DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed February 16, 2026. Claims 1–20 are amended. Currently, claims 1–20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101. More particularly, the additional elements of independent claims 1 and 17, including the elements for “automatically evaluating, availability of one or more computing resources required for execution of a corresponding task by one or more software robots” and “preventing the one or more software robots to execute the corresponding task upon determining that the required one or more computing resources are unavailable,” integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the additional elements apply or use the recited abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on February 16, 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the text markings do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2). Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
In the amendment to claim 1, as submitted on October 30, 2025, Applicant removed the term “identified” from the step for “obtaining” and the step for “requesting”. More particularly, claim 1 was amended to recite “obtaining milestone data associated with the
Examiner notes that similar issues are included in amended claim 8, which recites “identified” and “in order to conclude [[its]]the execution” despite previous deletion, and claim 11, which recites “identified” and “that has concluded its execution” despite previous deletion. Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims to identify any other claim marking issues and notes that future failures to comply with the requirements set forth under 37 CFR 1.121(c) may result in the issuance of a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “automatically evaluating, availability”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “automatically evaluating[[,]] availability” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Claim 1 recites “preventing … to execute the corresponding task”. Examiner recommends amending the element to recite “preventing … from executing the corresponding task” in order to address the inadvertent grammatical error.
Claim 1 further recites “the required one or more computing resources” in the element reciting “preventing”. Examiner recommends amending the element to recite “the
Claim 1 recites “identifying a software robot … the software robot being identified”. However, claim 1 subsequently recites “the identified software robot” in the elements for “obtaining” and “requesting”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “the
Finally, claim 1 recites “the requested milestone” in the element for “requesting”. Examiner recommends amending the element to recite “the
Claims 2–16 and 18–20 are amended to recite “the method of” (claims 2–12), “the computer-implemented method of” (claims 13–16), and “the automation management system of” (claims 18–20). However, MPEP 608.01(m), which sets forth the required form of claims, indicates that “[e]ach claim begins with a capital letter”. As a result, Examiner recommends amending each claim to begin with a capital letter. Examiner further recommends amending claims 13–16 to recite “The
Similarly to the issues identified above with respect to claim 1, dependent claims 8 and 11 recite “the identified software robot”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “the software robot” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 recites “the required one or more computing resources” in the element to “prevent”. Examiner recommends amending the element to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “automatically evaluating availability … for execution”, “identifying a software robot … that has concluded the execution”, “obtaining milestone data associated with the identified software robot that has concluded execution”, and “requesting … the milestone being associated with the execution”. As a result, the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for each “execution” element to reference the other elements or intends to introduce distinct “execution” elements.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objection above, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “obtaining milestone data associated with the the execution”.
As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–16, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–16 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “the identified software robot that has concluded its execution”. Examiner submits that the term “its” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element Applicant intends to reference.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objection raised above, claim 11 is interpreted as reciting “the the execution”.
Claim 12 recites two instances of “the milestone recordation request” in the element for “receiving”. Although claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites “requesting, via a request”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the milestone recordation request” in the claim.
Claim 12 further recites “the software robot” in the element for “receiving”. However, claim 12 previously recites “a software robot that has at least partially executed” and claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites “a software robot from the one or more software robots that has concluded the execution”. As a result, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the “software robot” of claim 12 to reference a “software robot that has at least partially executed” or a “software robot … that has concluded the execution”.
Finally, claim 12 recites “at least milestone data” in the element reciting “receiving”. However, claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites “milestone data”. As a result, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 12 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends introduce a second, different “milestone data”.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as reciting “receiving, at a milestone management server, the the software robot that has concluded the execution, the the milestone data”.
Claim 17 recites “at least milestone data” in the element to “parse”. However, claim 17 previously recites “at least milestone data” in the element to “receive a milestone recordation request”. As a result, the scope of claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends introduce a second, different “milestone data”.
For purposes of examination, claim 17 is interpreted as reciting “at least the milestone data” in the element to “parse”.
Claim 17 further recites functionality to “prevent the software robots from executing … upon determining that the required one or more computing resources are unavailable”. Although claim 17 generally recites “software robots” in the preamble, claim 17 subsequently request a step to “automatically evaluate availability of one or more computing resources required for execution … by the software robot”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the element to “prevent” to address all software robots or the specific robot for which resources are evaluated.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objection raised above, claim 17 is interpreted as reciting functionality to “prevent the software robot
As a result, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18–20, which depend from claim 17, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 18–20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1–5, 7–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal et al. (U.S. 2019/0332508) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2018/0063258), and in further view of IWASAKI et al. (U.S. 2023/0132894).
Claims 1 and 17: Goyal discloses a method for improving reliability, traceability, and execution management of software robots in a robotic process automation system by centrally recording execution milestones, the method comprising:
evaluating availability of one or more computing resources required for execution (See paragraph 41, wherein available resources for selected RPA processes are listed);
identifying a software robot from the one or more software robots that has concluded the execution, the software robot being identified by a software robot (SR) identifier (See paragraphs 53–54, in view of paragraph 29, wherein data records are pushed from an RPA system to an automated platform, and wherein the data records may include bot identifiers);
obtaining milestone data associated with the identified software robot that has concluded execution (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–55 and 63, wherein data records include bot identifiers, status indicators, process identifiers, timestamps, log identifiers, and other data related to bot execution logs, and wherein data records for the monitored processes are milestone records);
requesting, via a request to a milestone recordation service, a recordation of a milestone, the milestone being associated with the execution that has concluded for the identified software robot, the requested milestone including at least the milestone data (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–55, wherein data records are pushed from the RPA system bots to the automated platform for storage in the database);
a milestone identifier corresponding to the milestone (See paragraph 56, in view of paragraphs 53–54, wherein a data record is generated, and wherein data records may include a log identifiers); and
storing the milestone identifier for subsequent retrieval of the milestone using the milestone identifier (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 33 and 36, wherein data records are stored in both the automated platform and the RPA operations center; see also paragraphs 53–54, wherein data records may include log identifiers and log data). Goyal does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Wang discloses subsequently receiving a response from the service (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 44–46, wherein the session identifier is generated by the system in response to a session request from the client, and wherein the session identifier is transmitted to the client in response to the session request from the client); and
parsing the response to obtain at least an identifier corresponding to the event (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 44–46, wherein the session identifier is received by the client from the system, and wherein the session identifier is identified from the system message to facilitate the session).
Goyal discloses a system directed to managing services within an integrated robotic process automation platform. Wang discloses a system directed to managing services within a collaboration system. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing application services. The technique of receiving an identifier as a request response is applicable to the system of Goyal as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing application services.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wang to the teachings of Goyal would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate application services management into similar systems. Further, applying response identifiers to Goyal would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management. Goyal and Wang do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Iwasaki discloses automatically evaluating, availability of one or more computing resources required for execution of a corresponding task by one or more software robots (See paragraph 103, in view of paragraph 99, wherein the system monitors the availability of computing resources for bot execution; see also paragraphs 10–12 and 69–70); and
preventing the one or more software robots to execute the corresponding task upon determining that the required one or more computing resources are unavailable (See paragraph 103, in view of paragraph 99, wherein the system prevents execution of the external task by the bot until sufficient computing resources become available; see also paragraphs 10–12 and 69–70).
As disclosed above, Goyal discloses a system directed to managing services within an integrated robotic process automation platform, and Wang discloses a system directed to managing services within a collaboration system. Iwasaki discloses a system directed to controlling chat bot operations. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing application services. The technique of resource-based execution is applicable to the systems of Goyal and Wang as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing application services.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Iwasaki would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Iwasaki to the teachings of Goyal and Wang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate application services management into similar systems. Further, applying resource-based execution to Goyal and Wang would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
With respect to claim 17, Goyal further discloses a milestone database configured to store milestones concerning a plurality of software robots (See FIG. 1); and a milestone management server operatively coupled to the milestone database, the milestone management server (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 85–86); and form a milestone data record including the milestone identifier and the milestone data (See paragraphs 53–54, as above). Goyal does not expressly disclose the remaining elements.
Wang discloses a management server (See paragraph 99) configured to generate an identifier (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 44–46, wherein the session identifier is generated by the system in response to a session request from the client, and wherein the session identifier is transmitted to the client in response to the session request from the client).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Goyal and Wang do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Iwasaki discloses an automation management server operatively coupled to at least the server (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 35 and 39).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Iwasaki would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2: Goyal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the milestone data to be included in the milestone is identified by the request (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–55, wherein data records are pushed from the RPA system bots to the automated platform for storage in the database).
Claim 3: Goyal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the milestone data includes at least the SR identifier, a success or failure indication, and task count (See paragraphs 53–54, wherein bot identifiers and failure data may be stored in the data record, and paragraph 63, wherein bot completion data, including a number of completed steps or a number of completed processes, is monitored for a particular bot).
Claim 4: Goyal discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the task count includes at least a completed task count (See paragraph 63, wherein bot completion data, including a number of completed steps or a number of completed processes, is monitored for a particular bot).
Claim 5: Goyal discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the milestone data includes a skill carried out by the software robot (See paragraphs 53–54, wherein process types and process identifiers indicate a skill of the bot).
Claim 7: Goyal discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the milestone data includes at least customized additional data that a user of the software robot specifies in the request to the milestone recordation service (See paragraphs 53–54, in view of paragraph 49, wherein log records may include an exceptions log, and wherein exceptions trigger parameters are customized).
Claim 8: Goyal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the software robot performs a plurality of tasks in order to conclude the execution, and each of the tasks are designated to have one or more skill types (See paragraph 63, in view of paragraphs 53–54, wherein bot completion data, including a number of completed steps or a number of completed processes, is monitored for a particular bot, and wherein process types and process identifiers indicate a skill of the bot).
Claim 9: Goyal discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the milestone data further includes at least a plurality of success or failure indicators wherein a respective success or failure indicator corresponds to a respective skill type (See paragraphs 53–54 and 63, wherein success/failure logs are disclosed in the context of process types and process identifiers).
Claim 10: Goyal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the milestone data includes at least a payload provided by the software robot that is to be included in the milestone (See paragraphs 53–54, in view of paragraph 18, wherein transaction log data records are disclosed in the context of payload actions).
Claim 11: Goyal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the requesting recordation of the milestone comprises issuing at least an Application Programming Interface (API) call to the milestone recordation service, the API call includes at least the milestone data associated with the software robot (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–54, wherein data records are pushed to the recordation service using a push-listener API).
Claim 12: Goyal discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving, at a milestone management server (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 85–86), the milestone recordation request pertaining to a software robot that has at least partially executed (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–55, wherein data records are pushed from the RPA system bots to the automated platform for storage in the database, and wherein data records for the monitored processes are milestone records), the milestone recordation request including at least milestone data for the software robot (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–55 and 63, wherein data records include bot identifiers and process identifiers, which are known prior to execution, and wherein the monitored data records pertain to completion of process tasks; see also paragraph 1, wherein RPA bot tasks are disclosed as related to executing skill functions);
parsing the milestone recordation request to retrieve at least the milestone data (See paragraph 29, in view of paragraphs 53–55 and 63, wherein data records include bot identifiers, status indicators, process identifiers, timestamps, log identifiers, and other data related to bot execution logs);
generating the milestone identifier (See paragraph 56, in view of paragraph 53, wherein a data record is generated, and wherein data records may include a log identifiers);
forming a milestone data record including the milestone identifier and the milestone data (See paragraphs 53–54, wherein data records may include log identifiers and log data); and
storing the milestone data record to a milestone database (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 33 and 36, wherein data records are stored in both the automated platform and the RPA operations center).
Claim 13: Although Goyal discloses storing the milestone data record (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 33 and 36, wherein data records are stored in both the automated platform and the RPA operations center; see also paragraphs 53–54, wherein data records may include log identifiers and log data), Goyal does not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 13.
Wang discloses after the storing of the data record, returning the identifier, the identifier being returned in response to the request (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 47, in view of paragraphs 44–46, wherein the session identifier is generated and stored by the system in response to a session request from the client, wherein the session identifier is stored in combination with information associated with the session, and wherein the session identifier is transmitted to the client in response to the session request from the client).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14: Goyal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the milestone data includes at least a software robot (SR) identifier, a success or failure indication, and task count (See paragraphs 53–54, wherein bot identifiers and failure data may be stored in the data record, and paragraph 63, wherein bot completion data, including a number of completed steps or a number of completed processes, is monitored for a particular bot).
Claim 15: Goyal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the task count includes at least a completed task count (See paragraph 63, wherein bot completion data, including a number of completed steps or a number of completed processes, is monitored for a particular bot).
Claim 16: Goyal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the milestone data includes at least a skill carried out by the software robot (See paragraphs 53–54, wherein process types and process identifiers indicate a skill of the bot).
Claim 18: Goyal discloses the automation management system of claim 17, wherein the automation management system comprising: a data storage device that stores at least one computer readable template (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 32, wherein bot registration includes validating master data for each bot, and wherein master data indicates a template; see also paragraph 48, wherein a data schema is employed by the automated platform), the at least one computer readable template including at least:
a milestone recordation code section including program code to request a milestone recordation be made to the milestone database to store the milestone data associated with the software robot that has at least partially executed (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 33 and 36, wherein data records are stored in both the automated platform and the RPA operations center; see also paragraph 29).
Claim 20: Goyal discloses the automation management system of claim 17, wherein the automation management system is configured to at least:
register a plurality of software robots with the automation management system, the registering providing descriptive data pertaining to each of the plurality of software robots (See paragraphs 32 and 22, in view of paragraph 20, wherein bots are registered with the automated platform, wherein bot registration includes validating master data with respect to each bot, and wherein the automated platform manages/monitors a plurality of RPA systems that each include a plurality of bots); and
maintain milestones for each of the plurality of software robots in the milestone database (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 53–54, in view of paragraphs 20, 22, and 32, wherein log data is maintained with respect to each bot in automated platform system).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal et al. (U.S. 2019/0332508) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2018/0063258), and in further view of IWASAKI et al. (U.S. 2023/0132894) and SINGH et al. (U.S. 2022/0032471).
Claim 6: As disclosed above, Goyal, Wang, and Iwasaki disclose the elements of claim 1. Although Goyal discloses milestone data (See citations above), Goyal, Wang, and Iwasaki do not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 6.
Singh discloses wherein the data includes at least a designator denoting a user of the software robot (See paragraph 234, wherein RPA execution is associated with a given user and user permissions associated with the user credentials).
As disclosed above, Goyal discloses a system directed to managing services within an integrated robotic process automation platform, Wang discloses a system directed to managing services within a collaboration system, and Iwasaki discloses a system directed to controlling chat bot operations. Singh discloses a system directed to managing and recording software automation processes. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing application services. The technique of identifying a designator of the service is applicable to the systems of Goyal, Wang, and Iwasaki as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing application services.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Singh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Singh to the teachings of Goyal, Wang, and Iwasaki would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate application services management into similar systems. Further, applying designator identifiers to Goyal, Wang, and Iwasaki would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
Claim 19: Goyal discloses the automation management system of claim 18, wherein the at least one computer readable template including at least: a software robot code section including program code of the software robot (See paragraph 32, in view of paragraph 20, wherein master data is stored for each bot, and wherein code for each bot is further stored). Although Goyal discloses authenticating services with respect to user permissions (See paragraph 43), Goyal, Wang, and Iwasaki do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Singh discloses a permission call code section including program code to initiate a request for permission to execute the software robot (See paragraph 234, wherein bots execute based on associated user permissions; see also paragraphs 237 and 251); and
an execution control code section including program code to initiate execution of the program code of the software robot provided at least in part in the software robot code section, the program code to initiate execution of the program code of the software robot is configured to operate to initiate execution of the program code of the software robot provided that permission to execute is returned in response to the permission call code section (See paragraph 234, wherein bots execute based on associated user permissions; see also paragraphs 237 and 251).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Singh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 6.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
COSAREANU et al. (U.S. 2023/0143922) discloses a system directed to managing RPA bot execution using a resource specification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623