DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed September 10, 2024. Currently Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 and the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: System and Method for Software Path Tracing and Testing for Microservices, or System and Method for Application Program Interface Tracing and Testing for Microservices, Application Program Interface Tracing and Testing for Microservices Removing Redundant Paths or the like.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 8, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of software testing. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, software testing (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to determining that an abnormality occurs in any request path among one or more request paths and specifies a content of a business impacted by the request path where the abnormality occurs, wherein software testing is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “collect”, “generate”, “acquire”, “determine”, “determine” and “specifies” recite functions of the software testing are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 8 appears to be to specify a content of a business impacted by a request path wherein an abnormality occurs (e.g. Figure 12, Element 581 – alert – response time 500ms or longer, orderID, productID).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the businesses (e.g. human entities, companies) and the generic computer elements: presentation apparatus and units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) including instruction. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: presentation apparatus, units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) including instruction. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 3). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's software testing in the general field of quality assurance and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)¬ (h)), Claims 1-14 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited presentation apparatus and units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) including instruction," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generate user case association, determine whether a redundant path exists, determine whether an abnormality occurs, specifies a content of a business impacted by the request all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a presentation apparatus and units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps collect test record information and acquire trace data are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic apparatus (i.e. processor/computer) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Claims 8-14 fail to positively, in the body of the claims, recite who or what entity performs the method steps accordingly the claims have been interpreted to cover performance of the method steps by a human/mentally. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic presentation apparatus and units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic apparatus (i.e. processor/computer) merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of software testing and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 8.
Claims 2 and 9 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the trace data to include processing times required and when a processing time exceeds a threshold determining that an abnormality as occurred (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 10 further limit the abstract idea by extracts all paths including the request path that does not reach target value (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 11 further limit the abstract idea by determined whether a request path to be analyzed exists in the trace data when the path does not exist a content related to the path is analyzed, when it does exist the content related to each microservices connected to the path are analyzed (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by display and adjust displayed content based on analysis results of the monitored software (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by display a component of the monitored software and adjust the content based on an analysis result, highlighted a request path that does not reach a target value (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by display and adjust display based on analysis including in a highlighted manner the impact path to be analyzed (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1-14, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a presentation apparatus, units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a presentation apparatus, units (software per se; test log collection, use case association, monitoring information acquisition, trace data shaping unity, business impact range analysis) and microservices (software per se) including instructions merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopalan et al., U.S. Patent No. 10169220 in view of Davison et al., U.S. Patent No. 7793267.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Rajagopalan et al. discloses a system (apparatus; Figure 14) and method comprising:
Collect test record information (Figure 2, Element 202; Figure 5; Column 8, Lines 24-68) indicating an execution result of a test on monitored software in which one or more operation steps each indicating a component of each content of a plurality of businesses (Figures 11B, 11C, 12, 13, 14) and a plurality of microservices (software, applications, code, objects, subroutines, etc.; Abstract) that execute processing by an operation of the one or more operation steps are connected via one or more request paths (route, flow, trace, API, etc.; Abstract; Figures 5, 11B, 11C, 12, 13, 14), and collect test case information indicating a relationship between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operation steps (Figure 2, Element 202; Figure 5; Column 8, Lines 24-68; Columns 9, 10);
Generate use case association information by associating, based on the test record information and the test case information collected, a request path corresponding to each of the operation steps among the one or more request paths with the content of each of the businesses (e.g. state transition graph; Figures 4, 6-8A; Column 5, Lines 37-68; Column 6, Lines 37-68; Column 8, Ines 48-68; Column 9);
Acquire trace data indicating an execution result of each of the microservices as an execution result in a production environment for the monitored software (e.g. live; Column 6, Lines 37-68; Column 21, Lines 30-58; Figure 5);
Determine whether a redundant (repeat, duplicate, parallel passthrough, backup, alternative, etc.) request path exists among the request paths during normal operation (Abstract; Column 6, Lines 1-17, 55-60; Figure 10);
Determine based on the acquired trace data whether an abnormality (fault, failure, unusual, unexpected, error, bug, bottleneck, irregularity, exception, etc.) occurs in any request path among the one or more request paths (Figures 9, 10; Column 5, Lines 1-35; Column 16, Lines 26-68; Columns 17, 18) wherein when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the any request path referring to the use case association information based on the any request path and specify a content of a business impacted by the request path where the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses (Column 6, Lines 1-9; Column 13, Lines 38-68; Column 14; Figure 2, Element 302).
While Rajagopalan et al. discloses reducing redundant tests/paths (Abstract; Column 6, Lines 5-60) does not disclose excluding redundant paths as claimed.
Davison et al., from the same field of endeavor of software testing, discloses a system and method comprising:
Determine whether a redundant request path exists among the request paths during normal operation and create when the redundant path exists trace data excluding the redundant request path (Figure 11; Column 15, Lines 20-25; Column 15, Lines 60-68; Column 16, Lines 1-40);
Determine based on the acquired trace data whether an abnormality occurs in any request path among the one or more request paths wherein when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the any request path referring to the use case association information based on the any request path excluding paths and specify a content of a business impacted by the request path where the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses (Figures 11, 12; Column 16, Lines 1-40; Column 18, Lines 20-38).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Rajagopalan et al. would have benefited from excluding redundant paths in view of the disclosure of Davison et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Rajagopalan et al. discloses a system and method wherein
The trade data includes, as a processing time required for processing each request by each of the operation steps OR each of the microservices, a processing time of each request in each of the request paths (Column 5, Lines 1-35; Column 16, Lines 26-68; Columns 17, 18; Figures 9, 10); and
Refers to the trace data to compare the processing time of each request with a set threshold (target, min, max, limit, etc.; e.g. timeouts, tires, etc.) and when a processing time exceeds of any requests exceeds the threshold determining that the abnormality occurs and analyzes a request path of the request path whose processing time exceeds the threshold wherein the abnormality occurs and a request path that does not reach a target value (Column 5, Lines 1-35; Column 16, Lines 26-68; Columns 17, 18; Figure 10).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Rajagopalan et al. discloses a system and method wherein
Refer to the use case association information based on the request path that does not reach a target value, and extracts, each as a request path to be analyzed, all request paths including the request path that does not reach the target value from among the one or more request paths (Column 5, Lines 1-35; Column 16, Lines 26-68; Columns 17, 18; Figures 9, 10).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Rajagopalan et al. discloses a system and method further comprising display a component of the monitored software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact, wherein the displayed component includes the monitored path including the excluded redundant request path (Figures 4, 6; Figure 14, Element 1412).
Claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopalan et al., U.S. Patent No. 10169220 in view of Davison et al., U.S. Patent No. 7793267 as applied to the claims above and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Rajagopalan et al. discloses a system and method further comprising display a component of the monitored software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact, wherein the displayed component displays the path where the abnormality occurs (Figures 4, 6; Figure 14, Element 1412).
Rajagopalan et al. does not disclose highlighting the path as claimed.
Official notice is taken that highlighting a path where an abnormality occurs, in software engineering, is old, well-known, conventional and routine. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Kaga et al., U.S. Patent No. 12248769 (Figure 10, Elements 716, 718; DETX 69); Kang et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220172037 (Paragraph 37); Bucuvalas, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110283260 (Paragraph 16); Burghard et al., U.S. Patent No. 8943370 (DETX 8, 9); and Hoermann et al., U.S. Patent No. 10657031 (DETX 27).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by the combination of Rajagopalan et al. and Davison et al. with its ability to display the path where an abnormality occurs would have benefited from highlighting the path with the abnormality in view of official notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Rajagopalan et al. discloses a system and method further comprising display a component of the monitored software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact and displays the content of the business possibly impacted by the request path to be analyzed in the component of the monitored software (Figures 11, 12; Column 16, Lines 1-40; Column 18, Lines 20-38) and the content of the business impacted by the request path to be analyzed (Figures 4, 6; Figure 14, Element 1412).
Rajagopalan et al. does not disclose highlighting as claimed.
Official notice is taken that highlighting, in software engineering, is old, well-known, conventional and routine. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Kaga et al., U.S. Patent No. 12248769 (Figure 10, Elements 716, 718; DETX 69); Kang et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220172037 (Paragraph 37); Bucuvalas, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110283260 (Paragraph 16); Burghard et al., U.S. Patent No. 8943370 (DETX 8, 9); and Hoermann et al., U.S. Patent No. 10657031 (DETX 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120124428, discloses a software testing system and method comprising test cases, use cases, capturing/acquiring software trace records/logs and extracting software performance from traces.
Cooper et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160103750 discloses a software monitoring system and method comprising alerting/notifying when API performance does not meet a threshold (P63, 64).
Hu et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150058826 discloses a software testing system and method comprising removing redundant operations in paths (Paragraph 13, 31, 78; Claims 3, 4)
Fang, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200204461 discloses a testing system and method including publishing/reporting via a dashboard that an API failed/does not pass (Paragraph 8; Figure 3, Element 310)
Balasubramanian et al. U.S. Patent No. 11093378 discloses a software testing system and method comprising monitoring and alert when request latency/response times do not meet a target value/threshold (Paragraphs 74, 169).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625