DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/829,580 filed on September 10, 2024, presents claims 1-20 for examination, claims priority to Chinese application CN202311278001.8 filed on 9/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
para [0070], line 4, “second first coverage test data”, suggestion: - second -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised to proofread the spec.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12, “second first coverage rate test data”, suggestion: - second
Claims 8 and 15 have the same issue, and are objected to for the same reason.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to because they depend from their respective independent claims 1, 8, or 15.
Claim2, Lines 3-4, “the first software code” and “the second software code” are not clear whether they refer to the ones in claim 2 lines 1-2, or claim 1 line 11.
Claims 9 and 16 have the same issue and are objected to for the same reason.
Claim 5, lines 3-4, -the second code change record identifier-.
Claims 12 and 19 have the same issue and are objected to for the same reason.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, “nor the code change record identifier”, suggestion: - nor the second code change record identifier-.
Claims 13 and 20 have the same issue and are objected to for the same reason.
Claim 7, lines 2-3, “nor the code change record identifier”, suggestion: - nor the second code change record identifier-.
Claim 14 has the same issue and is objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“obtaining coverage rate test data to be processed and determining a code branch corresponding to the coverage rate test data to be processed, the coverage rate test data to be processed indicating a coverage rate of a software code corresponding to a first code change record identifier;
obtaining historical coverage rate test data corresponding to the code branch, the historical coverage rate test data indicating a coverage rate of a software code corresponding to a second code change record identifier; and
in case that the first code change record identifier or the second code change record identifier includes a latest code change record identifier corresponding to the code branch, determining a position of a first software code in a second software code and merging first coverage rate test data into second first coverage rate test data in accordance with the position of the first software code in the second software code, to obtain target coverage rate test data; wherein:
the first coverage rate test data is the coverage rate test data to be processed or the historical coverage rate test data, a code change record identifier corresponding to the first coverage rate test data does not include the latest code change record identifier, the second coverage rate test data is the coverage rate test data to be processed or the historical coverage rate test data, a code change record identifier corresponding to the second coverage rate test data includes the latest code change record identifier, the first software code is a software code corresponding to the first coverage rate test data, and the second software code is a software code corresponding to the second coverage rate test data.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually obtain coverage rate test data as defined in the claim, can manually obtain historical coverage rate test data as defined in the claim, can manually determine a position of a first software code in a second software code as defined in the claim, and can manually merge first coverage rate test data into second coverage rate test data to obtain target coverage rate test data as defined in the claim, can manually determine whether the first coverage rate test data is the coverage rate test data to be processed or the historical coverage rate test data, can manually determine a code change record identifier corresponding to the first coverage rate test data does not include the latest code change record identifier, can manually determine the second coverage rate test data is the coverage rate test data to be processed or the historical coverage rate test data, can manually determine a code change record identifier corresponding to the second coverage rate test data includes the latest code change record identifier, can manually determine the first software code is a software code corresponding to the first coverage rate test data, and the second software code is a software code corresponding to the second coverage rate test data as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, as the claim does not recite any additional elements.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the claim does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 8, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to an electronic device claim under Step 1.
This claim recites an electronic device to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 8 recites additional elements, i.e. “an electronic device”, “a processor”, and “a memory”, but these elements are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not constitute an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 15, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 15 recites additional elements, i.e. “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, and “a device”, but these elements are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not constitute an inventive concept.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, “wherein determining a position of a first software code in a second software code includes:
determining a position of a target code in the first software code in the second software code, the target code being an executed code indicated by the first coverage rate test data.” The claim further defines the determining process and is the same mental process.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, “wherein a software code corresponding to the first code change record identifier corresponds to a first software version, a software code corresponding to the second code change record identifier corresponds to a second software version, and the first software version is different from the second software version.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, “wherein the coverage rate test data to be processed include any one of:
full coverage rate test data, coverage rate test data produced during test, coverage rate test data corresponding to a test plan or coverage rate test data corresponding to a test use case.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, “further comprising:
determining the latest code change record identifier; and
judging whether the first code change record identifier and the code change record identifier include the latest code change record identifier.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually determine the latest code change record identifier, and can manually judge whether the first code change record identifier and the code change record identifier include the latest code change record identifier.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, “further comprising:
In case that neither the first code change record identifier nor the code change record identifier includes the latest code change record identifier and the first code change record is different from the second code change record, discarding the coverage rate test data to be processed.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually determine neither the first code change record identifier nor the code change record identifier includes the latest code change record identifier and the first code change record is different from the second code change record, and discarding the coverage rate test data to be processed.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, “further comprising:
in case that neither the first code change record identifier nor the code change record identifier includes the latest code change record identifier and the first code change record is the same as the second code change record, merging the coverage rate test data to be processed and the historical coverage rate test data.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually determine neither the first code change record identifier nor the code change record identifier includes the latest code change record identifier and the first code change record is the same as the second code change record, and merging the coverage rate test data to be processed and the historical coverage rate test data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by WANG (CN 111444087 A, hereinafter “WANG”, please refer to attached NPL copy).
With respect to claim 1, WANG anticipates A code coverage rate determining method, comprising:
obtaining coverage rate test data to be processed and determining a code branch corresponding to the coverage rate test data to be processed, the coverage rate test data to be processed indicating a coverage rate of a software code corresponding to a first code change record identifier (e.g. Fig. 3, p7, first paragraph, “In step S310, can obtain the target item of the current version of code coverage data, for example, from the coverage monitoring server 120. wherein the current version can be any version of the target version, such as the latest version of the target item, the version of the developer concerned, or the version needed to perform the supplementary test.” Wherein the version indicates a code branch corresponding to the coverage rate test data to be processed, and reads on a first code change record identifier);
obtaining historical coverage rate test data corresponding to the code branch, the historical coverage rate test data indicating a coverage rate of a software code corresponding to a second code change record identifier (e.g. p7, fourth paragraph, “In step S320, the code coverage data of the previous version adjacent to the target item can be acquired. wherein the adjacent previous version is the first version before the current version of the current version, namely the current version of the previous version. The code coverage data of the adjacent previous version can also be acquired from the coverage monitoring server 120.”); and
in case that the first code change record identifier or the second code change record identifier includes a latest code change record identifier corresponding to the code branch, determining a position of a first software code in a second software code and merging first coverage rate test data into second first coverage rate test data in accordance with the position of the first software code in the second software code, to obtain target coverage rate test data (e.g. p10, third paragraph, “Then, can be in the step S350, based on the code row corresponding relation, the previous version of the multi-version code coverage data and code coverage information of the current version, generating the current version of the multi-version code coverage data.” See steps 330-340, and corresponding text in p7 fifth paragraph to p10 second paragraph for determining a position of a first software code in a second software code); wherein:
the first coverage rate test data is the coverage rate test data to be processed or the historical coverage rate test data, a code change record identifier corresponding to the first coverage rate test data does not include the latest code change record identifier, the second coverage rate test data is the coverage rate test data to be processed or the historical coverage rate test data, a code change record identifier corresponding to the second coverage rate test data includes the latest code change record identifier, the first software code is a software code corresponding to the first coverage rate test data, and the second software code is a software code corresponding to the second coverage rate test data (the previous version coverage data reads on the first coverage rate test data, and the current version coverage data reads on the second coverage rate test data).
With respect to claim 2, WANG anticipates wherein determining a position of a first software code in a second software code includes:
determining a position of a target code in the first software code in the second software code, the target code being an executed code indicated by the first coverage rate test data (e.g. p10 fourth paragraph, “It can be understood that the code coverage data of one version comprises the coverage result of each code line in the version, the coverage result indicates whether the code line is covered. Specifically, for each code line of the current version, can obtain the coverage result of the code line from the code coverage data of the current version. and determining the corresponding code line of the code line in the previous version based on the corresponding relation of the code line. ….”).
With respect to claim 3, WANG anticipates wherein a software code corresponding to the first code change record identifier corresponds to a first software version, a software code corresponding to the second code change record identifier corresponds to a second software version, and the first software version is different from the second software version (e.g. Fig. 3 and corresponding text. Wherein, the previous version and current version read on the first code change record identifier and second code change record identifier respectively, and correspond to first software version and second software version respectively, the two versions are different).
With respect to claim 4, WANG anticipates wherein the coverage rate test data to be processed include any one of:
full coverage rate test data, coverage rate test data produced during test, coverage rate test data corresponding to a test plan or coverage rate test data corresponding to a test use case. (e.g. Fig. 3, p7, first paragraph, “In step S310, can obtain the target item of the current version of code coverage data, for example, from the coverage monitoring server 120. ….” Wherein the current version of code coverage data reads on full coverage rate rest data).
With respect to claim 8, it is directed to an electronic device to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 8. Note that, WANG teaches An electronic device comprising a processor and a memory;
the processor is provided for executing instructions stored in the memory to cause the device to perform a code coverage rate determining method comprising (e.g. p5 last paragraph, “FIG. 2 shows a schematic diagram of a computing device 200 according to one embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 2, in the basic configuration 202, computing device 200 typically comprises a system memory 206 and one or more processors 204. The memory bus 208 may be used to communicate between the processor 204 and the system memory 206.”):
With respect to claim 9, it recites same feature as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 10, it recites same feature as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 11, it recites same feature as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 15, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 15. Note that, WANG teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that instruct a device to execute a code coverage rate determining method comprising (e.g. p5 last paragraph, “FIG. 2 shows a schematic diagram of a computing device 200 according to one embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 2, in the basic configuration 202, computing device 200 typically comprises a system memory 206 and one or more processors 204. The memory bus 208 may be used to communicate between the processor 204 and the system memory 206.”):
With respect to claim 16, it recites same feature as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 17, it recites same feature as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 18, it recites same feature as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
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 of this title, 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 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (CN 111444087 A, hereinafter “WANG”, please refer to attached NPL copy) in view of GUO et al. (CN 107977309 A, hereinafter “GUO”, please refer to attached NPL copy).
With respect to claim 5, WANG anticipates The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly anticipate further comprising:
determining the latest code change record identifier; and
judging whether the first code change record identifier and the code change record identifier include the latest code change record identifier.
However, this is taught in analogous art, GUO (e.g. p10 third paragraph, “Here, in the actual application, the development process of an application program in the plurality of versions relating to the testing program, at this time, a specific version of application program it will correspond to a plurality of SVN version number. and the SVN version number can determine whether the current test program to the latest version program; ….” Wherein the latest version program suggests the latest code change record identifier. P10 last paragraph, “Case 3: the version of the application program is not updated (i.e., test software version number does not change), but the SVN version number ratio system in the latest version number is old, this situation for developers modifying the code during the test version, then re-packing the test personnel still using the old packet when testing. ….” Wherein the version of the application program reads on the second code change record identifier, and SVN version number is analogous to the first code change record identifier).
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 invention of WANG with the invention of GUO because it provides techniques for solving the existing technical problem to avoid manually analyzing the multiple coverage results which are not associated and complicated. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for solving the existing technical problem to avoid manually analyzing the multiple coverage results which are not associated and complicated as suggested by GUO (see p1 last paragraph to p2 third paragraph).
With respect to claim 6, WANG as modified by GUO discloses The method of claim 5, GUO further discloses further comprising:
In case that neither the first code change record identifier nor the code change record identifier includes the latest code change record identifier and the first code change record is different from the second code change record, discarding the coverage rate test data to be processed (e.g. P10 last to p11 first paragraph, “Case 3: the version of the application program is not updated (i.e., test software version number does not change), but the SVN version number ratio system in the latest version number is old, this situation for developers modifying the code during the test version, then re-packing the test personnel still using the old packet when testing. At this time, using svndiff tool based on the latest version number corresponding to the test code to obtain code change list of the current test version and the latest version, the number of new test coverage result reported by code changing list, converted into the number of the latest version, and if the line model is covered, the new version is changed, it is necessary to remove the covering state, …” Wherein the version of the application program reads on the second code change record identifier, and SVN version number is analogous to the first code change record identifier. Wherein the new version is changed suggests first code change record is different from the second code change record, and removing the covering state reads on discarding the coverage data. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 5).
With respect to claim 7, WANG as modified by GUO discloses The method of claim 5, GUO discloses further comprising:
in case that neither the first code change record identifier nor the code change record identifier includes the latest code change record identifier (e.g. p10 third paragraph, “Here, in the actual application, the development process of an application program in the plurality of versions relating to the testing program, at this time, a specific version of application program it will correspond to a plurality of SVN version number. and the SVN version number can determine whether the current test program to the latest version program; ….” Wherein the latest version program suggests the latest code change record identifier. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 5). WANG further discloses and the first code change record is the same as the second code change record, merging the coverage rate test data to be processed and the historical coverage rate test data (e.g. P7 third paragraph, “It should be pointed out that under the condition of distributed test, can obtain the target item current version of the plurality of code coverage data, therefore, it also can combine the plurality of code coverage data of the current version. At this time, because the plurality of code coverage data are the same version, can call the coverage monitoring server 120 of combining (merge) command to combine, and will not cause cross-version combined data error problem.” Wherein the same version indicates the first code change record is the same as the second code change record).
With respect to claim 12, it recites same feature as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 13, it recites same feature as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 14, it recites same feature as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 19, it recites same feature as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 20, it recites same feature as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, JAIN et al., US 20230350788 A1 teaches method and system for providing delta code coverage information for work items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights