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 .
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Specifically, Figures 2, 3A, 3B, and 4 are grainy and unclear. Furthermore, Figures 3A and 3B have elements with missing labels. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 330. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “encapsulating structure of […]” is unclear. For the purposes of examining, it will be interpreted as “encapsulating a structure of […]”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250208988 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of US 20230315615 A1 (hereinafter “Zong”), US 20250130929 A1 (hereinafter “Joesph”), and US 11818115 B1 (hereinafter “Shah”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: All underlined portions in the prior art are added by the Examiner for the purpose of emphasis]
As per claim 1, Chen discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising ([0127], “Some embodiments may relate to a system, a method, and/or a computer-readable medium […]”):
creating a test context template; ([0015], “According to embodiments, the generating the at least one test environment configuration file may include: receiving, from the user, at least one second user input associated with at least one user-defined test plan; generating, based on the second user input and the at least one test package, at least one test plan template; generating, by adding the at least one user-defined test case to the at least one test plan template, at least one test plan; receiving, from the user, at least one third user input associated with at least ones user-defined test cycle; and generating, based on the third user input and the at least one test plan, the at least one test environment configuration file. The at least one test environment configuration file may include information defining configuration of at least one test bench.”)
generating a context file for a configuration user interface test using the test context template; ([0015], “According to embodiments, the generating the at least one test environment configuration file may include: receiving, from the user, at least one second user input associated with at least one user-defined test plan; generating, based on the second user input and the at least one test package, at least one test plan template; generating, by adding the at least one user-defined test case to the at least one test plan template, at least one test plan; receiving, from the user, at least one third user input associated with at least ones user-defined test cycle; and generating, based on the third user input and the at least one test plan, the at least one test environment configuration file. The at least one test environment configuration file may include information defining configuration of at least one test bench.”) [Examiner’s Remarks: test environment configuration file is interpreted as configuration user interface test.]
executing and performing validation of the configuration user interface test; ([0019], “According to embodiments, a system for managing a test for testing software of an embedded system may be provided. The system may include: a storage storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: receive, from a user, at least one first user input associated with one or more test requirements; generate, based on the first user input, at least one test package; generate, based on the at least one test package, at least one test environment configuration file; validate the at least one test package and the at least one test environment configuration file; determine a change in the software; and based on determining the change in the software, execute the test according to the validated at least one test package and the validated at least one test environment configuration file. The software of the embedded system may include an in-vehicle electronic control unit (ECU).”)
deploying test code and the test context template [to the selected node]. ([0117], “According to embodiments, the at least one processor 430 may be configured to execute the test by: generating, based on the validated at least one test environment configuration file, at least one test bench associated with at least one test environment for testing the software; selecting, based on the at least one test bench, at least one node (communicatively coupled to the test automation system 400) which is associated with at least one test environment defined in the at least one test bench; obtaining the software (or the associated programming codes) and the associated test components (e.g., another software which interoperate with the software under test, etc.); deploying the software and the associated test components to the selected at least one node; and performing, based on the validated at least one test package, the test for testing the software in the selected at least one node.”)
Chen does not disclose:
generating a test class for user interface testing according to automation steps.
However, Zong discloses:
generating a test class for user interface testing according to automation steps. ([0005], “In accordance with subject matter disclosed herein, a metadata driven method of generating test scripts for a plugin module, referred to herein simply as a plugin, associated with a workflow automation platform, referred to herein simply as an automation platform, identifies one or more workflows associated with a plugin that has been accessed or invoked by a user. For each identified workflow, test script generation operations are performed. In at least one embodiment, the test script generation operations for a particular workflow include retrieving workflow-specific metadata and storing the retrieved data in a file with a suitable data exchange format. The metadata may include metadata pertaining to UI elements referenced in the workflow. By way of example, the metadata of interest may include locator, type, and/or label data for each UI element. Disclosed methods may then generate test framework files based, at least in part, on a combination of the retrieved metadata and a set of defined rules, referred to herein as type/action rules that associate UI element types with known or predictable actions appropriate for the element type, e.g., a button element may be associated with a click action.”).
Zong is directed to workflow automation. Thus, Zong is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zong into the teaching of Chen to include “generating a test class for user interface testing according to automation steps.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to not have to manually test given its impracticability (Zong, paragraph [0004]).
Chen discloses “test context template” and “configuration user interface test” but the combination of Chen and Zong does not explicitly disclose:
automation framework;
releasing the test context template and the configuration user interface test for automation.
However, Joseph discloses:
automation framework; ([0027], “In response to automation server 230 receiving an onboarding request corresponding to a given client, the automation server 230 accesses one or more script templates from automation framework 240. In some embodiments, automation framework 240 has a separate script template corresponding to each platform service 215A-B. In other embodiments, automation framework 240 has multiple script templates for each platform service 215A-B, with each script template corresponding to a different release or version of the respective platform service 215A-B. In some embodiments, the onboarding request from the given client (or the onboarding request automatically generated on behalf of the given client) includes an identification of the particular platform service 215A, a list of users, a list of each user's desired role in the identified platform service 215A, and a mail identifier (ID) for each user. In other embodiments, the onboarding request includes other information (e.g., usage limits, consumption mode) for each user. Depending on the embodiment, the user list could be in the form of a spreadsheet, a word processing document, or other type of file.”)
releasing the [script template] for automation. ([0027], “In response to automation server 230 receiving an onboarding request corresponding to a given client, the automation server 230 accesses one or more script templates from automation framework 240. In some embodiments, automation framework 240 has a separate script template corresponding to each platform service 215A-B. In other embodiments, automation framework 240 has multiple script templates for each platform service 215A-B, with each script template corresponding to a different release or version of the respective platform service 215A-B. In some embodiments, the onboarding request from the given client (or the onboarding request automatically generated on behalf of the given client) includes an identification of the particular platform service 215A, a list of users, a list of each user's desired role in the identified platform service 215A, and a mail identifier (ID) for each user. In other embodiments, the onboarding request includes other information (e.g., usage limits, consumption mode) for each user. Depending on the embodiment, the user list could be in the form of a spreadsheet, a word processing document, or other type of file.”)
Joseph is directed to generating executable scripts by templates. Thus, Joseph is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joseph into the teaching of Chen and Zong to include “automation framework; releasing the test context template and the configuration user interface test for automation.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a script template to make it easier to create and execute scripts (Joseph, paragraph [0023]).
Chen discloses “configuration user interface test” and the combination of Chen, Zong, and Joseph discloses “executing, via the automation framework (Zong [0037], “In operation 208, a test automation framework is invoked to execute test scripts based on the test framework files.”)” but the combination of Chen, Zong, and Joseph does not explicitly disclose:
executing, via the automation framework, the configuration user interface test as a step to an integration automation procedure;
wherein executing the configuration user interface test comprises reusing the configuration user interface test where a configuration application programming interface is unavailable.
However, Shah discloses:
executing, via the automation framework, [one or more routines] as a step to an integration automation procedure; (Column 25, line 44, “In some embodiments, the Orchestration Engine Framework 260 may comprise a combination of components that include a handler 261, a resolver 262, a rules engine 263 and a decider module 264, as shown in FIG. 2A. The handler 261 may be configured to execute one or more routines configured to manage any number of APIs connecting to any number of endpoints to perform a set of capture validations (e.g., to validate incoming data) and/or event hooks (e.g., to create a chain of functions/procedures), which may then be stored in a real-time in-memory database (not shown in FIG. 2A).”)
wherein executing the configuration user interface test comprises reusing the configuration user interface test where a configuration application programming interface is unavailable. (Column 46, line 30, “The input parameters 910 may be received via one or more computer input devices (not shown) and/or generated from within the system or platform on which the state machine orchestration 900 is being executed. Responsive to receiving the input parameters 910, one or more initiators (or workflow initiators) 920 may trigger/initiate one or more real-time workflows 930 (e.g., unified lending journey), as well as orchestration thereof. Notably, the exemplary workflow initiators 920 shown in FIG. 9 (e.g., user interface, API, data ETL) are non-limiting, as any number of additional and/or alternative workflow initiators 930 are contemplated by the present disclosure.”) [Examiner’s remarks: In Column 25, line 44, Shah discloses capturing validations, which has been interpreted as testing. Chen discloses configuration user interface testing. Workflow initiators are non-limiting, i.e. alternative initiators are acceptable. A workflow initiator could be a user interface or an API, so it is possible to replace a user interface initiator with an API or vice versa.
Shah is directed to combining frameworks. Thus, Shah is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah into the teaching of Chen, Zong, and Joseph to include “executing, via the automation framework, the configuration user interface test as a step to an integration automation procedure; wherein executing the configuration user interface test comprises reusing the configuration user interface test where a configuration application programming interface is unavailable.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use an alternative workflow when one is not available (Shah, column 25, line 44).
Claim 8 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zong, Joseph, and Shah as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of US 20230281368 A1 (hereinafter “Eavy”).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah does not explicitly disclose:
encapsulating structure of the context file in an automation support library.
However, Eavy discloses:
encapsulating structure of the context file in an automation support library. ([0102], “FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a system for generating an intended state dimension of a knowledge graph, in accordance with aspects. FIG. 4 depicts architecture documentation repository 410, and intent processing engine 412. Intent processing engine 412 may include NLP engine 414. Architecture documentation repository 410 stores architecture design documents as described herein. Architecture documentation repository 410 may be any suitable data store, such as a relational data base (e.g., a relational database configured to store architecture design documents as binary large objects (BLOBs)), a flat-file architecture, a folder structure, etc.”)
Eavy is directed to identification and remediation. Thus, Eavy is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Eavy into the teaching of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah to include “encapsulating structure of the context file in an automation support library.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store the architecture of a design to have easy access to the designs (Eavy, paragraph [0077]).
Claim 9 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zong, Joseph, and Shah as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of US 6151567 A (hereinafter “Ames”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the context file comprises test data prepared for a test context and an integration lifecycle context.
However, Ames discloses:
wherein the context file comprises test data prepared for a test context and an integration lifecycle context. (Column 29, line 62, “A configuration file 176 (see FIG. 3) is an ASCII text file which is used to set up and initialize the simulator 100 (see FIG. 2) for a particular application, such as LGCU HSIT which configures the simulator to perform hardware/software integration testing on the left generator control unit of the Main EPGS (see FIG. 1). Each configuration file contains all ARINC 629 related data which is specific to the LRU(s) to be tested, the test stand hardware to be utilized, and the test to be performed. The configuration file is read by the load configuration process 156 and loaded into the database. The data is then used to create the XPT, RPT, and other tables needed to set up the ARINC 629 cards, configure the various data display and control processes, and initialize the system. Configuration file names end with a .cfg suffix.”)
Ames is directed to data analysis and simulation tools. Thus, Ames is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ames into the teaching of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah to include “wherein the context file comprises test data prepared for a test context and an integration lifecycle context.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a file to contain the related data (Ames, Column 29, line 62).
Claim 10 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zong, Joseph, and Shah as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of US 20140052487 A1 (hereinafter “Neagu”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah discloses “test code” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the context file comprises externalized test data used to input and output data in the test code.
However, Neagu discloses:
wherein the context file comprises externalized test data used to input and output data in the [script file]. ([0002], “After a form is created, forms development tools create a forms file that contains the information needed to run the form on virtually any desktop computer. For example, InfoPath creates a forms file in an XSN format that contains a manifest file, one or more view files, a template file, and one or more schema definition files. The manifest file contains a listing of all other files in the forms file and several other details including metadata, information on toolbars and menus associated with each view, information on external data sources, and error messages. A view file is an eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformation ("XSLT") transform that presents an editable view of a portion of data in an eXtensible Markup Language ("XML") format. Each view file accepts XML data as input and produces an output format similar to a HyperText Markup Language ("HTML") format. The schema file is an XML Schema Definition ("XSD") file that defines the XML format of the XML data that can be processed by the view file. If the XML data does not conform to the schema, the view file may not process the form. The template file contains initial data for the form in XML format. A forms file may also include a script file that contains scripts specified by the form developer for performing business logic and other validation. The manifest also may list additional resource files such as images, xml data files, etc.”)
Neagu is directed to data workflows. Thus, Neagu is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Neagu into the teaching of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah to include “wherein the context file comprises externalized test data used to input and output data in the test code.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a file comprising of test data (Neagu, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 11 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claim 17 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zong, Joseph, and Shah as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of US 20170357253 A1 (hereinafter “Kilpatrick”).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each configuration user interface test is mapped to an automation step.
However, Kilpatrick discloses:
wherein each configuration user interface test is mapped to an automation step. ([0111], “As shown in FIG. 21, information identifying typical functional configurations and tests at step 2102. This could include, for example, the processor 202 of the testing infrastructure 144 receiving information from a user identifying common functional configuration objects defining control operations performed by controllers or other devices in a control and automation system. This could also include the processor 202 of the testing infrastructure 144 receiving information from the user identifying common tests, such as test typical sheets 806. Functional components and tests are generated using the typical functional configurations and tests at step 2104. This could include, for example, the processor 202 of the testing infrastructure 144 generating the functional configurations as collections of objects and the tests as test sheets 808. The tests are associated with the functional configurations at step 2106. This could include, for example, the processor 202 of the testing infrastructure 144 identifying the functional configuration objects of the functional configurations that are accessed or used by each of the tests.”)
Kilpatrick is directed to integration testing within an automation system. Thus, Kilpatrick is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kilpatrick into the teaching of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah to include “wherein each configuration user interface test is mapped to an automation step.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to map a test to an automation step (Kilpatrick, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zong, Joseph, and Shah as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of US 20180321833 A1 (hereinafter “Nelson”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an automation step comprises creating, reading, updating, or deleting data.
However, Nelson discloses:
wherein an automation step comprises creating, reading, updating, or deleting data. ([0083], “FIG. 3 is an illustration that maps the relationship between a design-time flow plan 300 and a run-time flow plan 302. As shown in FIG. 3, the design-time flow plan 300 may include a trigger instance 304 and a flow component element 308. The flow component element 308 includes a plurality of action instances 312, where each action instance 312 includes step instances 314. The action instance 312 may be considered an abstraction boundary that is generally defined in domain terms and the step instances is typically defined in application platform based specific terms, such as a script and/or create, read, update and delete (CRUD) operations on a specific data structure, approvals, messaging operations (e.g., send notification or email), VTB operations (e.g., create VTB board), and/or third party operations (e.g., Security Operations (SecOps)). The trigger instance 304, action instances 312 and step instances 314 can be customized, modified, and updated using the automation system. For example, a user may set when the design-time flow plan 300 should execute by configuring the trigger instance 304.”)
Nelson is directed to managing flow plans. Thus, Nelson is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nelson into the teaching of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah to include “wherein an automation step comprises creating, reading, updating, or deleting data.” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform CRUD operations automatically (Nelson, paragraph [0083]).
Claim 13 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zong, Joseph, and Shah as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of US 20250085935 A1 (hereinafter “Ketharaju”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the context file is read by an automation support library that collects and returns output data and logs to an execution engine.
However, Ketharaju discloses:
wherein the context file is read by an automation support library that collects and returns output data and logs to an execution engine. ([0034], “Further, the apparatus 200 further comprises a data processing engine 214 that accesses and stages data from a data store and provides data features to the machine learning pipeline. The data processing engine 214 may utilize processor 202, memory 204, or any other hardware component included in the apparatus 200 to perform these operations, as described in connection with FIGS. 3-6 below. The data processing engine 214 may further utilize communications hardware 206 to gather data from a variety of sources (e.g., server device 106, user device 108, and/or cloud data source 110, as shown in FIG. 1), and/or exchange data with a user, and in some embodiments may utilize processor 202 and/or memory 204 to accesses and stages data from a data store and provides data features to the machine learning pipeline.”)
Ketharaju is directed to automated model development. Thus, Ketharaju is analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ketharaju into the teaching of Chen, Zong, Joseph, and Shah to include “wherein the context file is read by an automation support library that collects and returns output data and logs to an execution engine. ” This modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to collect and log output data (Ketharaju, paragraph [0034]).
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. They are as follows:
US 20210279167 A1 (hereinafter “Jose”) discloses an automated testing framework.
US 20230259390 A1 (hereinafter “Howley”) discloses IaC templates for deployment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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 Mui can be reached at 571 272 3708. 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.
/KL/Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights