:
executing, by the processing system, a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information and execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites (see Canter, Abstract, “A system for automating testing of a software product is provided...”), (see Canter, paragraph [0121], “...Test scripts are added or deleted to Named Test Suite Collections...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include executing a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information and execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Canter, for the result of increasing the efficiency of the identification and execution of tests.
Regarding claim 20, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose: in response to the user story,
performing, by the processing system, a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information, execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites via the CI/CD pipeline, and the generation of the test status notification.
However, Spektor discloses:
performing, by the processing system, a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information, execution of the one or more test cases (see Spektor, paragraph [0007], “...The automation begins after a code change is committed to a source configuration management (SCM) tool. When the code change is committed to the SCM tool, the code change is assigned to a particular continuous deployment pipeline (CD pipeline or deployment pipeline). The code change moves through the continuous deployment pipeline as the code change is tested as part of a code base or an assembly of code.”), and the generation of the test status notification (see Spektor, paragraph [0047], “...The reporting may include distribution via push channels, such as email and/or publish cannels, such as a continuous delivery dashboard...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include performing a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information, execution of the one or more test cases via the CI/CD pipeline and the generation of the test status notification as taught by Spektor, for the result of bringing the identification, pipeline execution, and result reporting together into a continuous and autonomous flow triggered by the user story.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Canter discloses:
performing, by the processing system, a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information, execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites (see Canter, Abstract, “A system for automating testing of a software product is provided...”), (see Canter, paragraph [0121], “...Test scripts are added or deleted to Named Test Suite Collections...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include performing a hyperautomation process that converges identification of the test information, execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Canter, for the result of bringing the identification of tests and their execution within the test suites together into a continuous and autonomous flow triggered by the user story.
Claims 9 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Wu, Spektor, and Canter as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US20190073293, Sharma hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: based on the test status notification containing a failed test result among the test results, automatically creating a defect assignment with the project tracking tool.
However, Sharma discloses:
based on the test status notification containing a failed test result among the test results, automatically creating a defect assignment with the project tracking tool (see Sharma, paragraph [0038], “...once the bug ticket is created or reopened, the system will automatically notify the stakeholders...”), (see Sharma, paragraph [0027], “...ML engine 105 uses the test management tool and its Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to file the failure or exception as a new defect...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include automatically creating a defect assignment with the project tracking tool as taught by Sharma, for the result of automatically capturing failures for remediation.
Regarding claim 17, Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
automatically, by the processing system, generating, with the project tracking tool, an assignment of a defect based on the test status notification containing a failed test among the test results.
However, Sharma discloses:
automatically, by the processing system, generating, with the project tracking tool, an assignment of a defect based on the test status notification containing a failed test among the test results (see Sharma, paragraph [0038], “...once the bug ticket is created or reopened, the system will automatically notify the stakeholders...”), (see Sharma, paragraph [0027], “...ML engine 105 uses the test management tool and its Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to file the failure or exception as a new defect...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include automatically generating an assignment of a defect based on the test status notification containing a failed test among the test results as taught by Sharma, for the result of automatically capturing failures for remediation.
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Wu, Spektor, and Canter as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Roth (US20080010539).
Regarding claim 10, Mao discloses: wherein the converting the plurality of fields into the test tags further comprise
mapping the plurality of fields to the test tags (see Mao, page 4 paragraph 10, “...user's story " registration " number is " 1 ", user's story " login " number is " 2 "...”).
Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Roth discloses:
mapping (see Roth, paragraph [0023], “...a glossary 200 can include keywords 202 and runtime states 204. Keywords are commands or sets of commands that the improved software testing system can execute when executing a test script...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include mapping execution keys as taught by Roth, for the result of determining what to test and how to test it.
Regarding claim 11, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the mapping further comprises
using a plurality of reference files to map the plurality of fields to a test suite tag, a test case tag and execution keys.
However, Canter discloses:
using a plurality of reference files to map the plurality of fields to a test suite tag, a test case tag (see Canter, paragraph [0176], “...authorized users may add or delete suite tags from the test header attribute “Suite Tags.” This adds or removes the test to/from the associated test suite.”), (see Canter paragraph [0103], “...each prefix can have up to 50 tags, which are inherited by the tag field in test headers.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include using a plurality of reference files to map the plurality of fields to a test suite tag and a test case tag as taught by Canter, for the result of increasing the efficiency of the identification step.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Roth discloses:
using a plurality of reference files to map (see Roth, paragraph [0013], “...The specified keywords are stored in a glossary of keywords. As an example, the specified keywords can be stored in an extensible markup language (XML) document...”), (see Roth, paragraph [0023], “...a glossary 200 can include keywords 202 and runtime states 204. Keywords are commands or sets of commands that the improved software testing system can execute when executing a test script...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include using a plurality of reference files to map execution keys as taught by Roth, for the result of increasing the efficiency of the identification step.
Regarding claim 12, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose:
transmitting the test status notification containing the test results to a group of software testers.
However, Canter discloses:
transmitting the test status notification containing the test results to a group of software testers (see Canter, paragraph [0178], “...When a user is authorized to execute tests (aside from the tests they author) they can perform Tier 1 maintenance on scripts that fail (or notify the test author to perform the maintenance). All tests being maintained under Tier 1 maintenance can be flagged as ‘Tier 1 Fix.’ If the user is unable to resolve an issue encountered in an execution attempt, the test status ‘Tier 2 Fix’ can be set. This will generate an email notification to the Automation Engineer...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include transmitting the test status notification containing the test results to a group of software testers as taught by Canter, for the result of increasing the efficiency the notification of test results to the relevant parties.
Regarding claim 14, Mao does not appear to distinctly disclose: in response to the input data,
performing a hyperautomation process that converges the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites via the CI/CD pipeline, and the generation of the test status notification.
However, Spektor discloses:
performing a hyperautomation process that converges the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases (see Spektor, paragraph [0007], “...The automation begins after a code change is committed to a source configuration management (SCM) tool. When the code change is committed to the SCM tool, the code change is assigned to a particular continuous deployment pipeline (CD pipeline or deployment pipeline). The code change moves through the continuous deployment pipeline as the code change is tested as part of a code base or an assembly of code.”), and the generation of the test status notification (see Spektor, paragraph [0047], “...The reporting may include distribution via push channels, such as email and/or publish cannels, such as a continuous delivery dashboard...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include performing a hyperautomation process that converges the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases via the CI/CD pipeline and the generation of the test status notification as taught by Spektor, for the result of bringing the determination, pipeline execution, and result reporting together into a single continuous and automated flow triggered by the input data.
Mao as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose:
However, Canter discloses:
performing a hyperautomation process that converges the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites (see Canter, Abstract, “A system for automating testing of a software product is provided...”), (see Canter, paragraph [0121], “...Test scripts are added or deleted to Named Test Suite Collections...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified a method for recommending test cases as taught by Mao, to include performing a hyperautomation process that converges the determination of the test information and the execution of the one or more test cases in the one or more test suites as taught by Canter, for the result of bring the determination of the tests and their execution within the organized test suites together into a single continuous and automated sequence triggered by the input data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Joshua Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-5460.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on (571)272-6799. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the
automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA TRAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights