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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 02, 2025 has been entered.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-12, and 15-19. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 02, 2025 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument (Pages 2-3) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument with respect to the amended claims that secondary prior art Gallagher failed to disclose a token with granular access rights in regard to independent claims 1, and 15. Gallagher discloses user access rights is determined and based on the token (Gallagher, Para 0124), where the token enables the activity i.e., the “specified rights including a scope of permitted secrets” that the user is undertaking (Para 0123).
In response to argument (Pages 3-5) - Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim 7 has been considered but they are in moot in view of new ground of rejection (see 103 rejection below).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimrod Stoler (“Stoler” US 10,623,446 Bl [provided by the applicant]) in view of Raymond J. Gallagher III (“Gallagher” US 2019/0333062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stoler discloses “A method for secure management of authorization data and automated processing of instructions in a robotic process automation environment, comprising” (Abstract: discloses systems and methods secure and multifactor authentication; Col 5: lines 4-7, systems include one or more software-based services 106a-n):
“transmitting a certificate data item issued by a certificate providing server to an orchestration server and at least one robot entity [i.e., “robot” as defined by applicant’s specification to be “automated based software robot”, “agents”, “artificial works” etc. (Spec, Page 2: Para 1 to Page 3: Para 1)]” (Fig. 3A: Provision Certificate 301, Service 106 i.e., a “robot entity”, Security Server 101 i.e., a “certificate providing server” and Virtual Environment Orchestrator 201 i.e., an “orchestration server”; and Col 8:lines 53-67, a certificate is provided to the Service 106 by the security server 101),
“linking the at least one robot entity with the orchestration server” (Col 8:lines 65-67, where an identity data may be provided by the Virtual Environment Orchestrator 201 i.e., an “orchestration server”);
[transmitting link token data from the certificate providing server to the at least one robot entity, wherein the link token data specifies rights valid for the at least one robot entity to access a vault server, the specified rights including a scope of permitted secrets or legacy-system access for the robot];
“linking the at least one robot entity with a vault server and sending credential data from the vault server to the at least one robot entity upon request by the respective at least one robot entity” (Fig. 3A: Credential Vault 102; and Col 12: lines 39-44, privileges access credentials provided by the Credential Vault 102 i.e., a “vault server” to the Service 106 i.e., the “robot entity”);
“and using the sent credential data by respectively each of the at least one robot entity to authenticate and authorize each of the respective at least one robot entity at a number of legacy systems to perform tasks assigned to each of the at least one robot entity by the orchestration server after linking” (Col 13: lines 8-24, the privileges access credentials data is utilized to gain access to an assigned services).
Furthermore, Stoler discloses providing a token from a Credential Vault 102 i.e., a “vault server” to the Service 106 i.e., the “robot entity” to access a target resource i.e., granular access (Stoler, Col 12: lines 39-66).
But Stoler fails to specially disclose providing link token data [i.e., link token may contain an address of the vault server so the worker or robot is able to link and connect with the vault server (applicant specification, Page 6: Para last)] that provides access rights to the Service to access the vault server.
However, Gallagher discloses “transmitting link token data from the certificate providing server to the at least one robot entity” (Gallagher, Para 0115: a client token with an authentication server Internet Protocol Address which provides access to an application server and authenticated by the authentication server),
“wherein the link token data specifies rights valid for the at least one robot entity to access a vault server, the specified rights including a scope of permitted secrets or legacy-system access for the robot” (Gallagher, Para 0124: user access rights is determined and based on the token; and Para 0123: the link token enables the activity i.e., the “specified rights including a scope of permitted secrets” that the user is undertaking).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of providing link token data that provides access rights to the Service to access the vault server of Gallagher to the system of Stoler therefore “The client token includes a label which verifies the enabled application server site, and which enables the activity that the user in undertaking…”(Gallagher, Para 0123) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to have authenticated access to the requested activities (Gallagher, Para 0124).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that the certificate data item comprises a public key for authentication of the at least one robot entity” (Col 13:lines 47-58, a digital certificate disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that linking the at least one robot entity with the orchestration server comprises setting up a communication session” (Col 8:lines 65-67, where an identity data may be provided by the Virtual Environment Orchestrator 201 i.e., an “orchestration server”).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Stoler in view of Gallagher disclose “characterized in that the link token data specifies an expiration date, a vault server address and/ or access rights” (Gallagher, Para 0115: a client token with an authentication server Internet Protocol Address).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that the vault server provides a secured and trusted environment comprising a key management infrastructure” (Col 6: lines 14-62, manages keys).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that the credential data comprises a private key for authentication and authorization of the at least one robot entity at one or more of the [legacy systems], an authentication secret, an authorization secret, a password and/ or access data” (Col 6: lines 14-62, manages keys).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that the at least one robot entity is deployed remotely from at least one of: the orchestration server, the certificate providing server and/ or the vault server” (Col 9: lines 1-23, remote services).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that at least one of: the orchestration server, the certificate providing server and/ or the vault server are operated in a cloud server” (Col 18: lines 10-16, services by cloud).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that the at least one robot entity comprises a software agent, a set of control instructions, a physical robot, a software robot and/ or an autonomous artificial intelligence agent” (Col 7: lines 46-59, agent).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses “characterized in that the method is implemented as a software protocol in a distributed environment” (Col 18: lines 10-16, services by cloud i.e., a “distributed environment”).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 6. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 12. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 12, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 11. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 11, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoler in view of Gallagher and in further view of Reshadi et al. (“Reshadi” US 20130262978 A1).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses manages services 106 i.e., “robot” (Stoler, Col 9: lines 30-56).
Gallagher discloses support for remote client (Gallagher, Para 0034).
But Stoler and Gallagher fail to specially disclose dividing a process into single/smaller tasks and assigning them to services i.e., “robots”.
However, Reshadi discloses “characterized in that the orchestration server divides a process to be accomplished into single tasks and assigns them to the at least one robot entity for its accomplishment” (Par 0028, a process is divided into smaller tasks and preformed concurrently).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of dividing a process into single/smaller tasks and assigning them to services of Reshadi to the system of Stoler and Gallagher to have a system where larger processes can be divided into smaller tasks to handle them in a parallel system and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to have to improve execution time (Reshadi, Para 0028).
Claims 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoler in view of Gallagher and in further view of Ferrer et al. (“Ferrer” US 2002/0032628 A1).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Stoler discloses services for cloud system and remote systems (Stoler, Col 9: lines 1-23).
Gallagher discloses support for remote client (Gallagher, Para 0034).
But Stoler and Gallagher fail to specially disclose support for legacy systems using an interface.
However, Ferrer discloses “characterized in that the legacy systems are accessed by the at least one robot entity using predefined interfaces” (Ferrer, Para 0070: an agent access legacy system via an appropriate interface).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a legacy systems using an interface of Ferrer to the system of Stoler and Gallagher to have a system where the agent can communicate data to the central server (Ferrer, Para 0070) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to have “…the agent and legacy system can communicate with a financial transaction authority” (Ferrer, Para 0071).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a system corresponding to the method recited in claim 8. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stephen Mui (US 20150058950 A1) discloses “…The scope of permissions associated with an applicant may specify access and permissions to a particular online account or a physical building, and/or a duration of privileges for an applicant. The particular certificate authority may elect to screen an applicant according to a set of rules for a particular service or system…” (Para 0268).
Lorenz Lee Breu (US 20190372956 A1) discloses use of an identity token to process transactions (Abstract).
White et al. (US 11438283 B1) discloses “…allow the interactive agents to interface open source and/or private systems including legacy systems without recoding software to different languages, formats, and domains” (Col 21: lines 9-12).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431