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 Amendment
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 12/17/2025.
No claims have been amended, added, and/or canceled.
Claims 1-21 are pending with claims 1, 11, and 21 as independent claims.
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, 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nott et al. (US 2022/0072704, published 3/10/2022, hereinafter as Nott) in view of Kennedy et al. (US 6,651,217, hereinafter as Kennedy) in view of Voicu et al (WO2021076204A1, published 4/22/2021, pages 1-17).
Claim 1. A robotic process automation (RPA) method of filling in a target form field displayed by a target user interface (UI), the method comprising employing at least one hardware processor of a computer system to:
[retrieve] a strategy indicator from a database according to an identifier of the target UI, wherein the strategy indicator identifies a plurality of alternative RPA strategies for filling in the target form field, each of the plurality of alternative RPA strategies comprising a distinct sequence of RPA activities configured to fill in the target form field; Nott discloses in [0051] “the robotic process 234 (e.g., or the robot 236) includes one or more parameters and associated default values. The parameters are mechanisms defining features, ranges, properties, conditions and/or other types within the robotic process 234, and the default values are predefined arguments for the parameters. The parameters are used, by the robotic process engine 220 to create one or more input fields that accept one or more input arguments. The one or more input arguments can include settings, initial settings, and/or default settings. For instance, the input arguments can be a value (e.g., such as an initialized variable or literal), a string, a Boolean state, and/or an instruction that defines the parameters. The input fields can be a process construction that is respective to different types of parameters and that receives corresponding input arguments. For instance, if the parameter is a Boolean operator, then the input fields can include two checkboxes while the input arguments can be checkmarks relative to each Boolean state. Other examples of input fields include, but are not limited to, a text field for receiving a string, a number picker, and a date picker for a date and time selection, along with other complex forms.” And in [0061] “a VAT calculator process (e.g., the robotic process 234) is developed within the computing platform 230 and a “VAT Rate” parameter is added to the VAT calculator process. A default value for the “VAT Rate” parameter can be set to 10%. The VAT calculator process can be published within a process list, such as the process list 232. When the VAT calculator process is published into the orchestrator 242, the orchestrator 242 can override the default value (e.g., set it to 19% for Romania and 20% for France).” (emphasis added) examiner note: the target UI may be the “VAT Rate” parameter and the plurality of alternative RPA strategies to fill in the parameter may be the default value “10%”, “19%” for Romania, and “20%” for France such that each parameter value may be a distinct sequence of RPA activities configured to fill in the parameter (target form field).
Nott does not explicitly disclose retrieve a strategy indicator… identifies a plurality of alternative RPA strategies for filling in the target form field; in response to retrieving the strategy indicator, attempt to fill in the target form field according to the plurality of alternative RPA strategies. However, Kennedy, in an analogous art, discloses in [col. 8, ln 11 to col. 9, ln 13] “a special "autofill" option 701 is provided as part of document browser 205 which, when selected by the user, automatically populates the form for all fields that can be matched to the previously stored user profile. In one embodiment, all field values that are automatically populated in such a manner are highlighted using a different color (e.g., yellow) to indicate to the user that those fields were supplied from previously used values.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the autofill option may retrieve mappings of saved field identifiers associated with corresponding field values to fill in form fields.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nott with the teaching of Kennedy because “the invention provides a method for automatically populating data fields in forms using data values previously specified by a user” and sharing previously entered form values for different web sites may be desirable and/or possible in many cases. Kennedy [Background].
in response to determining that [all of the plurality of alternative RPA strategies failed] to fill in the target form field, receive a user input including a sequence of actions performed by a user of the computer system, the sequence of actions achieving a successful fill in of the target form field; Nott discloses in [0067-0068] “any values set locally are only available locally (e.g., as it is likely no end-user other local end-users will make use of it). Thus, the “VAT Rate” parameter can receive a default value that can be distributed across multiple orchestrators 242, and the multiple orchestrators 242 can change/provide the default value across multiple end-user groups (e.g., who then have a local value only available for themselves)… the robotic process engine 220 requires a receipt of at least one required input of the one or more input arguments (i.e., before execution of the local robotic process 226). When starting local robotic process 226, the robotic process engine 220 can run an initial process with saved input data of the configuration 228. Any missing input data can be prompted for entry if it is required. The required input for reusing the local robotic process 226 can be different for different users.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the robot 220 requires a receipt of a required input argument (value) before execution of local robotic process 226, which means 19% for parameter for Romania or 20% for parameter for France since the default parameter has been changed. However, when starting local robotic process 226, the robot 220 may run initial process with default value which is 10% for the default parameter “VAT Rate”. This means, the robotic process engine 220 would be looking for the default parameter but the default parameter has been changed to France and Romania. In other words, the default values would be mismatched with the changed parameter and the mismatched may be interpreted as “failure” to fill in the changed parameter. For any missing input data, a user may be prompted for entering a value for the changed parameter since the input value is required.
Nott does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that all of the plurality of alternative RPA strategies failed. However, Voicu teaches in [0033, 0036 and 0039] “Components of RP A robot 44 include an RP A agent 43 and a set of robot executors 45. Robot executors 45 are configured to receive an RPA script 50 indicating a sequence of operations (also known in the art as activities) that mimic the actions of a human operator carrying out a business process, and to actually execute the respective sequence of operations on the respective client machine. RPA scripts 50 are typically process-specific, i.e., each distinct business process is described by a distinct set of RP A scripts… Script repository 15 may be organized as a database, e.g., any structured data collection allowing a selective retrieval of scripts 50 according to a set of criteria… In some embodiments, the activities may be reached via a hierarchy of activity menus. Activities may be grouped according to various criteria, for instance, according to a type of business application (e.g., MS Excel® activities, web activities, email activities), and/or according to a type of interaction (e.g., mouse activities, hotkey activities, data grabbing activities, form filling activities, etc.)… step 104 may comprise intercepting a mouse click event and determining a menu item that the user has clicked on to select an activity… In one example wherein the activity comprises a mouse click, the target UI element may be a button, a menu item, a hyperlink, etc. In another example wherein the activity comprises filling out a form, the target UI element may be the specific form field that should receive the respective text input. Application 46 may enable the user to indicate the target UI element in various ways. For instance, it may invite the user to select the target element from a menu/list of candidate UI elements… application 46 may expose an instance of the target UI (i.e., the UI of the business application that robot 44 is supposed to interact with, for instance MS Excel®, a browser, an email program, etc.), and highlight a subset of UI elements within the respective UI, inviting the user to click on one to indicate a selection.” And in [0046] “When there is a clear winner, in a step 210 script authoring application 46 may select the candidate element with the highest fitness score as anchor element associated with the target element determined in step 108 (Fig. 4). In case of a tie, i.e., when multiple candidates have the same fitness score, some embodiments may invite the user to explicitly indicate a UI element to be used as anchor (step 208).” And in [0062] “For each activity/automation step, authoring application 46 may output to RPA script 50 an indicator of the respective activity (e.g., click, type into, etc.), and may further output an encoding of element IDs 80a-b, element texts 82a-b, and element images 84a-b characterizing the target and anchor UI elements determined in steps 108-110.” And in [0067] “due to occasional changes in the target user interface occurring between design time and runtime, it may happen that no UI element of the runtime target UI matches the design-time element ID of the intended target. For instance, it may happen that the name of a form field has changed. When no UI element matches the element ID indicated in RPA script 50, robot 44 may automatically infer a target/operand for the current activity from the available information. Some embodiments of the present invention use element text 82 and element image 84 as alternative, fall back data for identifying the runtime target when matching element IDs fails.” (emphasis added). Examiner note: When the name of a form field has changed, the robot may automatically infer a target for the current activity from the available information indicating an alternative activity. For example, if the form field has changed from text input to text box, the robot would not be able fill in the text field with text content, but would alternatively click the text box. However, when multiple candidates have the same fitness score indicating that two different value candidates have similar or identical score to fill in a target field, the robot may fail to select which candidate value to select for the activity and accordingly may invite the user to select the desired value/activity.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nott with the teaching of Voicu because “robotic process automation (RPA), and in particular to systems and methods for automatically identifying a user interface element targeted for an activity such as a mouse click or a text input. Thus, the RPA would lead improving productivity by automating repetitive computing tasks, thus freeing human operators to perform more intellectually sophisticated and/or creative activities. Voicu [Background],
Nott further disclose
in response to receiving the user input, transmit a set of strategy-indicative data to a strategy builder module, the set of strategy-indicative data characterizing the sequence of actions, and wherein the strategy builder module is configured to: automatically determine a new RPA strategy for filling in the target form field, the new RPA strategy determined according to the strategy-indicative data, and cause a database update to associate the new RPA strategy with the target UI; in [0069] “The user interface 500 (e.g., a process details page of the robotic process engine 220) includes at least a panel 510, which includes fields for submitting one or more input arguments. The user interface 500 includes a button 520, which enables the robotic process engine 220 to provide required input arguments (e.g., whether initially or before execution of the local robotic process 226) and/or save the one or more input arguments in the configuration 228.” And in [0070] “the user interface 500 can support a ‘starting process’ that takes input arguments. In this regard, the robotic process engine 220 prompts for values (if they have not been provided previously by the configuration 228). In turn, the user can set up input arguments from the user interface 500, which are later used when starting processes.” And in [0071] “note that any change in the process configuration settings modifies the configuration 228 or alternative creates a new configuration for the “One-on-One” meeting scheduling process. In turn, different users may generate different process configurations 228, which can be fed to the local robotic process 226.” (emphasis added) examiner note: user input value may be received for changed parameter such that different users may adopt one or more standard/common form fields to their own needs similar to the adopting of the value-added tax (VAT) Rate field by Romania and France such that the robotic process engine 220 would fill in the changed parameter with the new modified or generated configuration.
Claims 2 and 12. The rejection of the method of claim 1 is incorporated, further comprising employing the at least one hardware processor to:
in response to receiving the user input, receive another user input including another sequence of actions performed by the user of the computer system, the other sequence of actions achieving another successful fill in of the target form field; Nott discloses in [0068] “the robotic process engine 220 requires a receipt of at least one required input of the one or more input arguments (i.e., before execution of the local robotic process 226)… Any missing input data can be prompted for entry if it is required. The required input for reusing the local robotic process 226 can be different for different users.” And in [0069] “The user interface 500 (e.g., a process details page of the robotic process engine 220) includes at least a panel 510, which includes fields for submitting one or more input arguments. The user interface 500 includes a button 520, which enables the robotic process engine 220 to provide required input arguments (e.g., whether initially or before execution of the local robotic process 226) and/or save the one or more input arguments in the configuration 228.” (emphasis added) examiner note: as can be seen the user may be prompted to input at least one required input argument in input field as shown in fig. 5. The at least one input argument may be used to generate local robotic process 226 (sequence of actions) to be used by robot 224,
in response to receiving the other user input, transmit another set of strategy-indicative data to the strategy builder module, the other set of strategy-indicative data characterizing the other sequence of user actions; and wherein the strategy builder module is configured to determine the new RPA strategy further according to the other set of strategy-indicative data. Nott discloses in [0056] “the robotic process engine 220 receives the one or more input arguments. The one or more input arguments are respective to the one or more input fields of the local robotic process 226 to generate the configuration 228 (e.g., the computing device 210 can create/build/store the configurations 228 on the memory therein).” And in [0073] “the robotic process engine 220 updates the local robotic process 226. That is, the configuration 228 (and arguments therein) can be used to create a new configuration package for the robotic process engine 220 (e.g., on the computing platform 230). Accordingly, when the robotic process 234 is updated, all saved configurations can use this updated package.” (emphasis added) examiner note: let’s assume that the robotic process 234 represent the strategy builder module at computing platform 230, then user input arguments to input text fields may update robotic process 226 and create new configuration at computing device 210, wherein the new configuration may be used to create a new configuration package to be transmitted to update the robotic process 234 at computing platform 230.
Claims 3 and 13. The rejection of the method of claim 2 is incorporated, wherein determining the new RPA strategy comprises:
selecting a subset of the strategy-indicative data according to whether the selected subset is common to both the set of strategy-indicative data and the other set of strategy-indicative data; and determining the new RPA strategy according to the selected subset. Nott discloses in [0053] “The configuration(s) 228 can be stored in a location (e.g., on the computing device 210) that can be accessed by one or more users, depending on a requirement of the one or more users, such as users who belong to same team can access a same configuration 228 on the computing device 210. In some cases, when the robotic process 234 is stored by the orchestrator 242, the robotic process 234 can be accessed by multiple users and used to generate the configurations 228 and the local robotic processes 226 locally (e.g., on the computing device 210).” And in [0056] “the robotic process engine 220 receives the one or more input arguments. The one or more input arguments are respective to the one or more input fields of the local robotic process 226 to generate the configuration 228 (e.g., the computing device 210 can create/build/store the configurations 228 on the memory therein). The configuration 228 can be a newly created configuration file specific to the one or more input arguments received and/or referred to as a local configuration file with the specific input set.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the new created configuration file may be created based on one or more input arguments received from users who belong to same team.
Claims 4 and 14. The rejection of the method of claim 3 is incorporated, wherein the subset of strategy-indicative data characterizes a subsequence of the sequence of user actions, the subsequence common to both the sequence of user actions and the other sequence of user actions. Nott discloses in [0053] “The configuration(s) 228 can be stored in a location (e.g., on the computing device 210) that can be accessed by one or more users, depending on a requirement of the one or more users, such as users who belong to same team can access a same configuration 228 on the computing device 210. In some cases, when the robotic process 234 is stored by the orchestrator 242, the robotic process 234 can be accessed by multiple users and used to generate the configurations 228 and the local robotic processes 226 locally (e.g., on the computing device 210).” And in [0056] “the robotic process engine 220 receives the one or more input arguments. The one or more input arguments are respective to the one or more input fields of the local robotic process 226 to generate the configuration 228 (e.g., the computing device 210 can create/build/store the configurations 228 on the memory therein). The configuration 228 can be a newly created configuration file specific to the one or more input arguments received and/or referred to as a local configuration file with the specific input set.” And in [0063-0067] after the VAT calculator process is published within process list 232 and into the orchestrator 242, the orchestrator 242 prepares the VAT calculator process to be distributed to different local iterations of the computing device 210 (e.g., and the robotic process engine 220) in different countries (e.g., Romania and France) by overriding the default values… the “VAT Rate” parameter can receive a default value that can be distributed across multiple orchestrators 242, and the multiple orchestrators 242 can change/provide the default value across multiple end-user groups (e.g., who then have a local value only available for themselves).” (emphasis added) examiner note: the new created configuration file may be created based on one or more input arguments received from users who belong to same team. For example, at computing device 210, the robot may user a subsequence to fill in the VAT Rate parameter with value according to input set to VAT calculator process for Romania, wherein the subsequence may be common to users who have a local value only available in Romania.
Claims 5 and 15. The rejection of the method of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein the strategy indicator further indicates a ranking among the plurality of alternative RPA strategies, and wherein the at least one hardware processor is configured to determine an order in which each of the plurality of alternative RPA strategies is selected for use according to the ranking. Nott discloses in [0050] “The process list 232 is an itemization of all the distributed-packaged robotic processes (e.g., the robotic process 234 and the robot 236) on the computing platform 230 and available to orchestrators 242 and the robotic process engine 220. The robotic process 234 can be a robotic process and/or RPA workflow originated from the computing platform 230 defining parameters that have default values associated therewith.” And in [0061] “a VAT calculator process (e.g., the robotic process 234) is developed within the computing platform 230 and a “VAT Rate” parameter is added to the VAT calculator process. A default value for the “VAT Rate” parameter can be set to 10%. The VAT calculator process can be published within a process list, such as the process list 232.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the list of the distributed-packaged robotic processes may indicate order of robotic processes.
Claims 6 and 16. The rejection of the method of claim 5 is incorporated, wherein the database update further comprises determining an updated ranking among the plurality of alternative RPA strategies, the updated ranking causing the new RPA strategy to be prioritized with respect to the plurality of alternative RPA strategies. Nott discloses in [0050] “The process list 232 is an itemization of all the distributed-packaged robotic processes (e.g., the robotic process 234 and the robot 236) on the computing platform 230 and available to orchestrators 242 and the robotic process engine 220. The robotic process 234 can be a robotic process and/or RPA workflow originated from the computing platform 230 defining parameters that have default values associated therewith.” And in [0061] “a VAT calculator process (e.g., the robotic process 234) is developed within the computing platform 230 and a “VAT Rate” parameter is added to the VAT calculator process. A default value for the “VAT Rate” parameter can be set to 10%. The VAT calculator process can be published within a process list, such as the process list 232. When the VAT calculator process is published into the orchestrator 242, the orchestrator 242 can override the default value (e.g., set it to 19% for Romania and 20% for France).” (emphasis added) examiner note: the list of the distributed-packaged robotic processes may indicate order of robotic processes. The publishing of the VAT calculator process within the process list 232 may update the process list 232 because at least the VAT calculator process is overridden by changing default value.
Claims 7 and 17. The rejection of the method of claim 1 is incorporated, wherein the database update comprises updating the strategy indicator to include an identifier of the new RPA strategy. Nott discloses in [0050] “The process list 232 is an itemization of all the distributed-packaged robotic processes (e.g., the robotic process 234 and the robot 236) on the computing platform 230 and available to orchestrators 242 and the robotic process engine 220. The robotic process 234 can be a robotic process and/or RPA workflow originated from the computing platform 230 defining parameters that have default values associated therewith.” And in [0061] “a VAT calculator process (e.g., the robotic process 234) is developed within the computing platform 230 and a “VAT Rate” parameter is added to the VAT calculator process. A default value for the “VAT Rate” parameter can be set to 10%. The VAT calculator process can be published within a process list, such as the process list 232.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the list of the distributed-packaged robotic processes may indicate order of robotic processes. The robotic process “VAT calculator process” may be an identifier for the robotic process 234.
Claims 8 and 18. The rejection of the method of claim 1 is incorporated, Nott does not explicitly disclose wherein the target UI comprises a browser interface displaying a target web page, and wherein the identifier of the target UI comprises a uniform record identifier (URI) of the target web page. However, Voicu, in an analogous art, discloses in [0036] “An exemplary authoring application may allow a user to select a business application 42 and to indicate a desired manner of interacting with the respective application, e.g., to indicate a sequence of operations to be performed by robot 44. Exemplary operations include, for instance, opening a specific Excel® spreadsheet, reading data from a specific row/column of a data table, processing the respective data in a specific manner, clicking on a specific button, composing and sending an email message, navigating to a specific unified record location (URL), etc.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nott with the teaching of Voicu because “robotic process automation (RPA), and in particular to systems and methods for automatically identifying a user interface element targeted for an activity such as a mouse click or a text input. Thus, the RPA would lead improving productivity by automating repetitive computing tasks, thus freeing human operators to perform more intellectually sophisticated and/or creative activities. Voicu [Background]
Claims 9 and 19. The rejection of the method of claim 1 is incorporated, comprising
Nott does not explicitly disclose selectively retrieving the strategy indicator from the database further according to a field ID identifying the target form field among a plurality of form fields displayed by the target UI. However, Kennedy, in an analogous art, discloses in [col. 5, ln 55 to col. 6, ln 61] “web site 201 includes a first form 250 and second web site 202 includes a second form 260. Each form includes a plurality of data entry fields having an associated field label (e.g., name, address, phone), a field identifier (usually hidden from view), and a corresponding display region into which the user can type information when the web page is displayed using a conventional web browser… A field label corresponds to what the user will actually see on the display, while the field identifier or field name is frequently not displayed but permits software to identify the field…when the user first displays a form including certain common field labels (e.g., name, address, and the like), a profile generator function 205c extracts values entered by the user, uses the values to populate a standard "autofill profile" form 203, and prompts the user to fill in any missing values.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nott with the teaching of Kennedy because “the invention provides a method for automatically populating data fields in forms using data values previously specified by a user” and sharing previously entered form values for different web sites may be desirable and/or possible in many cases. Kennedy [Background].
Claims 10 and 20. The rejection of the method of claim 9 is incorporated,
Nott does not explicitly disclose wherein the field ID comprises a text label displayed in a proximity of the target form field. However, Kennedy, in an analogous art, discloses in [col. 5, ln 55 to col. 6, ln 61] “A field label corresponds to what the user will actually see on the display, while the field identifier or field name is frequently not displayed but permits software to identify the field…when the user first displays a form including certain common field labels (e.g., name, address, and the like), a profile generator function 205c extracts values entered by the user, uses the values to populate a standard "autofill profile" form 203, and prompts the user to fill in any missing values.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nott with the teaching of Kennedy because “the invention provides a method for automatically populating data fields in forms using data values previously specified by a user” and sharing previously entered form values for different web sites may be desirable and/or possible in many cases. Kennedy [Background].
Claim 11. The claim is directed towards a computer system to implement the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is similarly rejected as claim 1. Nott, further, discloses at least one hardware processor; in [0032-0033] “One or more processor(s) 144 may be any type of general or specific purpose processor… Memory 146 may be configured to store information, instructions (e.g., processor executable instructions of a robotic process engine, along with distributed-packaged robotic processes and configurations), commands, or data to be executed or processed by processor(s) 144.” (emphasis added).
Claim 21. The claim is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to implement the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is similarly rejected as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argues “None of Nott, Kennedy, and Voicu shows in response to determining that all of the plurality of alternative RP A strategies failed to fill in the target form field… As Applicant best understands the Office Action, the Office Action mapped the recited RPA strategies to Nott's alternative parameter values, such as alternative VAT values in Nott's paragraphs [0061] and [0067] (see above).”
Response: Voicu teaches in [0033, 0036 and 0039] “Components of RP A robot 44 include an RP A agent 43 and a set of robot executors 45. Robot executors 45 are configured to receive an RPA script 50 indicating a sequence of operations (also known in the art as activities) that mimic the actions of a human operator carrying out a business process, and to actually execute the respective sequence of operations on the respective client machine. RPA scripts 50 are typically process-specific, i.e., each distinct business process is described by a distinct set of RP A scripts… Script repository 15 may be organized as a database, e.g., any structured data collection allowing a selective retrieval of scripts 50 according to a set of criteria… In some embodiments, the activities may be reached via a hierarchy of activity menus. Activities may be grouped according to various criteria, for instance, according to a type of business application (e.g., MS Excel® activities, web activities, email activities), and/or according to a type of interaction (e.g., mouse activities, hotkey activities, data grabbing activities, form filling activities, etc.)… step 104 may comprise intercepting a mouse click event and determining a menu item that the user has clicked on to select an activity… In one example wherein the activity comprises a mouse click, the target UI element may be a button, a menu item, a hyperlink, etc. In another example wherein the activity comprises filling out a form, the target UI element may be the specific form field that should receive the respective text input. Application 46 may enable the user to indicate the target UI element in various ways. For instance, it may invite the user to select the target element from a menu/list of candidate UI elements… application 46 may expose an instance of the target UI (i.e., the UI of the business application that robot 44 is supposed to interact with, for instance MS Excel®, a browser, an email program, etc.), and highlight a subset of UI elements within the respective UI, inviting the user to click on one to indicate a selection.” And in [0046] “When there is a clear winner, in a step 210 script authoring application 46 may select the candidate element with the highest fitness score as anchor element associated with the target element determined in step 108 (Fig. 4). In case of a tie, i.e., when multiple candidates have the same fitness score, some embodiments may invite the user to explicitly indicate a UI element to be used as anchor (step 208).” And in [0062] “For each activity/automation step, authoring application 46 may output to RPA script 50 an indicator of the respective activity (e.g., click, type into, etc.), and may further output an encoding of element IDs 80a-b, element texts 82a-b, and element images 84a-b characterizing the target and anchor UI elements determined in steps 108-110.” And in [0067] “due to occasional changes in the target user interface occurring between design time and runtime, it may happen that no UI element of the runtime target UI matches the design-time element ID of the intended target. For instance, it may happen that the name of a form field has changed. When no UI element matches the element ID indicated in RPA script 50, robot 44 may automatically infer a target/operand for the current activity from the available information. Some embodiments of the present invention use element text 82 and element image 84 as alternative, fall back data for identifying the runtime target when matching element IDs fails.” (emphasis added).
Examiner note:
When the name of a form field has changed, the robot may automatically infer a target for the current activity from the available information indicating an alternative activity. For example, if the form field has changed from text input to text box, the robot would not be able fill in the text field with text content, but would alternatively click the text box. However, when multiple candidates have the same fitness score indicating that two different value candidates have similar or identical score to fill in a target field, the robot may fail to select which candidate value to select for the activity and accordingly may invite the user to select the desired value/activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AHAMED I NAZAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3174. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am to 7 pm Mon-Fri.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
/AHAMED I NAZAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 3/31/2026
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178