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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ganesan et al. U.S. Patent 11,537,416.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims include “wherein performing intelligent exception decisioning” without beforehand first establishing an “intelligent exception decisioning” limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ganesan et al. U.S. Patent 11,537,416 (hereinafter “Ganesan”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Ganesan discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: configuring a software robot (i.e. bot) to operate in collaboration with a plurality of platforms (e.g. user environments) in a work environment (e.g. col. 1-2, lines 34-67 and 1-17; col. 7, lines 7-25); decomposing, at the software robot, a request to perform a task (e.g. user-executed process) received from a platform in the plurality of platforms, into at least one integration-action pair, wherein an integration in the integration-action pair is indicative of a configuration to operate on an execution platform in the plurality of platforms where a function is to be performed, and an action in the integration-action pair is indicative of the function to be performed in the execution platform (e.g. col. 5, lines 54-59; col. 6-7, lines 56-67 and 1-16); and training, responsive to a determination that the at least one integration-action pair does not exist in a database (e.g. event library) of integration-action pairs (e.g. detecting a new process not in existing library), the software robot to perform the function in the platform, the function causing a performance of the task at the platform (e.g. col. 1-2, lines 34-67 and 1-17; col. 10-11, lines 29-67 and 1-6), wherein the training comprises causing the software robot to perform a task mining operation wherein the robot (i) observes a manual execution of the task comprising the action (e.g. col. 1-2, lines 34-67 and 1-17; col. 10-11, lines 29-67 and 1-6, via monitoring change in a user-executed process), and (ii) replicates the action (e.g. col. 11, lines 55-67 and 1-8, via implemented new bot logic).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Ganesan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the software robot, access to a service credential level (e.g. password) of a user (e.g. col. 10, lines 29-53); and performing by the software robot the task at the platform, responsive to a determination that the at least one integration-action pair exists in the database of integration- action pairs and a determination that the user has access permission at the execution platform to perform the task (e.g. col. 1-2, lines 34-67 and 1-17; col. 10-11, lines 29-67 and 1-6; col. 11, lines 55-67 and 1-8).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Ganesan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein decomposing the request into at least one integration- action pair involves performing natural language processing on the request (e.g. col. 3, lines 33-55).
Regarding claim 7, Ganesan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein training the software robot to perform the task includes obtaining execution instructions from user actions (e.g. col. 1-2, lines 34-67 and 1-17; col. 10-11, lines 29-67 and 1-6; col. 11, lines 55-67 and 1-8).
Regarding claim 8, Ganesan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: decomposing, responsive to the training, the task into at least one new integration- action pair; and adding the at least one new integration-action pair to the database of integration-action pairs (e.g. col. 5, lines 54-59; col. 6-7, lines 56-67 and 1-16) (e.g. col. 1-2, lines 34-67 and 1-17; col. 10-11, lines 29-67 and 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, the prior art of record does not disclose performing by the software robot, responsive to determining that the software robot lacks access permission at the execution platform to perform the task at the execution platform to perform the task, intelligent exception decisioning for performing an alternative task.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, the prior art of record does not disclose performing intelligent exception decisioning includes transmitting, from the software robot to a manager of a user associated with the request, an approval request for approval of an execution of the task by the software robot at the execution platform.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 20, the prior art of record does not disclose transmitting, responsive to a determination that another software robot has access permission at the execution platform to perform the task, an inter-software robot request from the software robot to the another software robot to perform the task.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose receiving by the software robot, responsive to an approval of an execution of the task, access to a second service credential level of a second user for the task.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CKJanuary 28, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116