DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/470137 filed on 09/19/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim 1-21 is/are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 is/are independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 07/21/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 201.15.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2021/0117302 to Kakakia
Once a workflow is developed in designer 102, execution of business processes is orchestrated by a conductor 104, which orchestrates one or more robots 106 that execute the workflows developed in designer 102. One commercial example of an embodiment of conductor 104 is UiPath Orchestrator™. Conductor 220 facilitates management of the creation, monitoring, and deployment of resources in an RPA environment. In one example, conductor 104 is a web application. Conductor 104 may also function as an integration point with third-party solutions and applications.
US 2017/0359464 to Segalis
The bot receives and monitors data to detect trigger events that indicate that a call should be initiated. The bot works through predefined workflows, or sequences of repeatable patterns of operations, each linked by abstract descriptions of operations to be performed, or intents. Essentially, the bot is able to use these workflows to determine how to react and what to say to a human in order to perform helpful tasks for a user.
US 2010/0278086 to Pochiraju
The system allows for the visualization of the instantaneous characteristics of the link and, if necessary, makes a tradeoff between the latency and resolution (throughput) of the data to help maintain the real-time nature of the system. Automated control strategies are implemented into the system to enable dynamic adjustments of the system throughput to minimize latency while maximizing data resolution.
US 2009/0089100 to Nenov
bi-directional verbal communication of patient-specific clinical information, and voice-driven instantaneous or scheduled paging, e-mail and SMS transmissions to third parties, which can be initiated by the user in the course of the verbal exchange with the Integrated Clinical Information Phone Service (ICIPS
US 2004/0068568 to Griffin
The JMS XML message can start workflow 240 or trigger a workflow event listened to by a running instance of the workflow 240. After retrieval of the message from JMS queue 175, workflow 240 can parse the XML message and forward all the input data to back end inventory system 145 at step 384. Portal framework 150 can update an order history portlet to reflect the order status at step 386.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20-21.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
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.
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