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 .
Application 19/036,857 is a continuation of Application 18/502,376, which in turn is a continuation of Application 18/141,018, filed 04/28/2023.
Applicant’s submission dated 01/24/2025 has been received and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in Application 19/036,857.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12229727 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate the pending claims; that is, all of the limitations of the pending claims are taught or suggested by the patent claims. See also the table below.
Patent US 12229727 B2
Pending Claims
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a computer, a set of project requirements associated with a software under development, wherein each respective project requirement includes one or more project parameters for the software under development; obtaining, by the computer, a set of testing results generated by a plurality of test programs applied to code of the software under development; extracting, by the computer, each project requirement associated with the software under development and each testing result generated for the code of the software under development, wherein the computer extracts each respective project requirement and each respective testing result according to a set of mapping pre-configurations, wherein the set of mapping pre-configurations indicate the respective testing result is associated with a project parameter of the one or more project parameters of the respective project requirement for the particular software under development; and generating, by the computer, a report containing the project requirement and the testing result for display at a user interface.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating, by the computer, the report according to a set of one or more updated testing results.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein updating the report comprises: obtaining, by the computer, the set of one or more updated testing results; extracting, by the computer, each project requirement and each updated testing result according to the set of mapping pre-configurations; and updating, by the computer, the report with the set of one or more updated testing results.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating, by the computer, the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the plurality of test programs.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the updates to the plurality of test programs include one or more of a removal of a test program of the plurality of test programs and an addition of a new test program to the plurality of test programs.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating, by the computer, the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the set of project requirements.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising assigning, by the computer, tags to the set of testing results, wherein the set of mapping pre-configurations map the set of testing results to the set of project requirements based on the assigned tags.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of mapping pre-configurations map a testing result of the set of testing results to multiple project requirements of the set of project requirements.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computer, based on the project requirement and the testing result, an email message including the report; and automatically transmitting, by the computer, the email message to a set of recipients.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein generating the email message includes: generating, by the computer, a first version of the email message and a second version of the email message, the second version containing comparatively less information than the first version; and transmitting, by the computer, the first version to a first subset of the set of recipients and sending the second version to a second subset of the set of recipients.
11. A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: obtain a set of project requirements associated with a software under development, wherein each respective project requirement includes one or more project parameters for the software under development; obtain a set of testing results generated by a plurality of test programs applied to code of the software under development; extract each project requirement associated with the software under development and each testing result generated for the code of the software under development, wherein the computer extracts each respective project requirement and each respective testing result according to a set of mapping pre-configurations, wherein the set of mapping pre-configurations indicate the respective testing result is associated with a project parameter of the one or more project parameters of the respective project requirement for the particular software under development; and generate a report containing the project requirement and the testing result for display at a user interface.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to update the report according to a set of one or more updated testing results.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the processor updates the report with the updated testing results by: obtaining the set of one or more updated testing results; extracting each project requirement and each updated testing result according to the set of mapping pre-configurations; and updating the report with the set of one or more updated testing results.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to update the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the plurality of test programs.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the updates to the plurality of test programs include one or more of a removal of a test program of the plurality of test programs and an addition of a new test program to the plurality of test programs.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to update the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the set of project requirements.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to assign tags to the set of testing results, wherein the set of mapping pre-configurations map the set of testing results to the set of project requirements based on the assigned tags.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the set of mapping pre-configurations map a testing result of the set of testing results to multiple project requirements of the set of project requirements.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: generate, based on the project requirement and the testing result, an email message including the report; and automatically transmit the email message to a set of recipients.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein, when generating the email message, the instructions further cause the processor to: generate a first version of the email message and a second version of the email message, the second version containing comparatively less information than the first version; and transmit the first version to a first subset of the set of recipients and the second version to a second subset of the set of recipients.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computer, a set of project requirements and a set of testing results associated with a software under development; extracting, by the computer, each project requirement associated with the software under development and each testing result generated for the code of the software under development according to a set of mapping pre-configurations; determining, by the computer, a status of the software under development based on the extracted project requirements and testing results; and generating, by the computer, a summary of the status of the software under development.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the mapping pre-configurations indicate associations between the project requirements and the testing results.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the summary of the status of the software under development comprises a count of how many project requirements are met.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the summary of the status of the software under development comprises a ratio of projects with a positive release status.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the summary includes a status of one or more feature sets of the software under development.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating the summary according to a set of one or more updated testing results by: obtaining, by the computer, the set of one or more updated testing results; extracting, by the computer, each project requirement and each updated testing result according to the set of mapping pre-configurations; and updating, by the computer, the summary based on the set of one or more updated testing results.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating, by the computer, the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the plurality of test programs.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the updates to the plurality of test programs include one or more of a removal of a test program of the plurality of test programs and an addition of a new test program to the plurality of test programs.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating, by the computer, the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the set of project requirements.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computer, a first email message including a first version of the summary and a second email message including a second version of the summary, the second version containing comparatively less information than the first version, the method further comprising: automatically transmitting, by the computer, the first email message to a first subset of a set of recipients and automatically transmitting the second email message to a second subset of the set of recipients.
11. A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a set of project requirements and a set of testing results associated with a software under development; extract each project requirement associated with the software under development and each testing result generated for the code of the software under development according to a set of mapping pre-configurations; determine a status of the software under development based on the extracted project requirements and testing results; and generate a summary of the status of the software under development.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the mapping pre-configurations indicate associations between the project requirements and the testing results.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the summary of the status of the software under development comprises a count of how many project requirements are met.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the summary of the status of the software under development comprises a ratio of projects with a positive release status.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the summary includes a status of one or more feature sets of the software under development.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to update the summary according to a set of one or more updated testing results by: obtaining, by the computer, the set of one or more updated testing results; extracting, by the computer, each project requirement and each updated testing result according to the set of mapping pre-configurations; and updating, by the computer, the summary based on the set of one or more updated testing results.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to update the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the plurality of test programs.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the updates to the plurality of test programs include one or more of a removal of a test program of the plurality of test programs and an addition of a new test program to the plurality of test programs.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to update the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the set of project requirements.
20. The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: generating, by the computer, a first email message including a first version of the summary and a second email message including a second version of the summary, the second version containing comparatively less information than the first version, the method further comprising: automatically transmitting, by the computer, the first email message to a first subset of a set of recipients and automatically transmitting the second email message to a second subset of the set of recipients
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 8 and 18 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.
Claims 8 and 18 recites the limitation "the updates to the plurality of test programs include…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims from which 8 and 18 depend, 6 and 16, do not recite updates to test programs. However, if claims 8 and 18 were amended to depend from claims 7 and 17 antecedent basis would be properly provided.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauf (US 10678666 B1) in view of Yassin (US 2012/0159420 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Gauf discloses 1. A computer-implemented method (Gauf: Claim 7, “A computer implemented method for automated test and retesting…”) comprising/11. A system (Gauf: Claim 1, “A computer implemented system for automated test and retesting…”) comprising: a processor (Gauf: Claim 1, “computer processor”); and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (Gauf: Column 30 Lines 15-18, “computer readable program code in the form of functional instructions stored in the computer-usable medium such that when the computer-usable medium is installed on the system or systems, those components cause the system to perform the functions described”) to:
receiving, by a computer, a set of project requirements and a set of testing results associated with a software under development (Gauf: Figure 5 and Column 10 Lines 29-56, “Test Manager Software 514 may provide various management functionality, including use case development and requirements traceability, as shown by 516. To track progress, a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) may be provided that allows for traceability of test artifacts back to the requirements.”);
extracting, by the computer, each project requirement associated with the software under development and each testing result generated for the code of the software under development according to a set of mapping pre-configurations (Gauf: Figure 5 and Column 10 Lines 29-56, “Test Manager Software 514 may provide various management functionality, including use case development and requirements traceability, as shown by 516. To track progress, a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) may be provided that allows for traceability of test artifacts back to the requirements.”);
determining, by the computer, a status of the software under development based on the extracted project requirements and testing results (Gauf: Column 15 Lines 29-41, “Reporting 852 may manage results and data pertaining to test case execution and may also display the results. Reporting 852 may present results of test case executions to the user in various levels of detail, from high-level summaries to action-by-action execution status reports”).
Gauf does not explicitly disclose generating, by the computer, a summary of the status of the software under development.
However, Yassin teaches generating, by the computer, a summary of the status of the software under development (Yassin: Paragraph [0052], “The report of the quality analysis and test results can be included as a final report in an e-mail or other form for communication to the software developers, development team, and managers”, and Paragraph [0056], “the QOS engine 104 is configured to parse the reports and generate a separate report that incorporates results from each of the individual tests into a general summary of the quality measurements of the new source code. Further, the results of the testing procedures can be included in a results analysis process 316 before the general report is generated”).
Gauf and Yassin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to software development project testing and management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Yassin’s summary reporting into the system of Gauf to more easily allow stakeholders to be updated on project progress.
Gauf-Yassin teaches 2/12. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, wherein the mapping pre-configurations indicate associations between the project requirements and the testing results (Gauf: Figure 5 and Column 10 Lines 29-56, “Test Manager Software 514 may provide various management functionality, including use case development and requirements traceability, as shown by 516. To track progress, a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) may be provided that allows for traceability of test artifacts back to the requirements.”).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 3/13. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, wherein the summary of the status of the software under development comprises a count of how many project requirements are met (Yassin: Paragraph [0063], “ the percentage of requirements in each product standard group that are satisfied can be determined from the number of successful test results mapped to each requirement”).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 4/14. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, wherein the summary of the status of the software under development comprises a ratio of projects with a positive release status (Yassin: Paragraph [0063], “ the percentage of requirements in each product standard group that are satisfied can be determined from the number of successful test results mapped to each requirement”).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 5/15. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, wherein the summary includes a status of one or more feature sets of the software under development (Yassin: Paragraph [0015], “inform project managers of a current status of each aspect in a project”, and Claim 11, “mapping a result from a particular quality control task to a requirement of the at least one product standard; and determining a level of compliance with the at least one product standard based on the mapping of the result from the particular quality control task to the requirement of the at least one product standard”).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 6/16. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, further comprising updating the summary according to a set of one or more updated testing results by:
obtaining, by the computer, the set of one or more updated testing results (Gauf: Column 15 Lines 41-50, “provides an action-by-action detailed report of the execution run, including notes generated by the Execution Engine about action results”; the tests are executed multiple times with updated builds);
extracting, by the computer, each project requirement and each updated testing result according to the set of mapping pre-configurations (Gauf: Column 15 Lines 41-50, “provides an action-by-action detailed report of the execution run, including notes generated by the Execution Engine about action results”; the tests are executed multiple times with updated builds);
and updating, by the computer, the summary based on the set of one or more updated testing results (Gauf: Column 15 Lines 41-50, “provides an action-by-action detailed report of the execution run, including notes generated by the Execution Engine about action results”; the tests are executed multiple times with updated builds).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 7/17. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, further comprising updating, by the computer, the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the plurality of test programs (Gauf: Column 16 Lines 9-25, “Test Manager allows the user to create, update, modify, and delete test data (e.g., test cases, test steps, etc.)”).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 8/18. The method of claim 6/system of claim 16, wherein the updates to the plurality of test programs include one or more of a removal of a test program of the plurality of test programs and an addition of a new test program to the plurality of test programs (Gauf: Column 16 Lines 9-25, “Test Manager allows the user to create, update, modify, and delete test data (e.g., test cases, test steps, etc.)”).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 9/19. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, further comprising updating, by the computer, the set of mapping pre-configurations based on one or more updates to the set of project requirements (Gauf: Figure 5 and Column 10 Lines 29-56, “Test Manager Software 514 may provide various management functionality, including use case development and requirements traceability, as shown by 516. To track progress, a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) may be provided that allows for traceability of test artifacts back to the requirements.”; it is understood that the matrix is updated as necessary).
Gauf-Yassin teaches 10/20. The method of claim 1/system of claim 11, further comprising:
generating, by the computer, a first email message including a first version of the summary and a second email message including a second version of the summary, the second version containing comparatively less information than the first version (Yassin: Paragraph [0052], “ the statistics of individual software developers can be tracked by the reporting component 218, including the frequency, severity, timing, or specific dates of defects introduced into the source code by individual developers. The reports regarding the software changes can be used to grade a developer's coding skills using concrete data and identify areas in which a particular developer may be introducing defects. In some instances, reporting component 218 can comprise functionality provided by the QOS engine 104 or other components within the quality on submit system. The reporting functionality of the QOS engine 104 allows users to receive immediate feedback regarding source code submissions”), the method further comprising:
automatically transmitting, by the computer, the first email message to a first subset of a set of recipients and automatically transmitting the second email message to a second subset of the set of recipients (Yassin: Paragraph [0015], “the reporting functions of the QOS engine can include detailed data regarding source code changes, such as specific data related to individual software developers to help identify problematic areas during software development. The statistical data can be used to grade individual programmers or inform project managers of a current status of each aspect in a project”, and Paragraphs [0052] and [0055], “the QOS engine 104 provides efficient management, coordination, and utilization of the various available testing procedures in order to determine an indicator of relative quality of newly submitted source code changes suited for a specific project or software developer”; different users get different reports with varying amounts of data).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brown (US 2004/0255265 A1) describes a system of project management including generation of a Requirements Trace Matrix (RTM).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMAD HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/IMAD HUSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights