Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are pending.
Claims 6-7 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “another test environment related to the configuration information with reference to the database”. It is not clear the configuration information is referring to the detected configuration information in claim 1 or set of another configuration information in claim 2. For the purpose of claim interpretation, it is interpreted as “the set of another configuration”.
Claim 3 recites “…a plurality of test levels is associated with specific configuration information, and a test level to be executed is further associated with the specific configuration information… wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: specify the test level associated with the detected configuration information with reference to the database…” Since at lines 4-6, a test level is associated with the specific configuration information, at line 10, the test level associated with the detected configuration should be “the test level associated with the specific configuration”.
Claim 3 further recites“…and specify a set of a test program and a test environment corresponding to the test level as a set of another configuration information and another test environment related to the configuration information”. It is not clear the configuration information is referring to the detected configuration information in claim 1 or set of another configuration information in claim 3. For the purpose of claim interpretation, it is interpreted as “the set of another configuration”.
Claim 3 depends claim 2 and also inherits the deficiency in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210248061 (Reid et al) in view of US20160004625 (Gugri).
Per claim 1, Reid et al discloses A test support apparatus comprising: at least one storage device configured to store instructions (Fig 2); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
when an update of some of a plurality of pieces of configuration information constituting an information system is detected, refer to a database in which each of the plurality of pieces of configuration information constituting the information system and a set of a test program and a test environment corresponding to each piece of the configuration information are registered in association with each other and specify the set of the test program and the test environment associated with the detected configuration information (abstract and paragraph [0005-0009], [0017] “…receiving, from the mainframe computer, configuration data characterizing the software change and characterizing the application; automatically provisioning, using the configuration data, an instance of a virtual testing environment for the mainframe on a cloud network for testing the application; and, based on the configuration data, automatically providing one or more test scripts to the virtual testing environment for testing the software change to the application on the virtual environment, the one or more test scripts further generated based on automatically determining from the configuration data, a set of prior test scripts implemented for another application similar to the application and having a previously implemented software change” and [0057] ”.. an indication of a software change to an application 112 on a mainframe computer, e.g. mainframe platform 110 (which may be executing z/OS operating system). For example, testing manger server 106 may be configured, in some aspects, to automatically discover new native mainframe applications 112 on the mainframe platform 110 and invoke such applications via an API. The discovery of new native mainframe applications 112 on the mainframe platform 110 may be used as an indication at step 302, in some aspects, for performing testing on the new native applications 112. At 304, in response to the indication, the operations request and receive as input, from the mainframe platform 110, configuration data 128. The configuration data 128 characterizes the software change for the application and identifies/characterizes the application(s) 112 (e.g. 112A) having the software change (e.g. identifying the application affected, indicating related tangential applications which may also be involved in the software change, indicating the type of software change, indicating the expected functionality of the application and/or software change . . . ). At 306, operations automatically provision, using the configuration data, at least one instance of a virtualized testing environment 118 for the mainframe on a cloud network for testing the application. Generating the instance may include generating instances of the virtual applications under test 120 (e.g. in some aspects including related applications), the virtual test execution environment 122 and/or data required for the virtual applications as stored in virtual mainframe database 126…”);
construct the specified test environment on a virtual system (abstract provisioning, using the configuration data, an instance of a virtual testing environment for the mainframe on a cloud network for testing the application ) ; deploy a […] information system related to the detected configuration information to the constructed test environment (abstract “providing one or more test scripts to the virtual testing environment for testing the software change to the application on the virtual environment, the one or more test scripts further generated based on automatically determining from the configuration data”); and
execute the specified test program on the […] information system deployed in the test environment ([0055], “the test results comparison module 218 may be configured to receive a response from the virtualized mainframe testing environment 118 of FIG. 1 regarding the results of executing the test scripts 124 on the virtual applications under test 120”)
Reid et al disclose testing information system but does not explicitly disclose testing a partial information system,
However, in an analogous of art of software testing, Gugri discloses testing a partial information system (paragraph [0003-0006] “…in this incremental development methodology, software code may be tested for efficient and effective performance as each smaller modular portion of the whole is completed. That is, smaller portions of code are often developed through testing before incorporating them into the whole. This incremental testing methodology (testing a partial system) contrasts with waiting to test the entire software application as whole, after completing the code in its entirety. …”).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gugri into teachings of Reid to test a partial information system because one would want to be able to test a portion of the system without having to test the complete system because it provides an efficient method to test smaller system and be able to fix bug at early stage and debug the system more easily (Gugri, [0004-0006]).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 in incorporated and further Reid et al discloses that wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a set of another configuration information and another test environment related to the configuration information with reference to the database, deploy a program module corresponding to the detected configuration information and a program module corresponding to the specified other configuration information together as the […] information system to the constructed test environment (Fig 3 and [0057-0060]).
Reid does not explicitly disclose partial information system.
However, in an analogous of art of software testing, Gugri discloses testing a partial information system (paragraph [0003-0006] “…in this incremental development methodology, software code may be tested for efficient and effective performance as each smaller modular portion of the whole is completed. That is, smaller portions of code are often developed through testing before incorporating them into the whole. This incremental testing methodology (testing a partial system) contrasts with waiting to test the entire software application as whole, after completing the code in its entirety. …”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gugri into teachings of Reid to test a partial information system because one would want to be able to test a portion of the system without having to test the complete system because it provides an efficient method to test smaller system and be able to fix bug at early stage and debug the system more easily (Gugri, [0004-0006]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Reid et al discloses that wherein the configuration information includes at least a program module ([0057]).
Claim 8 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210248061 (Reid et al) in view of US20160004625 (Gugri) further in view of US20150363295 (Gopalakrishnan et al) and US Patent 5745767 (Rosen et al).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and the combination of Reid et al and Gugri discloses wherein in the database; a set of a test program and a test environment corresponding…is associated with specific configuration information, and a test …to be executed is further associated with the specific configuration information, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify the test …associated with the detected configuration information with reference to the database, and specify a set of a test program and a test environment …as a set of another configuration information and another test environment related to the configuration information (See rejection of claim 1, Reid et al at [0005-0009], [0017], [0055-0057]).
The combination of Reid et al and Gugri do not disclose
a test level is associated with specific configuration information and a test level to be executed is further associated with the specific configuration information.
However, in an analogous art of software testing, Gopalakrishnan et al discloses a test level is associated with specific configuration information and a test level to be executed is further associated with the specific configuration information ( [0035-0036], “…If the coverage is adequate, the process continues to one embodiment of the (CCA). After the line and function coverage are achieved, CCA is run to get the command coverage (Block 450). The process determines whether the command coverage is adequate (Block 455). In one embodiment, command coverage is considered adequate when it is 100%. In one embodiment, this means that is every permutation and combination of configurations is tested, where those configurations include environmental considerations for all relevant environment, such as customer site-specific information. When 100% adequacy is required, then no untested scenarios should be encountered at a relevant customer site. In another embodiment 90% coverage may be considered sufficient to ship the product. In another embodiment, a particular subset of configurations with a different coverage percentage may be considered sufficient to ship the product. In one embodiment, scenarios associated with default configurations of the software product under test, such as default options for commands, require a first level of adequacy and specialty scenarios used by only highly sophisticated users of the software product under test require a second level of adequacy…If the command coverage is not adequate, as determined at Block 455, more test cases are added to enhance command coverage (Block 460). If the command coverage is adequate, the testing is considered complete (Block 465), and the code may be ready to ship, or ready for the next phase in the software development process.)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gopalakrishnan et al into teachings of Reid et al and Gugri to have a test level is associated with specific configuration information and a test level to be executed is further associated with the specific configuration information because one would want to be able to have the flexibility to utilize different level of tests to ensure that test coverage is adequate (Gopalakrishnan et al, [0035]).
The combination of Reid et al, Gugri and Gopalakrishnan et al do not explicitly disclose in a database, a set of test program and a test of environment corresponding to each of a plurality of tests…is associated with specific configuration information.
However, in an analogous art of software testing, Rosen et al disclose in a database, a set of test program and a test of environment corresponding to each of a plurality of tests…is associated with specific configuration information (Fig 2A, Col 6 lines 1-60 “…The database includes an application configuration information table 218, a test script information table 220, a properties table 222, a combinations table 224, an application identifier table 226, callback function tables 227 (i.e., high-level command tables), and application-specific callback functions 228. The database contains information describing various attributes of the application programs. Further, each application program can have multiple sets of information (i.e., configurations) to describe various combinations of attributes that may apply when the application program is tested. For example, each application program may have a set of information to describe its attributes when it is executed as a server and another set of information to describe its attributes when it is executed as a container. Each different set of information is indexed in the database by a unique application identifier and describes a particular configuration of the application program. The application configuration information table 218 contains information for each configuration of an application program, more specifically each application identifier, such as the location of the application program and properties of the configuration of the application program. The test script information table 220 includes an entry for each test script that contains parameters for the execution of the test script. The properties table 222 contains a list of the system defined and tester defined properties for the server and container application programs. The combinations table 224 contains a list of the various combinations of servers and containers for which the test script will be executed. The application identifier table 226 includes an entry for each application identifier. Each entry contains a pointer to a callback function table 227. Each callback function table contains an entry for each high-level command and a pointer to an application-specific callback function 228 that implements the high-level command”).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Rosen into the combined teaching of Reid et al , Gugri and Gopalakrishnan et al to have in a database, a set of test program and a test of environment corresponding to each of a plurality of tests…is associated with specific configuration information because one would want to be able to utilize the database to organize and store the tests so that the tests of interoperability of application programs can be accessed more efficiently (Rosen, Col 6 lines 26-60).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210248061 (Reid et al) in view of US20160004625 (Gugri) further in view of US20050246589 (Tsai et al).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Reid et al and Gugri do not disclose discard the test environment after execution of the test program.
However, in an analogous art of software testing, Tsai et al disclose discard the test environment after execution of the test program (See Fig 2, (s212, s210) and paragraph [0021]…” any error occurs during the testing process, the procedure goes directly to step S212 described below. Otherwise, if no error occurs during the testing process, in step S209, the client computer 2 transmits test results to the test server 1. Then in step S210, the client computer 2 uninstalls and deletes the test programs and the test script file which have been downloaded from itself…”).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Tsai et al into teachings of Reid et al and Gugri to discard the test environment after execution of the test program because one would want to be able to delete information that is no longer needed in order to save computation resource.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure.
US-20230222051 discloses generating a test mapping including at least one test of a plurality of tests corresponding to a source file
US-20170235661 discloses incremental software/code verification methods.
US-2016003438 discloses software testing and more particularly to automated test case selection
Aichernig et al discloses incremental refinement checking for test case generation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI MUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3708. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, Cordelia Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights