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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/27/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “704” in Fig. 7 of the drawings has been used to designate steps 702, 706, 708, 710, 712, 714 and 716. Paragraphs 0033-0043 of the specification recite the correct numbers of the steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gligan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210117742 A1).
Gligan was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 1, Gligan teaches the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method for interrelating software robots of a robotic process automation system to carry out an automation workflow process, the method comprising:
identifying an automation workflow process to be performed, the automation workflow process including a sequence of tasks, the tasks including at least (i) one or more human tasks and (ii) one or more robotic tasks (par. 0036 FIG. 4 shows an exemplary long running workflow 400 … Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic tasks] and a user activity 406 [human task]), the automation workflow process also including workflow data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the sequence of tasks, the workflow data denoting at least interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the sequence of tasks to inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the sequence of tasks par. 0018 workflows may include, but are not limited to, sequences, flowcharts, Finite State Machines (FSMs), and/or global exception handlers. Sequences may be particularly suitable for linear processes, enabling flow from one activity to another [designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks] without cluttering a workflow. Flowcharts may be particularly suitable to more complex business logic, enabling integration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diverse manner through multiple branching logic operators … FSMs may use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition (i.e., transition) or an activity; par. 0036 Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 and a user activity 406. Robot activity 402 defines a robot performing optical character recognition (OCR) on a document [input]. Robot activity 404 defines a robot extracting data [output] from the OCR results. User activity 406 defines a user validating the extracted data [validating task uses extracted data as input]. Robot activity 408 defines a robot updating the system with the validated extracted data);
determining a first task specified within the automation workflow process that is to be performed (par. 0036 Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 and a user activity 406. Robot activity 402 [first task] defines a robot performing optical character recognition (OCR) on a document);
causing the first task to be performed on a first computing device (par. 0040 one or more document processing activities [first task] of the long running workflow are executed by a first robot to process an input document … The document processing activities may be … e.g., OCR optimal character recognition; Fig. 1, The RPA system includes a plurality client computing systems running robots. It is noted that a first client computer system of the plurality client computing systems corresponds to a first computing device performing the first task); receiving an indication that the first task has completed (par. 0036 … a robot extracting data from the OCR [first task] results);
determining a subsequent task specified within the automation workflow process that is to be performed after the first task (par. 0041 At step 504, execution of the long running workflow is suspended by the first robot in response to [upon determination of a second task] a user validation activity of the long running workflow);
causing the subsequent task to be performed on a second computing device (par. 0043 a user request requesting validation of the results from the end user is generated. The user request may include the input document … results of the one or more document processing activities … In one embodiment, the user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. It is noted a second client computer system of the plurality client computing systems correspond to a first computing device performing the first task); and
receiving an indication that the subsequent task has completed (par. 0046 execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408 for updating the system based on user input received for user activity 406 validating results of the data extraction).
As per claim 2, Gligan further teaches: wherein the first computing device is required to be authorized to perform the first task, wherein the second computing device is required to be authorized to perform the subsequent task, and wherein the first computing device authorized to perform the subsequent task is different than the second computing device authorized to perform the first task, but both the first and second computing devices being associated with a single enterprise (par. 0047 The second robot may be any suitable robot for executing RPA workflows (e.g., an unattended robot). The first robot and the second robot may be … different robots; par. 0050 orchestrator transmits an indication to execute the one or more document processing activities to the first robot … receives validation of the results of the one or more document processing activities … and transmits an indication to resume the execution of the long running workflow to the second robot; par. 0020 Monitoring may include keeping track of robot identification data and maintaining user permissions; par. 0023 User mode robot services may be trusted with and manage the credentials for robots 106).
As per claim 3, Gligan further teaches: wherein the first task is one of the one or more human tasks, and wherein the subsequent task is one of the one or more robotic tasks (FIG. 4 shows activity 406 [human task] performed by a user, followed by activity 408 which is a [robotic task] performed by a robot).
As per claim 4, Gligan further wherein the first task is one of the one or more robotic tasks, and wherein the subsequent task is one of the one or more human tasks (par. 0036 FIG. 4 shows an exemplary long running workflow 400 … Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic tasks] and a user activity 406 [human task]).
As per claim 5, Gligan further teaches: wherein the workflow data included within the automation workflow process is configured to direct that an input to the subsequent task is to be provided from an output produced by the first task (par. 0046 execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408 for updating the system based on user input received for user activity 406).
As per claim 6, Gligan further teaches: wherein the automation workflow process includes at least one conditional branch (par. 0018 . Flowcharts … enabling integration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diverse manner through multiple branching logic operators … may use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition (i.e., transition) or an activity).
As per claim 7, Gligan further teaches: wherein the automation workflow process includes conditional flow control for altering flow control of the automation workflow process based on conditional logic (par. 0018 Flowcharts … enabling integration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diverse manner through multiple branching logic operators. FSMs may be particularly suitable for large workflows. FSMs may use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition … or an activity).
As per claim 8, Gligan further teaches: wherein the first task is one of the one or more robotic tasks, and wherein the first task was previously configured to identify a software robot that the first task is to invoke, and wherein the causing of the first task to be performed comprises causing the identified software robot to execute on the first computing device (par. 0040 one or more document processing activities of the long running workflow are executed by a first robot to process an input document. The first robot may be … an unattended robot; par. 0039 The steps [task] of method 500 may be performed by one or more robots (e.g., attended robot 108 or unattended robot 110 …) running on a computing device).
As per claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Gligan further teaches: a non-transitory computer readable medium (par. 0058 on-transitory computer-readable media).
As per claim 22, Gligan teaches the invention as claimed including a robotic process automation system (par. 0002 The present invention relates generally to robotic process automation, and more particularly to long running workflows), comprising:
a data store configured to store a plurality of software robots, the software robots providing automated interaction with one or more software programs operating on one or more computing devices (par. 0032 The persistence layer on the server side includes a pair of servers in this illustrative embodiment—database server 222 (e.g., a SQL server) and indexer server 224. Database server 222 in this embodiment stores the configurations of the robots, robot groups, associated processes, users, roles, schedules, etc. This information is managed through web application 214 in some embodiments);
a workflow process platform configured to enable users to (i) create automation workflow processes, and (ii) perform automation workflow processes that have been created (par. 0016 More specifically, designer 102 facilitates the development and deployment of workflows and robots for performing activities in the workflows; par. 0040 one or more document processing activities of the long running workflow are executed by a first robot to process an input document … The document processing activities may be any robot activity for processing documents that are serializable, such as, e.g., OCR optimal character recognition),
wherein at least a particular automation workflow process of the created automation workflow processes includes a determined sequence of performing a plurality of tasks, at least one of the tasks in the determined sequence being a robotic task that is performed by one of the software robots, and at least another of the tasks in the determined sequence being a human task that is performed to receive interaction with a person (par. 0036 Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 and a user activity 406. Robot activity 402 defines a robot performing optical character recognition (OCR) on a document. Robot activity 404 defines a robot extracting data from the OCR results. User activity 406 defines a user validating the extracted data. Robot activity 408 defines a robot updating the system with the validated extracted data; par. 0036 FIG. 4 Long running workflow 400 comprises … a user activity 406 [human task]), and
wherein the particular automation workflow process being created includes workflow execution data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the determined sequence, the workflow execution data denoting at least interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the determined sequence to inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the determined sequence (par. 0048 execution of the long running workflow is resumed using the workflow state (data variables and their values) [of previous task/activity] at the time of suspension, which was stored in the central persistent storage; par. 0046 For example, the execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408 for updating the system based on user input received for user activity 406 validating results of the data extraction); and
wherein performance of the particular automation workflow process performs the tasks of the particular automation workflow process in the determined sequence, the performance including causing the one of the software robots for the robotic task to be performed and causing a user interface to be presented to the person in performing the human task (par. 0040 one or more document processing activities of the long running workflow are executed by a first robot to process an input document … The document processing activities may be any robot activity for processing documents that are serializable, such as, e.g., OCR optimal character recognition; par. 0043 user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. The user interface allows for the presentation of information of the user request).
As per claim 23, Gligan further teaches: wherein, the workflow process platform manages the performance of the particular automation workflow process (par. 0034 RPA system 300 may be implemented to execute long running workflows) by operating to at least:
determine a first task within the particular automation workflow process that is to be performed (par. 0036 FIG. 4 shows an exemplary long running workflow 400 … Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic tasks] and a user activity 406 [human task]);
determining a particular computing device that is to perform the first task based on the particular automation workflow process (par. 0033 RPA system 300 includes multiple client computing systems 302 running robots; par 0034 In one embodiment, RPA system 300 may be implemented to execute long running workflows. As used herein, long running workflows are workflows that include one or more activities that depend on an occurrence of an external event in order to complete the activity);
cause the first task to be performed on the particular computing device; receive an indication that the first task has completed (par. 0040 one or more document processing activities of the long running workflow are executed by a first robot to process an input document … The document processing activities may be any robot activity for processing documents that are serializable, such as, e.g., OCR optimal character recognition);
determine a subsequent task within the particular automation workflow process that is to be performed after the first task (par. 0041 At step 504, execution of the long running workflow is suspended by the first robot in response to [upon determination] a user validation activity of the long running workflow);
determining another computing device that is to perform the subsequent task based on the particular automation workflow process (par. 0033 RPA system 300 includes multiple client computing systems 302 running robots; par 0034 In one embodiment, RPA system 300 may be implemented to execute long running workflows. As used herein, long running workflows are workflows that include one or more activities that depend on an occurrence of an external event in order to complete the activity);
cause the subsequent task to be performed on the another computing device (par. 0043 a user request requesting validation of the results from the end user is generated. The user request may include the input document … results of the one or more document processing activities … In one embodiment, the user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results [perform task] of the one or more document processing activities); and
receive an indication that the subsequent task has completed (par. 0046 execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408 for updating the system based on user input received for user activity 406 validating results of the data extraction).
As per claim 24, Gligan further teaches: identify a first task to be included in the automation workflow process being created; identify a second task to be included in the automation workflow process being created (par. 0036 FIG. 4 shows an exemplary long running workflow 400 … Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic tasks] and a user activity 406 [human task]); and arrange the second task to follow after the first task within the automation workflow process (par. 0037 Execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed at activity 408 upon completion of activity 406 with … a different robot; Fig. 4, describes a robot activity 408 performed by a different robot that follow a user activity [human task]).
As per claim 25, Gligan further teaches: configure the first task to present a user interface to a person and to capture a data input therefrom (par. 0043 user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. The user interface allows for the presentation of information of the user request); and configure the second task to perform a first software robot, and to receive as an input at least a portion of the data input that the first task provided (par. 0046 the execution of the long running workflow is resumed by the second robot based on the validation received from the end user [human task]. For example, the execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408).
As per claim 26, Gligan teaches the invention including a computer-implemented method for interrelating software robots of a robotic process automation system to create an automation workflow process (par. 0038 Long running workflows … may be created by a user … the user creates the long running workflow by creating a new project … and selecting (e.g., dragging and dropping from a set of available activities)), the method comprising:
identifying a first robotic task to be included in the automation workflow process being created (par. 0016, RPA system 100 includes a designer 102 to allow a developer to design automation processes using workflows. More specifically, designer 102 facilitates the development and deployment of workflows and robots for performing activities in the workflows; par. 0017 In designing the automation of rule-based processes, the developer controls the execution order and the relationship; between a custom set of steps developed in a workflow, defined herein as “activities.” par. 0036 User activity 406 defines a user validating [human task] the extracted data; Fig. 4, describes a first user activity [human task] performed by a fist robot);
configuring the first robotic task to utilize a first software robot to obtain output data (par. 0016, 0017; par. 0043 user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. The user interface allows for the presentation of information of the user request; par. 0044] At step 508, the user request is transmitted to the end user. The user request notifies the end user that user input is required for validating the results of the one or more document processing activities. In response to the user request, the end user may interact with the user request to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities by selecting the document processing results, comparing the document processing results with the input document, and correcting the document processing results. It is noted that that since the validation task, which requires user input, can be designed by a developer, when the developer designs the task, and also configure the validate task to trigger some sort of UI);
identifying a first human task to be included in the automation workflow process being created; arranging the first human task to follow after the first robotic task within the automation workflow process (par. 0016, RPA system 100 includes a designer 102 to allow a developer to design automation processes using workflows. More specifically, designer 102 facilitates the development and deployment of workflows and robots for performing activities in the workflows; par. 0017 In designing the automation of rule-based processes, the developer controls the execution order and the relationship; par. 0036 User activity 406 defines a user validating [human task] the extracted data; Fig. 4, describes a first user activity [human task] performed by a fist robot; Fig. 4, describes a user validation task 406 follows a data extraction robot task 404); and
configuring the first human task to present a user interface to a person, wherein the user interface is used to present at least a portion of the output data obtained by the first robotic task (par. 0016, 0017; par. 0043 user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. The user interface allows for the presentation of information of the user request; par. 0043 user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. The user interface allows for the presentation of information of the user request).
wherein the automation workflow process being created includes workflow execution data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the sequence of tasks, the workflow execution data denoting at least interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the sequence of tasks to inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the sequence of tasks (par. 0048 execution of the long running workflow is resumed using the workflow state (data variables and their values) [of previous task/activity] at the time of suspension, which was stored in the central persistent storage; par. 0046 For example, the execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408 for updating the system based on user input received for user activity 406 validating results of the data extraction).
As per claim 27, Gligan further teaches: wherein the configuring of the first human task further configures the user interface to capture a data input from the person (par. 0052 User interface 600 may be presented to an end user in response to the end user interacting with a user request requesting validation of the results of the data extraction; 0007 In one embodiment, a user interface is caused to be displayed depicting the input document and the results for presentation to the end user. The input data and the results of the one or more document processing activities may be displayed in a side-by-side configuration).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 10-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gligan as applied to claim 1, in view of Kamath et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210216484 A1).
Kamath was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 10, Gligan teaches the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method for interrelating software robots of a robotic process automation system to create an automation workflow process (par. 0038 Long running workflows … may be created by a user … the user creates the long running workflow by creating a new project … and selecting (e.g., dragging and dropping from a set of available activities)), the method comprising:
identifying a first human task to be included in the automation workflow process being created (par. 0016, RPA system 100 includes a designer 102 to allow a developer to design automation processes using workflows. More specifically, designer 102 facilitates the development and deployment of workflows and robots for performing activities in the workflows; par. 0017 In designing the automation of rule-based processes, the developer controls the execution order and the relationship; between a custom set of steps developed in a workflow, defined herein as “activities.” par. 0036 User activity 406 defines a user validating [human task] the extracted data; Fig. 4, describes a first user activity [human task] performed by a fist robot);
configuring the first human task to present a user interface to a person and to capture a data input therefrom (par. 0016, 0017; par. 0043 user request may include a user interface enabling the end user to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities. The user interface allows for the presentation of information of the user request; par. 0044] At step 508, the user request is transmitted to the end user. The user request notifies the end user that user input is required for validating the results of the one or more document processing activities. In response to the user request, the end user may interact with the user request to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities by selecting the document processing results, comparing the document processing results with the input document, and correcting the document processing results. It is noted that that since the validation task, which requires user input, can be designed by a developer, when the developer designs the task, and also configure the validate task to trigger some sort of UI);
identifying a first robotic task to be included in the automation workflow process being created; arranging the first robotic task to follow after the first human task within the automation workflow process (par. 0016, RPA system 100 includes a designer 102 to allow a developer to design automation processes using workflows. More specifically, designer 102 facilitates the development and deployment of workflows and robots for performing activities in the workflows; par. 0017 In designing the automation of rule-based processes, the developer controls the execution order and the relationship; par. 0036 Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic task]; Fig. 4, describes robotic activities 402, 404, followed by user activity 406 which is subsequently followed by a robotic activity 408; par. 0037 Execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed at activity 408 upon completion of activity 406 with … a different robot; Fig. 5 and par. 0046 execution of the long running workflow is resumed by the second robot based on the validation received from the end user); and
configuring the first robotic task to utilize a first software robot, and to receive as an input at least a portion of the data input that the first human task provided (par. 0046 the execution of the long running workflow is resumed by the second robot based on the validation [human task] received from the end user [human]. For example, the execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408), wherein the … first robotic task being included in the automation workflow process is to execute on a …. computing device (par. 0039 The steps [task] of method 500 may be performed by one or more robots (e.g., attended robot 108 or unattended robot 110 …) running on a computing device).
Gligan does not expressly describe: wherein the configuring of the first robotic task specifies that the first robotic task being included in the automation workflow process is to execute on a particular computing device.
However, Kamath teaches: wherein the configuring of the first robotic task specifies that the first robotic task being included in the automation workflow process is to execute on a particular computing device (par. 0026 The configuration information may specify a hardware component or device which is suited for execution of the processing task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gligan by incorporating the technique of using configuration information to specify a device for execution a task as set forth by Kamath because it would provide for specifying particular device that are best suited to execute a particular task of the long running workflow of Gligan. This would enable efficient assignment/distribution of the load for the tasks [unattended tasks] and thereby facilitates in enhanced performance (par. 0017).
As per claim 11, Gligan further teaches: wherein the user interface presents an electronic form on a display for the person, and the person is able to input the data input using the user interface (par. 0029 In various embodiments, most actions that a user performs in the interface of conductor 212 (e.g., via browser 210) are performed by calling various APIs. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, starting jobs on robots, adding/removing data in queues, scheduling jobs to run unattended, and so on; Fig. 6, describes exemplary user interface).
As per claim 12, Gligan further teaches: wherein the method comprises: identifying a first flow control condition to be included in the automation workflow process being created; and arranging the first flow control condition to follow after the first robotic task within the automation workflow process (par. 0018 workflows may include ... sequences, flowcharts, Finite State Machines (FSMs), and/or global exception handlers. Sequences may be particularly suitable for linear processes, enabling flow from one activity to another without cluttering a workflow. Flowcharts may be particularly suitable to more complex business logic, enabling integration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diverse manner through multiple branching logic operators … FSMs may use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition).
As per claim 13, Gligan further teaches: wherein the first software robot, when performed, produces a result (par. 0043 results of the one or more document processing activities), and wherein the method comprises: configuring the first flow control condition to receive as a condition input at least the result produced by the first software robot (par. 0018 workflows may include ... sequences .... Sequences may be particularly suitable for linear processes, enabling flow from one activity to another without cluttering a workflow. Flowcharts may be particularly suitable to more complex business logic, enabling integration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diverse manner through multiple branching logic operators … FSMs may use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition).
As per claim 14, Gligan further teaches: configuring the first flow control condition to compare the condition input to another value, and to produce a comparison result (par. 0056 may validate extracted data 606 by comparing extracted data 606 with original data 608 and correcting extracted data).
As per claim 15, Gligan further teaches: configuring the first flow control condition to use a logical operator when comparing the condition input to another value (par. 0018 Flowcharts may be particularly suitable to more complex business logic, enabling integration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diverse manner through multiple branching logic operators … FSMs may use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition … or an activity).
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium having similar limitations as claim 10. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 10.
As per claim 21, Gligan further teaches: computer program code for configuring the robotic task to receive as an input at least a portion of the data input that the first human task provided (par. 0046 execution of long running workflow 400 may be resumed by executing robot activity 408 for updating the system based on user input received for user activity 406).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gligan in view of Kamath as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Thibert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,490,449 B1).
Thibert was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 16, Gligan and Kamath do not expressly describe: arranging the first flow control condition to cause process flow to follow either a first path or a second path dependent on the comparison result.
However, Thibert teaches: arranging the first flow control condition to cause process flow to follow either a first path or a second path dependent on the comparison result (col. 8, lines 15-17 Corresponding to the three types … three separate paths … are provided. Upon determining the MSCID type, one of these paths is taken for further analysis. Depending on certain flow control conditions, some of the paths may have common flow segments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gligan and Kamath by incorporating the technique of determining paths to follow as set forth by Thibert because it would facilitate for efficiently arranging flow control conditions to cause a long-running workflow process to follow either of path types. The ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine because it would provide advantages including enhancing efficiently, accuracy and adaptability by eliminating manual decisions, automating complex logic.
As per claim 17, Gligan teaches a second human task or a second robotic task (par. 0036 FIG. 4 shows … Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic tasks] and a user activity 406 [human task]). Thibert further describes: arranging a … task to follow the first path (col. 8, lines 15-17 Corresponding to the three types … three separate paths … are provided … Depending on certain flow control conditions, some of the paths may have common flow segments).
As per claim 18, Gligan teaches: arranging a third human task or a third robotic task (par. 0036 FIG. 4 shows … Long running workflow 400 comprises robot activities 402, 404, and 408 [robotic tasks] and a user activity 406 [human task]). Thibert further teaches: arranging a … task to follow the second path (col. 8, lines 15-17 Corresponding to the three types … three separate paths … are provided … Depending on certain flow control conditions, some of the paths may have common flow segments).
As per claim 19, Gligan further teaches: arranging process flow following the first path to return to again perform the first human task or the first robotic task (par. 0041 the long running workflow is suspended by the first robot in response to a user validation activity of the long running workflow; par. 0044 in response to the user request, the end user may interact with the user request to validate the results of the one or more document processing activities).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) The applicant argues in pages 14-15 for claim 1 that “Gligan fail to teach or suggest any notion of: "workflow data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the sequence of tasks, the workflow data denoting at least interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the sequence of tasks to inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the sequence of tasks"
As per point 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the prior art cited reasonably teaches all the limitation as claimed including "workflow data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the sequence of tasks, the workflow data denoting at least The examiner respectfully submits that interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the sequence of tasks to inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the sequence of tasks" For example, Gligan, par. 0018, clearly describes that workflows sequences, flowcharts, Finite State Machines (FSMs), and/or global exception handlers, wherein sequences enable flow from one activity/task to another which same as designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the sequence of tasks, wherein flowcharts may enable integration of decisions and connections through multiple branching logic, wherein FSMs use a finite number of states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition. Further, par. 0036, denotes interrelations between outputs from earlier activities in the sequence of activities to outputs to subsequent activities. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(2) The applicant appears to argue in pages 16 for claim 1 that Thibert does not teach “wherein the configuring of the first robotic task specifies that the first robotic task being included in the automation workflow process is to execute on a particular computing device” because the hardware adapter device [of Kamath] is not relevant to an automation workflow.
As per point 2, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the combination of prior art reasonably teaches all the limitations as claimed. For example, Gligan, par. 0039, already teaches that steps/tasks of a method [workflow] may be performed by one or more robots (e.g., attended robot or unattended robot) running on a computing device, except the configuring specifying that the task being included in the workflow process is to execute on a particular computing device. Kamath, par. 0026, however teaches using a configuration of a processing task specifying a hardware component/device which is suited for execution of the processing task. Further, par. 0025 describes instructions causing a processor 106 to identify a set of processing tasks associated with the service (which is a type of automation workflow), therefore relevant to automation workflow processing of task. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(3) The applicant appears to argue in pages 16 for claim 1 that “motivation to combine Kamath et al. and/or Thibert et al. with Gligan is non-specific, improperly driven by hindsight, and fails to offer a reasonable rationale as to why one skilled in the art would attempt such a combination.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20210176360 A1 teaches unified support framework for a contact center.
U.S. Pub. No. 20210103645 A1 teaches facial recognition framework using deep learning for attended robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151