DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Abstract may be corrected as:
user interface (UI) Application creates test cases, and a Version Management System tracks changes. Test results are stored and analyzed in a Test Result Store, with a Bias Intelligence module detecting biases and generating additional test cases. A Consensus Algorithm validates test cases through decentralized nomination. An artificial intelligence (Al)-Driven Defect Remediation System automates defect detection, root cause analysis, and remediation using AI modules. Machine learning algorithms identify patterns and anomalies, while Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques generate code fixes. Predictive maintenance monitors application performance to preemptively address issues. A feedback loop mechanism continuously improves Al models through reinforcement learning. Together, these systems provide a holistic approach to web application testing and maintenance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-20 use bullet points to delineate claims steps. Based on MPEP 608(i):
“(i) Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”. It is recommended to remove bullet points from the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
-Claim 1 uses acronyms without any definition, for example:
“Creating by a UI application…” this may be corrected to recites:
“Creating by a user interface (UI) application…”
-ADA compliance tests to verify accessibility standards” may be corrected to include:
-“Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance tests to verify accessibility standards”
- using reinforcement learning to improve Al models” may be corrected to recites:
“Using reinforcement learning to improve artificial intelligence (Al) models,
Same scenario for independent claims 19 and 20. And based on deficiencies of independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-18 inherits such deficiency also.
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 1-20 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 1:
-Claim 1 recites in line 3” configuring, by a Holochain node management Application, nodes within a holochain network, including:
Line 6 and 7:
data synchronization to ensure consistency across nodes,
network connections to facilitate communication between nodes,
It is not clear if the nodes in lines 6 and 7 are new nodes different than nodes declared in line 3 or the same set of nodes. The claim is ambiguous.
-Claim 1 recites in line 10: creating by a UI Application, test cases….”
But in line 13:
Tracking changes to test cases over time”.
It is not clear if the test cases in line 13 are test cases different than test cases declared in line 10 or the same set of test cases. The claim is ambiguous.
-Claim 1 recites in line:18:” detecting by Bias intelligence, biases in the test results….” And in line 23:” generating by Bias intelligence additional test cases…”. Same scenario the claim is ambiguous.
-Claim 1 in line 32 recites: “forming consensus, by consensus Algorithm, on validity of test cases……” in previous lines and line 28-31, there are additional, targeted and those that address critical bias. So it is not clear which test cases are directed to. Same scenario the claim is ambiguous.
-Claim 1 in line 15-16” “storing by a test result store, the test cases and associated test results , including: categorizing results by type…”. And in line 28: “validating test results through a decentralized nomination process’. It’s not clear which results: new results or the associated test results declared before or new test results.
Same scenario the claim is ambiguous.
-Claim 1 recites “identifying by artificial intelligence, defects…”
“Performing root cause analysis, by artificial intelligence.”,
and “remediating, by artificial intelligence the identified defects or deficiencies…”,
“Generating new test cases by artificial intelligence based…”,
“Creating a feedback loop, by artificial intelligence….”.
It is not clear if they are all the same AI or different AIs. Same scenario claim is ambiguous.
-claim 1 also recites in lines:29-34 :
“Disseminating, by a Supervisor Full Node, test configurations to Full Nodes and Lightning Nodes via a Feeder, including:
distributing test cases based on node capabilities and workload,
dynamically adjusting test configurations based on real-time feedback; "
executing, by Lightning Nodes, specific types of tests on the web application, including:
ADA compliance tests to verify accessibility standards,
performance tests to measure application responsiveness,
security tests to identify vulnerabilities.
analyzing, by the Full Nodes, the test results received from Lightning Nodes and storing the results in the Test Result Store,”
in claim 1 lines 1-4, a declaration of full nodes and lighting nodes exist. Above there are many full nodes and lighting nodes, it is not clear if they are the same ones declared above or different. Same scenario claim 1 is ambiguous.
Claim 19 recites in lines 6 and 7:
“Data synchronization to ensure consistency across nodes,
network connections to facilitate communication between nodes”
It is not clear if the nodes are full nodes, lighting nodes or the nodes whiting a Holochain. claim 19 is ambiguous.
Same scenario for “results” in line 20 and 22.
Same scenario for “bias intelligence” in line 23 and 32
Also claim 19 in lines 16 recites:
“Tracking changes to test cases over time,”. At line 12 the UI application creates test cases. Is it not clear if it is same test cases or different test cases. Same scenario at line 34 and 35-36. Claim 19 is again ambiguous.
Claim 19 in line 58 recites: “identifying by artificial intelligence...” and in line 67” remediating by artificial intelligence” and in line 80”” generating new test cases, by artificial intelligence...” same scenario claim 19 is ambiguous.
Above is an example to correct ambiguities and antecedent bases issue.
The same scenario applies to independent 20, and based on their dependencies on each independent claims, dependent claims 2-18 also rejected under same rational as claim 1.
Use common and same terminology for clarity:
test results vs results.
Test cases vs tests and etc…
For example: in claim 20 recites:
“Aggregate and analyze test results received from Lightning Nodes, " store results in the Test Result Store, generate detailed reports and actionable insights for stakeholders”.
instead of “store results”, it may be corrected to “store the test results…”.
Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims
Place holders
functions
20
a Holochain Node Management Application
Manage, synchronize, establish protect
20
A UI Application
Create/mange track reverting offers
20
a Version Management System
Maintain, manage
20
a Test Result Store
Store, categorize, ensure
20
a Bias Intelligence module
Detect, analyze generate prioritize
20
A Consensus Algorithm
Form, issue, ensure
20
a Supervisor Full Node and Feeder
disseminate, adjust, distribute
20
a plurality of Lightning Nodes
Execute, test simulate
20
A Full Node analysis module
Aggregate, store, generate
20
an artificial intelligence module
Identify, perform, generate apply
20
(CI/CD) pipeline
Run, deploy
20
a feedback loop mechanism
Feed, improve, adapt
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Pertinent arts:
US12724701B1:
The disclosure is directed to distributing teat cased to lower environment from a cloud storage where data is stored. The lower environment can request such data and create, execute test and generale the results.
US20250321867A1:
The disclosure is directed to models employing artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) to generate sets of test cases that target critical functionalities of a software application to be tested, e.g., by prioritizing parameters or parameter combinations with a highest likelihood of revealing defects, while minimizing redundancy, e.g., by deprioritizing parameters or parameter combinations with a lower likelihood of revealing defects.
US20240330167A1:
the system: receives a user description of a test script, the description including one or more test cases defining specific tests to be executed; processes the user description using a description processing component, the description processing component configured to identify elements within the user description relevant to test script and test case generation, and generate a structured representation of the user description based on the identified elements; utilizes the structured representation to generate code for the test script; provides the user with an option to review and update the generated code and test cases; generates test data suitable for executing the generated test script; executes the generated test script and test cases using the test data; collects test results associated with the execution; and presents the test results to the user.
US10515004A1:
Testing teams may be created to be distributed geographically so that remote teams of testers are assigned testing tasks for a common application. The testing teams may also be grouped according to composite teams such as a project team, an internal crowd team, an external crowd team, and a beta users team.
US2019/0294536A1:
The test cases may include particular types of testing (e.g., performance, UI, security, API, etc.), and/or particular categories of testing (e.g., regression, integration, etc.). The test cases may be selected to define a test operation or test cycle that specifies how the testing engine is to simulate the inputs of a user or client system to the deployed build combination. The testing engine may observe and validate responses of the deployed build combination to these inputs, which may be stored as test results
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as per independents claims 1 ,19 and 20 arts of records above (pertinent arts) fail to disclose the limitations of each independent claim as structured. While arts of record disclose an automated system that includes Artificial intelligence AI for test creation, execution, integration and report generation, including update and new test cases result validation, they fail to articulate the limitation of each independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAHIM BOURZIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-4:30).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Y Mui can be reached at 571-270-2738. 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.
/BRAHIM BOURZIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights