EP1922613A2 - Procede et dispositif d'evaluation automatique de la qualite d'un code source de logiciel - Google Patents

Procede et dispositif d'evaluation automatique de la qualite d'un code source de logiciel

Info

Publication number
EP1922613A2
EP1922613A2 EP06792612A EP06792612A EP1922613A2 EP 1922613 A2 EP1922613 A2 EP 1922613A2 EP 06792612 A EP06792612 A EP 06792612A EP 06792612 A EP06792612 A EP 06792612A EP 1922613 A2 EP1922613 A2 EP 1922613A2
Authority
EP
European Patent Office
Prior art keywords
source code
metrics
quality
evaluation rules
rules
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Withdrawn
Application number
EP06792612A
Other languages
German (de)
English (en)
Inventor
Günther BLASCHEK
Christian Körner
Reinhold PLÖSCH
Gustav Pomberger
Stefan Schiffer
Stephan Storck
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Siemens AG
Original Assignee
Siemens AG
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Siemens AG filed Critical Siemens AG
Publication of EP1922613A2 publication Critical patent/EP1922613A2/fr
Withdrawn legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
    • G06F11/36—Preventing errors by testing or debugging software
    • G06F11/3604—Software analysis for verifying properties of programs
    • G06F11/3616—Software analysis for verifying properties of programs using software metrics

Definitions

  • the invention relates to a method and an apparatus for the automated assessment of the quality of a software source code.
  • Improving the quality of software code is a constant endeavor in the development of software, i. H. Programs for computers. This applies not only to ensuring the functionality of the software, but also, for example, in terms of its maintainability and portability. Sufficiently good quality of software is particularly difficult to achieve when the amount of source code is large - which, however, is required to cover the desired functionality. In addition, there is often a large amount of explicit and implicit informal requirements that are not known to the same extent to the developers involved and are therefore not sufficiently considered in the development. Furthermore, the time pressure is often great to complete the software and deliver.
  • Such a quality model contains, for example, the German industry standard, DIN, ISO 9126, Information technology - Assessment of
  • this standard defines metrics that measure and report the quality of the software.
  • object-oriented metrics are listed below: Depth of Inheritance Tree, DIT, Number of Children, NOC, Coupling between Objects, CBO, Weighted Methods per Class, WMC, Response for Class, RFC, Message Passing Coupling, MPC, Lack of Cohesion in Methods, LCOM, etc. These metrics can be used to measure properties of object-oriented software at the level of classes and methods.
  • Metrics are indicators of software errors and often have limited meaning. They depend on the technical constraints of the computer systems used, such as storage capacities, response times, throughputs, etc., and on implicit requirements of the application domain, e.g. a real-time system. For a reliable assessment of the software quality, it is therefore necessary to additionally assess the quality of the software by experts who manually read at least parts of the source code in a more or less structured manner. In the process, potential sources of error are discussed, documented and suggestions for improvement are made, which then preferably lead to the correction of the errors in the software. However, this approach is increasingly impractical and prone to errors due to rapidly growing volumes of source code, high network interconnectivity of the systems with their respective application environment, short development times, often locally distributed development capabilities, and not least expert shortages.
  • the present invention has for its object to enable an automated assessment of a quality of software in a simple manner.
  • this object is achieved by a method or a device for the automated evaluation of the quality of a software source code having the features of patent claims 1 and 9, respectively.
  • evaluation rules and / or metrics for assessing the quality of the source code are prescribed.
  • the Source code in particular its quality, is checked by means of a set of evaluation rules and / or metrics, the sentence having at least part of the predetermined evaluation rules and / or metrics.
  • the set of validation rules and / or metrics used to validate the source code is examined in response to evaluating the source code's validation for at least one predetermined criterion to form an adjusted set of evaluation rules and / or metrics other than the set is.
  • the source code is then checked by means of the adjusted set of evaluation rules and / or metrics.
  • control means arranged to allow verification of the source code by means of a set of evaluation rules and / or metrics, the sentence covering at least part of the predetermined rating rules and / or metrics.
  • control means is arranged to control an adaptation of the set of evaluation rules and / or metrics used to verify the source code. This is done in response to an evaluation of the performed verification of the source code with respect to at least one predetermined criterion. The result is an adjusted set of evaluation rules and / or metrics that is different from the sentence.
  • the control means makes it possible to check the source code by means of the adapted set of evaluation rules and / or metrics.
  • the control means is in particular designed so that it allows an implementation of the method according to the invention.
  • a multiplicity of different evaluation rules and / or metrics are specified as quality indicators with which the quality of different Software source code rated and error sources and problems in the source code can be detected.
  • the software is guided to the quality goal by predetermining and appropriately adapting the set of evaluation rules and / or metrics and advantageously by limiting values for determining the evaluation rules and / or metrics.
  • a targeted control of the evaluation and in particular also an improvement of the quality of the source code can be made possible.
  • the rating of the quality is reliable, repeatable and can be used advantageously especially for large to very large software systems.
  • the quality of the executable software can be effectively guaranteed. Due to the high level of automation, created versions of the source code can be checked promptly for creation and with limited technical and economic effort. Thus, a fast, targeted decision-making aid is provided for assessing the quality and, in particular, also for pointing out errors and also for possibilities for improvement.
  • Adjusting the set of rating rules and / or metrics used to verify the source code, and the overlay Checking the source code using the adjusted set of evaluation rules and / or metrics is advantageously repeated until a predetermined state for the at least one criterion is reached.
  • the set of evaluation rules and / or metrics is thus adjusted so that the composition of the evaluation rules and / or metrics in the (adjusted) sentence can be optimized successively and iteratively. This is done with regard to the at least one predetermined criterion, the z. B. can be specified by a requirement profile for creating the software.
  • the at least one predefined criterion when evaluating the performed checking of the source code contains a criterion of an achieved degree of automation, a criterion of achieved coverage of the source code when verifying and / or a criterion of achieved coverage of an underlying given quality model when checking.
  • the quality model may be determined based on a particular business model for the software. This means that the quality model z. B. derived from the life and field of use of the software or the product in which the software is used.
  • the set of evaluation rules and / or metrics can be particularly well suited, in particular to existing resources and goals, such. Project goals.
  • Quality model set with several quality characteristics Quality features of such a quality model can be, for example, maintainability, complexity, reliability, usability, efficiency, portability, comprehensibility, productivity, security, analyzability and / or effectiveness of the source code.
  • quality features of the quality model for reviewing used which can be examined by static analysis methods.
  • the individual evaluation rules and / or metrics can advantageously be assigned to certain quality characteristics.
  • an overall quality assessment of the quality of the source code is determined by means of individual quality assessments which are based on checking the source code by means of the individual evaluation rules and / or metrics of the set used for checking.
  • the overall quality assessment and the individual quality assessments can each be represented by key figures.
  • the quality can advantageously be displayed clearly and quickly recorded.
  • the overall quality assessment is added to a quality history in which the overall
  • Quality ratings of various versions of the source code are included. For the different versions, this results in a sequence of comparable quality assessments.
  • This sequence of quality evaluations can advantageously be statistically evaluated in order to identify systematic or sporadic sources of error, for example in the form of a trend analysis. In particular, this can affect specific weaknesses of the code that are made visible by the code and enable direct countermeasures.
  • a dynamic test is carried out during the execution of the software in order to check the effect of a correction of the source code carried out for a detected quality defect and / or to prioritize a performance of a plurality of corrections. This occurs in particular if abnormalities are present in the quality history for which correction options are to be identified by means of detailed analyzes.
  • the dynamic test By means of the dynamic test, the influence of the correction possibility on the code can be analyzed.
  • their implementation can be prioritized. For example, in the case where a policy violation is to ensure that this rule is adhered to in the source code, the dynamic test helps to focus or prioritize the corrections to the most frequently used source code locations.
  • the dynamic test can capture the actual impact of each violation on the software. This detection can be done mainly with regard to the size of the loaded source code in the main memory (footprint) and / or the reactivity of the software (time for the software to respond to an input).
  • Figure 1 is a schematic representation of an embodiment of a method according to the invention for the automated evaluation of the quality of a software source code
  • Figure 2 is a schematic representation of an embodiment of a device according to the invention for the automated evaluation of the quality of a software source code.
  • Fig. 1 shows schematically an embodiment of the method according to the invention for the automated evaluation of the quality of a software source code.
  • Starting points for carrying out the method are the source code to be evaluated and to be improved, which is represented in FIG. 1 by the method component with the reference numeral 1.
  • a process component 2 represents a set of evaluation rules and metrics that can be used to verify the source code.
  • the valuation rules are documented, ie the valuation rules store attributes that enable or support selection of valuation rules and metrics.
  • the process component 2 further represents a predetermined quality goal indicating a desired quality that the software should have.
  • the quality objective is based on a given quality model, to which a multitude of quality characteristics is assigned.
  • the quality characteristics can be checked and evaluated by means of the evaluation rules and metrics. be judged. This also means that errors or sources of problems in the source code that do not meet the quality characteristics in the source code can be detected by means of the evaluation rules and metrics.
  • One of the quality features for example, the maintainability of the
  • the maintainability corresponds to an extent in which the software, i. H. the source code, can be changed. These changes include fixes as well as enhancements and adjustments to changes in the environment, requirements, and / or functional specification.
  • the maintainability can by other criteria, such. Simplicity or readability, will be further described.
  • the simplicity can be described, for example, by a metric CBOR, "high coupling through type use”.
  • This metric CBOR examines the coupling of a class with other classes.
  • a class coupled with many other classes is inherently complex, i. H. hard to understand because at least some of the classes used must be understood in order to understand the class itself. Therefore, this CBOR per class metric counts the number of different types for attributes, local variables, and return values.
  • the process components 1 and 2 thus represent predetermined conditions for carrying out the method according to the invention.
  • the source code is checked in a method step 3 by means of an automatic source code checking and metric tool by means of a set of the predetermined evaluation rules and metrics.
  • the part of predetermined evaluation rules and metrics used for checking is selected beforehand, for example, by a developer of the software or an expert according to specific, in particular project-specific criteria, so that only a part of the predetermined evaluation rules and metrics is used.
  • individual quality assessments are set, which are based on checking the source code by means of the individual evaluation rules and / or metrics of the set used for checking.
  • the individual quality assessments are advantageously each represented by key figures.
  • a review and evaluation of the results of the verification method step 3 is performed. In particular, it checks which evaluation rules and / or metrics are necessary and valid depending on the programming language, the application domain and the quality objective. This check can be automated. Alternatively or additionally, checking by an expert is also advantageous.
  • a decision is made on the basis of method step 4 as to whether at least one predefined criterion is satisfied when evaluating the checking of the source code that has been carried out. In particular, such can be an achieved degree of automation and / or achieved coverage of the source code during checking. If the at least one criterion is not fulfilled, then the method according to the invention branches to a method step 6. In this method step 6, the set of evaluation rules and / or metrics is adapted.
  • the method according to the invention then branches again to method step 3, in which the source code is checked by means of the adapted set of evaluation rules and metrics and of the automatic source code checking and metric tool.
  • the loop given by method steps 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 is run through until it is determined in method step 5 that the at least one predefined criterion is fulfilled.
  • the method branches from method step 5 to method step 9, in which the results of the check carried out in method step 3 are summarized on the basis of the underlying quality model.
  • a method step 10 new evaluation rules and metrics in the quality model can be added.
  • the rating of the rating rules and metrics can be adjusted according to the quality objective.
  • the summarization of the results in method step 9 takes place in such a way that an overall quality assessment of the quality of the source code is determined by suitably combining the individual quality evaluations generated in method step 3 for the individual evaluation rules and / or metrics.
  • a mapping function can be defined, with which the individual quality evaluations for the individual evaluation rules and / or metrics are linked to one another in a weighted manner.
  • the overall quality rating is also represented by a measure for the sake of simplicity.
  • the summary of the assessment for the overall quality assessment carried out in method step 9 can be checked by the expert, in particular on the basis of a plausibility check.
  • a final evaluation of this current version of the software is then available.
  • the automatically generated individual evaluations of the quality of the software are advantageously additionally secured by the expert examination, which ensures a high reliability of the evaluation.
  • the final score is added to a quality history in a step 13.
  • This quality history contains overall quality ratings of various versions of the source code.
  • the development of the software, and in particular the structure of its functionality, is done by version. This means that the different versions build on each other and usually a new version improves the functionality, performance and quality of a previous version. Since the summarized assessments of the different versions of the software are included in the quality history, it is possible to compare this sequence of quality scores. This takes place in method step 13.
  • evaluation rules or metrics added in the course of checking newer versions are applied to quality evaluations of older predecessor versions contained in the quality history. As a result, these predecessor versions are also examined by means of these new rules or metrics, so that further individual quality evaluations are created, which can additionally be used to assess certain trends in the development of the software.
  • correction options are identified in a procedural step 14 in case of abnormalities in the quality history. This is done by analyzing details of the software. For this purpose, additional dynamic tests can be performed during the operation of the software in order to determine the flow of certain corrections to the quality of the software. In the dynamic tests, the software is parameterized and the test system is created in order to be able to determine the concrete evaluation code for the corrected software. In method step 14, it is likewise possible to prioritize the execution of several correction options. When applying rules that take into account conflicting constraints, it is preferable to choose a procedure that ensures that changes made will converge towards the overall quality objective.
  • Controlling the quality of the software by identifying and testing the correction possibilities can be supported by means of an existing solution library. This is illustrated in FIG. 1 by method step 15.
  • identified correction options are then incorporated into the source code in order to improve and expand the software. In the case of a prioritization of the correction options, these are incorporated according to their priority.
  • method step 17 an improved new software version is then available. This is then forwarded to the automatic source code verification and metric tool previously described in step 3. The test of the new software version then takes place in the manner described above.
  • the device according to the invention here is a computer 20.
  • the computer 20 has a screen 21 and an input means, which here is a keyboard 22.
  • the computer 20 further includes a control device 23, which controls the operations of the computer 20 and in particular the execution of the inventive method.
  • the controller 23 includes a processor and a memory in which a suitable program, i. H. a software is stored that can be executed by the processor to perform the inventive method.
  • the control device 23 contains a software memory 24, in which the source code of the software is stored, whose quality is to be evaluated. The controller 23 thus accesses the memory 24 during the evaluation and checking of the source code.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Software Systems (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Stored Programmes (AREA)

Abstract

Procédé et dispositif (20) d'évaluation automatique de la qualité d'un code source (1) de logiciel. Selon ledit procédé, des règles d'évaluation et / ou des métriques destinées à évaluer la qualité du code source (1) sont prédéfinies (2). Le code source (1) est vérifié (3) à l'aide d'un ensemble de règles d'évaluation et / ou de métriques, ledit ensemble possédant au moins une partie des règles d'évaluation et / ou des métriques prédéfinies. En outre, l'ensemble de règles d'évaluation et / ou de métriques utilisé pour la vérification du code source (1) est adapté (6) en fonction d'une évaluation (4, 5) de la vérification effectuée du code source (1) concernant au moins un critère prédéfini, pour former (8) un ensemble adapté de règles d'évaluation et / ou de métriques différent du premier ensemble. De plus, le code source (1) est vérifié (3) au moyen de l'ensemble adapté de règles d'évaluation et / ou de métriques. La présente invention permet avantageusement l'évaluation automatique de grandes quantités de codes sources quant à leur qualité ainsi également que l'amélioration desdits codes sources. Il est également possible d'adapter l'ensemble de règles d'évaluation et / ou de métriques et, partant, la vérification de la qualité, à des impératifs déterminés, par ex. relatifs à un projet. Cela permet un réglage répondant aux exigences du moment de la qualité interne du logiciel, compte tenu d'un modèle commercial et des impératifs relatifs à la qualité externe du logiciel ou de la qualité d'utilisation. Les modifications et les extensions qui sont nécessaires lors du processus d'élaboration du logiciel peuvent être prises en compte de manière particulièrement souple.
EP06792612A 2005-09-05 2006-07-31 Procede et dispositif d'evaluation automatique de la qualite d'un code source de logiciel Withdrawn EP1922613A2 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
DE102005042126A DE102005042126A1 (de) 2005-09-05 2005-09-05 Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum automatisierten Bewerten der Qualität eines Software-Quellcodes
PCT/EP2006/064844 WO2007028676A2 (fr) 2005-09-05 2006-07-31 Procede et dispositif d'evaluation automatique de la qualite d'un code source de logiciel

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
EP1922613A2 true EP1922613A2 (fr) 2008-05-21

Family

ID=37719334

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
EP06792612A Withdrawn EP1922613A2 (fr) 2005-09-05 2006-07-31 Procede et dispositif d'evaluation automatique de la qualite d'un code source de logiciel

Country Status (4)

Country Link
US (1) US20090055804A1 (fr)
EP (1) EP1922613A2 (fr)
DE (1) DE102005042126A1 (fr)
WO (1) WO2007028676A2 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN111080834A (zh) * 2019-10-31 2020-04-28 北京航天自动控制研究所 一种利用索引对测发控软件巡检数据配置判据的方法

Families Citing this family (20)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10402757B1 (en) * 2007-03-16 2019-09-03 Devfactory Fz-Llc System and method for outsourcing projects
US8627287B2 (en) * 2007-11-29 2014-01-07 Microsoft Corporation Prioritizing quality improvements to source code
US8875118B1 (en) * 2008-05-14 2014-10-28 Bank Of America Corporation Application configuration managment
US20100070949A1 (en) * 2008-09-15 2010-03-18 Infosys Technologies Limited Process and system for assessing modularity of an object-oriented program
CA2734199C (fr) * 2010-03-18 2017-01-03 Accenture Global Services Limited Peptides antigeniques derives de la telomerase
US20110321007A1 (en) * 2010-06-29 2011-12-29 International Business Machines Corporation Targeting code sections for correcting computer program product defects using records of a defect tracking system
US9507940B2 (en) 2010-08-10 2016-11-29 Salesforce.Com, Inc. Adapting a security tool for performing security analysis on a software application
US8701198B2 (en) * 2010-08-10 2014-04-15 Salesforce.Com, Inc. Performing security analysis on a software application
DE102011006215A1 (de) * 2010-11-09 2012-05-10 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Ermitteln einer Qualitätsbewertung eines Softwarecodes mit Ermittlung der Bewertungsabdeckung
US8584079B2 (en) * 2010-12-16 2013-11-12 Sap Portals Israel Ltd Quality on submit process
US9286187B2 (en) * 2012-08-30 2016-03-15 Sap Se Static enforcement of process-level security and compliance specifications for cloud-based systems
US9286394B2 (en) 2013-07-17 2016-03-15 Bank Of America Corporation Determining a quality score for internal quality analysis
US9378477B2 (en) 2013-07-17 2016-06-28 Bank Of America Corporation Framework for internal quality analysis
US9813450B1 (en) 2015-02-16 2017-11-07 Amazon Technologies, Inc. Metadata-based verification of artifact quality policy compliance
US9619363B1 (en) * 2015-09-25 2017-04-11 International Business Machines Corporation Predicting software product quality
FR3042291B1 (fr) * 2015-10-09 2017-11-17 Centre Nat D'etudes Spatiales C N E S Dispositif et procede de verification d'un logiciel
US10268824B2 (en) 2016-03-01 2019-04-23 Wipro Limited Method and system for identifying test cases for penetration testing of an application
CN108121656A (zh) * 2016-11-30 2018-06-05 西门子公司 一种软件评估方法和装置
US11157844B2 (en) * 2018-06-27 2021-10-26 Software.co Technologies, Inc. Monitoring source code development processes for automatic task scheduling
US11138366B2 (en) 2019-02-25 2021-10-05 Allstate Insurance Company Systems and methods for automated code validation

Family Cites Families (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7669180B2 (en) * 2004-06-18 2010-02-23 International Business Machines Corporation Method and apparatus for automated risk assessment in software projects

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
See references of WO2007028676A2 *

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN111080834A (zh) * 2019-10-31 2020-04-28 北京航天自动控制研究所 一种利用索引对测发控软件巡检数据配置判据的方法

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2007028676A2 (fr) 2007-03-15
US20090055804A1 (en) 2009-02-26
DE102005042126A1 (de) 2007-03-15
WO2007028676A3 (fr) 2007-11-08

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
EP1922613A2 (fr) Procede et dispositif d'evaluation automatique de la qualite d'un code source de logiciel
DE69720821T2 (de) Fehlersuchsystem für Programme mit einer graphischen Benutzerschnittstelle
EP3082000B1 (fr) Procédé et système de test d'un système mécatronique
DE102006046203A1 (de) Verfahren zur rechnergestützten Bewertung von Softwarequellcode
DE102006056432A1 (de) Verfahren zum Testen eines Computerprogramms
DE102004024262A1 (de) Wissensbasiertes Diagnosesystem für ein komplexes technisches System mit zwei getrennten Wissensbasen zur Verarbeitung technischer Systemdaten und zur Verarbeitung von Kundenbeanstandungen
DE102011014830A1 (de) Verfahren und vorrichtung zum analysieren vonsoftware
DE102014102551A1 (de) Maschine und Verfahren zum Evaluieren von fehlschlagenden Softwareprogrammen
WO2023041458A2 (fr) Procédés mis en œuvre par ordinateur, modules et système de détection d'anomalies dans des processus de fabrication industriels
DE102010033861A1 (de) Auf einer formellen Analyse basierte Entwicklung von Anforderungsspezifikationen
DE102005042129A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum automatisierten Bewerten der Qualität eines Software-Quellcodes
DE112009000211T5 (de) Programmprüfvorrichtung und -programm
EP3232327B1 (fr) Procede d'essai d'un programme de commande d'un appareil de commande dans un environnement de simulation sur un ordinateur
DE102011014831A1 (de) Verfahren und vorrichtung zum analysieren vonsoftware mit einem kalibrierten wert
EP3306295A1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif d'essai de commandes électroniques, en particulier d'essai de commandes automobiles
CN114546864A (zh) 软件质量评估方法、装置、设备及存储介质
DE102009004531B4 (de) Verfahren zum Verifizieren eines Fertigungsprozesses
DE102020206327A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
DE102019128156A1 (de) Verfahren zur Überprüfung eines FPGA-Programms
DE102019219067A1 (de) Verfahren zur automatischen Qualifizierung eines virtuellen Modells für eine Kraftfahrzeugkomponente
EP3657411A1 (fr) Procédé de test basé sur le risque
DE102022201856A1 (de) Automatisches generieren eines fuzzing-plans für das fuzzing eines programmiercodes
EP1237118B1 (fr) Méthode pour la spécification, l'execution et l'analyse de processus pendant la reconnaissance
DE102020205526A1 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Prüfen eines technischen Systems
DE102020211519A1 (de) Bewertung von warnmeldungen in der statischen code-analyse

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PUAI Public reference made under article 153(3) epc to a published international application that has entered the european phase

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009012

17P Request for examination filed

Effective date: 20080212

AK Designated contracting states

Kind code of ref document: A2

Designated state(s): AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC NL PL PT RO SE SI SK TR

AX Request for extension of the european patent

Extension state: AL BA HR MK RS

17Q First examination report despatched

Effective date: 20091019

DAX Request for extension of the european patent (deleted)
RAP1 Party data changed (applicant data changed or rights of an application transferred)

Owner name: SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO BE WITHDRAWN

18D Application deemed to be withdrawn

Effective date: 20170201