The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 05/19/2026.
Claims 1-21 have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the instant amendment, claims 1-21 have not been amended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20-021 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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0379764 to Tai and further in view of US 2021/0109767 to Cohen et al. (hereafter “Cohen”) and US 2004/0013132 to Cotte.
As per claim 1, Tai discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs configured to cause at least one processor to:
initiating, by a robot, execution (FIG. 9; paragraph 0005, 0022, 0028, 0040, 0042, and 0075: the RPA robot is started/triggered to execute activities/workflows) of a primary workflow when a request is received from a web application (FIG. 1 and 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062: “execution order and the relationship between a custom set of steps developed in a workflow, defined herein as “activities.” One commercial example of an embodiment of designer 110 is UiPath Studio™. Each activity may include an action, such as clicking a button, reading a file, writing to a log panel, etc. In some embodiments, workflows may be nested or embedded.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 930 and 950: wait for trigger [Wingdings font/0xE0] executing the RPA workflow associated with specific variables/conditions) wherein the robot is in an attended mode (FIG. 1; paragraph 0028: unattended robot 134) or an unattended mode (FIG. 1; paragraph 0028: attended robot 132);
listening, by the robot, for one or more triggers from the web application to start execution of a secondary workflow (FIG. 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062, and 0075-0076: “For a given text field component in the form, a property 632 can be defined that the user can bind back into the form process. The user can take this argument and bind it into the RPA workflow using a form fields collection window 640. See FIGS. 6D and 6E. Here, the RPA robot can take information in and out of the textField form field and choose a variable for binding using value field 642. Data can be fetched for web forms and then set to the value of a variable. In some embodiments, this may be similar to how arguments work when calling one RPA workflow from another RPA workflow. An argument may be bound to a variable and then passes between workflows, for example.” Blocks 930, 940, 960, 970, and 930 [Wingdings font/0xE0] updating variable [Wingdings font/0xE0] triggering new activities/workflow associated with the updated variable);
executing, by the robot, the secondary workflow when the one or more triggers are detected (FIG. 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062, and 0075-0076: “For a given text field component in the form, a property 632 can be defined that the user can bind back into the form process. The user can take this argument and bind it into the RPA workflow using a form fields collection window 640. See FIGS. 6D and 6E. Here, the RPA robot can take information in and out of the textField form field and choose a variable for binding using value field 642. Data can be fetched for web forms and then set to the value of a variable. In some embodiments, this may be similar to how arguments work when calling one RPA workflow from another RPA workflow. An argument may be bound to a variable and then passes between workflows, for example.” Blocks 930, 940, 960, 970, and 930 [Wingdings font/0xE0] updating variable [Wingdings font/0xE0] triggering new activities/workflow associated with the updated variable).
Tai discloses a communication between the robot and the web application (FIGs. 1-2), however, Tai does not explicitly disclose returning, by the robot, a result of the execution of the secondary workflow to the web application, wherein communication is instantaneous and bi-directional.
Cohen further discloses returning, by the robot, a result of the execution of the secondary workflow to the web application (FIG. 9; paragraph 0087: “At 910, robot service 614 returns the results of the requested operation back to robot HTTP listener 610, and at 912, robot HTTP listener 610 returns the results back to robot link 606. At 914, robot link 606 returns the data back to the application.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Cohen into Tai’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of allowing the application to authenticate itself with, and communicate with, the robot, thereby facilitating robot interaction processes (Cohen, paragraph 0008).
Cotte further discloses wherein communication is instantaneous and bi-directional (paragraph 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Cotte into Tai’s teaching and Cohen’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of bi-directional private communications between the first end user unit and the specific entity. Thus, the established communication is intercommunicative and advantageous for persons who wish to communicate real time, i.e., where action, reaction and interaction are perceived as being instantaneous by a human being (Cotte, paragraph 0053).
As per claim 2, Tai discloses wherein the one or more computer programs is further configured to cause at least one processor to receiving, by the robot, the request from a web application to initiate execution of the primary workflow (FIG. 1 and 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062: “execution order and the relationship between a custom set of steps developed in a workflow, defined herein as “activities.” One commercial example of an embodiment of designer 110 is UiPath Studio™. Each activity may include an action, such as clicking a button, reading a file, writing to a log panel, etc. In some embodiments, workflows may be nested or embedded.” step 930 and 950: wait for trigger executing the RPA workflow associated with specific variables/conditions)
As per claim 3, Tai discloses wherein the one or more computer programs is further configured to cause at least one processor to upon execution of the primary workflow, enabling, by the robot, the one or more triggers, each of the one or more triggers associated with one or more corresponding secondary workflows (FIG. 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062, and 0075-0076: “For a given text field component in the form, a property 632 can be defined that the user can bind back into the form process. The user can take this argument and bind it into the RPA workflow using a form fields collection window 640. See FIGS. 6D and 6E. Here, the RPA robot can take information in and out of the textField form field and choose a variable for binding using value field 642. Data can be fetched for web forms and then set to the value of a variable. In some embodiments, this may be similar to how arguments work when calling one RPA workflow from another RPA workflow. An argument may be bound to a variable and then passes between workflows, for example.” Blocks 930, 940, 960, 970, and 930 [Wingdings font/0xE0] updating variable [Wingdings font/0xE0] triggering new activities/workflow associated with the updated variable).
As per claim 8, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 9, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 10, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 15, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 16, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 17, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and further in view of Cohen and Cotte, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15, and further in view of US 2021/0133078 to Kunnath et al. (hereafter “Kunnath”) and US 2021/0258389 to Hall et al. (hereafter “Hall”)
As per claim 4, Tai discloses wherein the one or more computer programs is further configured to cause at least one processor to receiving, by the robot, input arguments (paragraph 0062) from the web application (FIG. 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062, and 0075-0076: “For a given text field component in the form, a property 632 can be defined that the user can bind back into the form process. The user can take this argument and bind it into the RPA workflow using a form fields collection window 640. See FIGS. 6D and 6E. Here, the RPA robot can take information in and out of the textField form field and choose a variable for binding using value field 642. Data can be fetched for web forms and then set to the value of a variable. In some embodiments, this may be similar to how arguments work when calling one RPA workflow from another RPA workflow. An argument may be bound to a variable and then passes between workflows, for example.” Blocks 930, 940, 960, 970, and 930 updating variable triggering new activities/workflow associated with the updated variable) by way of an Interprocess Communication channel.
Tai discloses the receiving, by the robot, input arguments by way of a Communication channel (FIGs. 1 and 9; paragraphs 0030,0039 and 0043), however, Tai does not explicitly disclose receiving a XAML name associated with the secondary workflow, and the communication channel is Interprocess Communication channel.
Kunnath further discloses receiving a XAML name associated with the secondary workflow (paragraph 0042: “the browser user interface may be generated from an XAML file output from the designer (e.g., designer 102 of FIG. 1 or designer 208 of FIG. 2) using a typescript based application (compiled to Javascript library). The application uses a template generation model, which is converted to a workflow visualization of activities and connectors (e.g., using Dagree-D3).”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Kunnath into Tai’s teaching and Cohen’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of providing a real time monitoring view of workflows (Kunnath, paragraph 0042).
Hall further discloses the communication channel is Interprocess Communication channel is Interprocess Communication channel (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Hall into Tai’s teaching, Cohen’s teaching, and Kunnath’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the operation of the attended automation robot(s) may not prevent the user from using other applications or instances when the client session RPA robot(s) are performing their workflows, but the input provided by the user session RPA robot is visible to the user in the user session when the user session robot fills it into an application (Hall, paragraph 0026).
As per claim 11, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 18, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and further in view of Cohen and Cotte, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15, and further in view of US 2016/0125070 to Snell.
As per claim 5, Tai does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computer programs is further configured to cause at least one processor to continuing to execute the primary workflow and to listen for the one or more triggers from the web application after returning the result of the execution of the secondary workflow to the web application.
Cohen further discloses returning the result of the execution of the secondary workflow to the web application (FIG. 9; paragraph 0087: “At 910, robot service 614 returns the results of the requested operation back to robot HTTP listener 610, and at 912, robot HTTP listener 610 returns the results back to robot link 606. At 914, robot link 606 returns the data back to the application.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Cohen into Tai’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of allowing the application to authenticate itself with, and communicate with, the robot, thereby facilitating robot interaction processes (Cohen, paragraph 0008).
Snell further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs is further configured to cause at least one processor to continuing to execute the primary workflow and to listen for the one or more triggers from the web application after returning the result of the execution of the secondary workflow (FIG. 9; blocks 915-950; paragraph 0119: “The workflow manager 325 waits for the initiated processes to finish as shown in block 940. Once the initiated process report they are finished, the workflow manager 325 then determines if more processes are to be initiated as shown in block 945. The workflow manager 325 initiates those processes as shown in block 935.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Snell into Tai’s teaching, Cohen’s teaching, and Cotte’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of managing content objects and workflows across devices (Snell, paragraph 0004).
As per claim 12, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 19, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
a) Applicants argues “Cotte (e.g. telecommunication technology) is not from the same field of endeavor as the claim invention (e.g. RPA technology) and is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention” (Remarks, page 12)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
1) Cotte and the subject application are the same field of endeavor.
The instant specification paragraphs 0022 and 0030 state:
[0022] Some embodiments generally pertain to a real-time bidirectional communication between a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) enabled web application and a robot executing a RPA process. Bidirectional communication may be implemented on a web infrastructure, such as JavaScript™, WebSocket™, etc., and an UiPath® platform using event-based triggers and messaging.
[0030] Listeners monitor and record data pertaining to user interactions with respective computing systems and/or operations of unattended computing systems and send the data to a core hyper-automation system 120 via a network (e.g., a local area network (LAN), a mobile communications network, a satellite communications network, the Internet, any combination thereof, etc.). The data may include, but is not limited to, which buttons were clicked, where a mouse was moved, the text that was entered in a field, that one window was minimized and another was opened, the application associated with a window, etc. In certain embodiments, the data from the listeners may be sent periodically as part of a heartbeat message. In some embodiments, the data may be sent to core hyper-automation system 120 once a predetermined amount of data has been collected, after a predetermined time period has elapsed, or both. One or more servers, such as server 130, receive and store data from the listeners in a database, such as database 140.
Cotte paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0011, and 0039 state:
[0001] In general, the present invention relates to communications environments for an end user unit communicating via the communications environment and related systems, devices, units and methods for communications purposes. In particular, the present invention relates to a communications environment capable of integrating various communications systems, such as computer-based networks, the Internet, Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) networks, Univeral Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) networks, mobile telephone networks, radio communications systems, satellite-based communications and the like wherein all communications from and to a end user unit are executed via a general-purpose communications interface, referred to herein as a telecommunications web site, in a private manner with respect to the communicating parties.
[0010] Computer-based communications environments (e.g., local area networks and the Internet) employ a plurality of hardware devices (e.g., computer systems and network modems) and, in particular, a vast number of different software applications (e.g., network browsers, e-mail applications, data conversion software and encoding and decoding software). A certain level of knowledge, understanding and experience is required by users of such communications environments specifically with respect to the use of software applications. For example, computer-based communications environments are based on complex addressing methods, which require, compared to telephone-based communications, an increased amount of user interaction and knowledge.
[0039] The end user unit may include a user interface device and a network interface device. The user interface device provides for user input and/or output. The user interface device may be a telephone, a keyboard, a computer terminal, and/or a mobile communications device, for example. The network interface device may be a V.42, V.90, V.90 modem, a personal computer memory card international association (PCMCIA) modem, a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem, an integrated service digital network (ISDN) adapter, a cable modem, a wireless modem, an ethernet card, or an integrated modem of a mobile phone, for example. The end user unit is not limited to a particular communications unit/device or any communications network. Rather, the end user unit may enable communications via any communications network such as regular telephone networks, mobile communications networks, computer networks, radio transmission networks, the Internet, etc. Further, the first end user unit is not restricted to single devices, but can also include two and more units, devices, and the like providing data/information sending and/or receiving capabilities for communications purposes, e.g., an ordinary letter and a scanner.
Accordingly, both the data communication in the instant specification and Cotto is a data communication which is bi-directional communication and implemented on a web infrastructure, such as scripts using event-based and messaging. Therefore, the cited reference and the claimed invention are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely data communication. Both address the need for bi-directional communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art of would recognize that the reference and the claimed invention operate within the same technological domain and serve substantially the same functional objectives.
2) Cotte and the subject application are reasonably pertinent.
The cited reference, while originating from a different industry, is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the present invention. Both the reference and the claimed invention confront the same core challenge — achieving bidirectional communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to solve this problem, would logically consider the teachings of the reference because it addresses identical performance requirements and operational constraints. The similarity in functional objectives, despite differences in application, establishes that the reference is within the scope of analogous art under the “reasonably pertinent” standard.
The instant specification paragraphs 0022 and 0030 state:
[0022] Some embodiments generally pertain to a real-time bidirectional communication between a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) enabled web application and a robot executing a RPA process. Bidirectional communication may be implemented on a web infrastructure, such as JavaScript™, WebSocket™, etc., and an UiPath® platform using event-based triggers and messaging.
[0030] Listeners monitor and record data pertaining to user interactions with respective computing systems and/or operations of unattended computing systems and send the data to a core hyper-automation system 120 via a network (e.g., a local area network (LAN), a mobile communications network, a satellite communications network, the Internet, any combination thereof, etc.). The data may include, but is not limited to, which buttons were clicked, where a mouse was moved, the text that was entered in a field, that one window was minimized and another was opened, the application associated with a window, etc. In certain embodiments, the data from the listeners may be sent periodically as part of a heartbeat message. In some embodiments, the data may be sent to core hyper-automation system 120 once a predetermined amount of data has been collected, after a predetermined time period has elapsed, or both. One or more servers, such as server 130, receive and store data from the listeners in a database, such as database 140.
Cotte paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0011, and 0039 state:
[0001] In general, the present invention relates to communications environments for an end user unit communicating via the communications environment and related systems, devices, units and methods for communications purposes. In particular, the present invention relates to a communications environment capable of integrating various communications systems, such as computer-based networks, the Internet, Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) networks, Univeral Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) networks, mobile telephone networks, radio communications systems, satellite-based communications and the like wherein all communications from and to a end user unit are executed via a general-purpose communications interface, referred to herein as a telecommunications web site, in a private manner with respect to the communicating parties.
[0010] Computer-based communications environments (e.g., local area networks and the Internet) employ a plurality of hardware devices (e.g., computer systems and network modems) and, in particular, a vast number of different software applications (e.g., network browsers, e-mail applications, data conversion software and encoding and decoding software). A certain level of knowledge, understanding and experience is required by users of such communications environments specifically with respect to the use of software applications. For example, computer-based communications environments are based on complex addressing methods, which require, compared to telephone-based communications, an increased amount of user interaction and knowledge.
[0039] The end user unit may include a user interface device and a network interface device. The user interface device provides for user input and/or output. The user interface device may be a telephone, a keyboard, a computer terminal, and/or a mobile communications device, for example. The network interface device may be a V.42, V.90, V.90 modem, a personal computer memory card international association (PCMCIA) modem, a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem, an integrated service digital network (ISDN) adapter, a cable modem, a wireless modem, an ethernet card, or an integrated modem of a mobile phone, for example. The end user unit is not limited to a particular communications unit/device or any communications network. Rather, the end user unit may enable communications via any communications network such as regular telephone networks, mobile communications networks, computer networks, radio transmission networks, the Internet, etc. Further, the first end user unit is not restricted to single devices, but can also include two and more units, devices, and the like providing data/information sending and/or receiving capabilities for communications purposes, e.g., an ordinary letter and a scanner.
Accordingly, both the data communication in the instant specification and Cotto is a data communication which is bi-directional communication and implemented on a web infrastructure, such as scripts using event-based and messaging. Therefore, Both the reference and the claimed invention confront the same core challenge — achieving bidirectional communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to solve this problem, would logically consider the teachings of the reference because it addresses identical performance requirements and operational constraints. The similarity in functional objectives, despite differences in application, establishes that the reference is within the scope of analogous art under the “reasonably pertinent” standard.
Therefore, Tai discloses a communication between the robot and the web application (FIGs. 1-2), however, Tai does not explicitly disclose wherein communication is instantaneous and bi-directional.
Cotte further discloses wherein communication is instantaneous and bi-directional (paragraph 0053).
b) Applicants argues “as for the feature executing, by the robot, the secondary workflow when the one or more triggers are detected”, the allegation on page 7 of the Office action are improper” (Remark, page 15)
The examiner respectfully directs the applicants’ attention to Tai, Fig 9.
Tai, FIG. 9 step 930 teaches “wait for trigger on time period to elapse”, step 940 teaches “Trigger or time elapsed” YES/NO, and step 950 teaches YES [Wingdings font/0xE0]“execute RPA workflow logic”
Accordingly, Tai teaches executing, by the robot, the secondary workflow when the one or more triggers are detected (FIG. 9; paragraphs 0022-0027, 0061-0062, and 0075-0076: “For a given text field component in the form, a property 632 can be defined that the user can bind back into the form process. The user can take this argument and bind it into the RPA workflow using a form fields collection window 640. See FIGS. 6D and 6E. Here, the RPA robot can take information in and out of the textField form field and choose a variable for binding using value field 642. Data can be fetched for web forms and then set to the value of a variable. In some embodiments, this may be similar to how arguments work when calling one RPA workflow from another RPA workflow. An argument may be bound to a variable and then passes between workflows, for example.” Blocks 930, 940, 960, 970, and 930 [Wingdings font/0xE0] updating variable [Wingdings font/0xE0] triggering new activities/workflow associated with the updated variable).
c) Applicants argue Cohen does not teach “returning, by the robot, a result of the execution of the secondary workflow to the web application” (remarks, page 16)
The examiner disagrees for the following reasons.
Cohen FIG. teaches a conductor 120 including web applications monitoring/sending/receiving data to/from robot 130.
Cohen (paragraphs 0027, 0038 and 0087) state:
[0027] Conductor 120 may have various capabilities including, but not limited to, provisioning, deployment, configuration, queueing, monitoring, logging, and/or providing interconnectivity. Provisioning may include creating and maintenance of connections between robots 130 and conductor 120 (e.g., a web application). Deployment may include assuring the correct delivery of package versions to assigned robots 130 for execution. Configuration may include maintenance and delivery of robot environments and process configurations. Queueing may include providing management of queues and queue items. Monitoring may include keeping track of robot identification data and maintaining user permissions. Logging may include storing and indexing logs to a database (e.g., an SQL database) and/or another storage mechanism (e.g., ElasticSearch®, which provides the ability to store and quickly query large datasets). Conductor 120 may provide interconnectivity by acting as the centralized point of communication for third-party solutions and/or applications.
[0038] On the server side, a presentation layer (web application 232, Open Data Protocol (OData) Representative State Transfer (REST) Application Programming Interface (API) endpoints 234, and notification and monitoring 236), a service layer (API implementation/business logic 238), and a persistence layer (database server 240 and indexer server 250) are included. Conductor 230 includes web application 232, OData REST API endpoints 234, notification and monitoring 236, and API implementation/business logic 238. In some embodiments, most actions that a user performs in the interface of conductor 230 (e.g., via browser 220) are performed by calling various APIs. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, starting jobs on robots, adding/removing data in queues, scheduling jobs to run unattended, etc. without deviating from the scope of the invention. Web application 232 is the visual layer of the server platform. In this embodiment, web application 232 uses HTML and JS. However, any desired markup languages, script languages, or any other formats may be used without deviating from the scope of the invention. The user interacts with web pages from web application 232 via browser 220 in this embodiment in order to perform various actions to control conductor 230. For instance, the user may create robot groups, assign packages to the robots, analyze logs per robot and/or per process, start and stop robots, etc.
[0087] In some embodiments, process 900 begins at 902 with robot link 606 ensuring that port discovery and authentication is completed when the applications invoke any of the supported APIs/functions/operation. At 904, robot link 606 invokes a particular API on robot HTTP listener 610 over HTTP. Robot HTTP listener 610 at 906 communicates with robot service 614 to perform the operation requested by robot link 606. At 908, robot service 614 communicates with executor 212, robot 210, conductor 230 or any other application as required to fulfill the requested operation. At 910, robot service 614 returns the results of the requested operation back to robot HTTP listener 610, and at 912, robot HTTP listener 610 returns the results back to robot link 606. At 914, robot link 606 returns the data back to the application.
Cohen teaches the conductor which is a web application or the web application executed in the browser to request job performed by robot, and the robots return a result to the application which is the web application executed in the conductor or the browser.
Accordingly, Cohen teaches returning, by the robot, a result of the execution of the secondary workflow to the web application (FIG. 9; paragraph 0087: “At 910, robot service 614 returns the results of the requested operation back to robot HTTP listener 610, and at 912, robot HTTP listener 610 returns the results back to robot link 606. At 914, robot link 606 returns the data back to the application.”).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights