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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-31 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/545420. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Examiner’s Amendment
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in a telephone interview with Michael Aristo Leonard on March 16, 2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
Claim 1, 12 and 21
Change limitation from “detect failure of a step of the workflow that the automation is performing, by an RPA robot or a monitoring process”
to
“detect failure of a step of the workflow that the automation is performing, by a robotic process automation (RPA) robot or a monitoring process”
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-31 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/16/2026 overcome the all rejections and objections set forth in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and USC 101 rejection as set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach Claim 12, alone or in reasonable combination, which specifically comprise the following limitations (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
- detect failure of a step of the workflow that the automation is performing, by a robotic process automation (RPA) robot or a monitoring process; provide, by the RPA robot or the monitoring process, information as input to a cognitive AI layer comprising one or more AI models selected from at least one of generative AI models and other AI models, the cognitive AI layer trained to provide output for the repair for the automation based on a determined intent of the automation; receive the output from the cognitive AI layer, by the RPA robot or the monitoring process; and perform one or more actions responsive to the output from the cognitive AI layer to facilitate the repair of the automation, by the RPA robot or the monitoring process, the repair comprising updating one or more steps of the automation during runtime, wherein the step in the workflow is executed by the automation in a sequence or some other logical flow of the workflow.
.
The closest prior art, Singh (US 20220114044) reveals a similar system, but fails to anticipate or render obvious, either singularly or in combination with the other cited references, the above limitations (as combined with the other claimed limitations).
The claims 21 and 1 are the method and computer readable medium claims, respectively, corresponding to the apparatus claim 12 and is thus allowed for the same reasons as for the claim 12.
The claims 2-11 depend on the claim 1 and are thus allowed for the same reasons as for the claim 1.
The claims 13-20 depend on the claim 12 and are thus allowed for the same reasons as for the claim 12.
The claims 22-31 depend on the claim 21 and are thus allowed for the same reasons as for the claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 5712705254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights