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. Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Shared storage module; heartbeat module, and restore module The limitations do not apply the equivalent of “configured to” or “so that” or equivalents of “model for, device for, element for, member for, etc.” (see MPEP 2181 e.g. “ Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may : ( 1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 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 . Claim(s) 1 , 8 , and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. (USPN 6170044) in view over Geffen et al. (PG/PUB 20180370033) . Claim 1 McLaughlin et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for performing a disaster recovery including a restore module described below but does not expressly teach for robotic process automation (RPA) using a heartbeat module described below. Geffen et al. teaches a robotic process automation using a heartbeat module described below McLaughlin t eaches the method comprising: storing, via the shared storage, data of process steps of a workload executed by a first robotic agent (see Geffen below for robotic agent) in a first environment (e.g. “Tracker 210 is a controller hardware engine that detects and captures write operations by processor 205 to main RAM 220. Corresponding portions of main RAM 220 and main RAM 270 are designated as “Logical Shared Memory” that must be maintained in identical states in primary control processor module 200 and secondary control processor module 250. Therefore, an initial copy of the Logical Shared Memory portion of main RAM 220 must be transferred to main RAM 270 and repeatedly updated thereafter in order to obtain and maintain “synchronization” (or data coherency) between primary control processor module 200 and secondary processor modul e 250 ,” see also Geffen for a robotic agent in a first environment , ABSTRACT, Figure 1, 0008 e.g. “a failure evaluation processor configured to collect the failed tasks per task type and to receive recordings of successful execution steps per each of the failed tasks, whereby the failure evaluation processor is further configured to evaluate the recorded successful execution steps with respect to the failed task types in order to provide selected execution steps that best fix the tasks that the robotic process automation unit failed to complete, thereby fixing the robotic process automation failures.”) monitoring, by the heartbeat module, the workload of the first robotic agent until a disaster event occurs during the workload ( Geffen et al. ABSTRACT, Figure 1, Figure 2, claim 1 e.g. s ee heartbeat as module as the failure evaluation processor monitoring workload during task execution of first robot, see element 110) replicating, by the restore module ( McLaughlin e.g. tracking circui t ) , the shared storage as a replicated shared storage in a second environment ( McLaughlin e.g. see “synchronizing” as reading on replicating, see “ In order to synchronize the primary control processor module 200 with the secondary control processor module 250 , primary control processor module 200 employs a tracker 210 , a FIFO 215 , and a data buffer 225 associated with network interface 230 . The secondary control processor module 250 also comprises a tracker 260 , a FIFO 265 , and a data buffer 275 associated with network interface 280 ,” see also “ I n order to synchronize the primary control processor module 200 with the secondary control processor module 250 , primary control processor module 200 employs a tracker 210 , a FIFO 215 , and a data buffer 225 associated with network interface 230 . The secondary control processor module 250 also comprises a tracker 260 , a FIFO 265 , and a data buffer 275 associated with network interface 280” ) recreating, via the restore module (e.g. tracking circuit) , a context of the first robotic agent based on an execution of the workload by the first robotic agent at a time of the disaster event ( McLaughlin e.g. see the tracking circuit synchronizing both controllers as reading on the context of the first controller, see “ In order to synchronize the primary control processor module 200 with the secondary control processor module 250 , primary control processor module 200 employs a tracker 210 , a FIFO 215 , and a data buffer 225 associated with network interface 230 . The secondary control processor module 250 also comprises a tracker 260 , a FIFO 265 , and a data buffer 275 associated with network interface 280 ,” see also I n order to synchronize the primary control processor module 200 with the secondary control processor module 250, primary control processor module 200 employs a tracker 210, a FIFO 215, and a data buffer 225 associated with network interface 230. The secondary control processor module 250 also comprises a tracker 260, a FIFO 265, and a data buffer 275 associated with network interface 280 ,” as applied, see a robot of Geffen as a first controller whose context is replicated to a second controller of McLaughlin) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Geffen, namely identifying robotic task failure and implementing remedial action for fixing the robotic process automation failure, to the teachings of McLaughlin, namely providing fault tolerant control for automation systems, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting each first and second controller of McLaughlin to comprise a robotic automation controller function of Geffen for redundant control. Geffen is reasonably pertinent to a problem of fault tolerant control and would commend itself for implementing a shared memory for maintaining coherency between redundant controllers as described, ABSTRACT. As applied, at least a first controller represents a first robot including a shared memory and tracking circuit for synchronizing state data (e.g. tasks) for backup control upon detecting primary controller/robot failure. Claim 8 . McLaughlin, as modified, supra claim 1, teaches a computer program product (e.g. as interpreted, Applicant’s specification e.g. 0033 e.g. “ A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves .” For purposes of examination, the claimed medium is interpreted as non-transitory medium) for performing a disaster recovery for robotic process automation (RPA), the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform: storing, via a shared storage, data of process steps of a workload executed by a first robotic agent in a first environment; supra claim 1 monitoring, by a heartbeat module, the workload of the first robotic agent until a disaster event occurs during the workload; supra claim 1 replicating, by a restore module, the shared storage as a replicated shared storage in a second environment; supra claim 1 recreating, via the restore module, a context of the first robotic agent based on an execution of the workload by the first robotic agent at a time of the disaster event , supra claim 1 C laim 14 . McLaughlin, as modified, teaches a computing system ( McLaughlin, Figure 2-125, see also Figure 1- 105) comprising: a processor (Figure 2 e.g. see redundant processors, see also Figure 1-105) a computer-readable storage device (Figure 2-225) coupled to the processor; a shared storage coupled to a network module (Figure 2-210, 260, supra claim 1, see also 290-network module) a heartbeat module coupled to the processor (supra claim 1 e.g. see Geffen for heartbeat module integrated within the system of McLaughlin) a restore module coupled to the processor (supra claim 1) program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage device for execution by the processor via a memory, wherein execution of the program instructions by the processor configures the processor to perform a robotic process automation (RPA) disaster recovery , supra claim 1 for redundant robots, the method comprising: storing, via the shared storage, data of process steps of a workload executed by a first robotic agent in a first environmen t, supra claim 1 for sharing first robotic task to second robot monitoring, by the heartbeat module, the workload of the first robotic agent until a disaster event occurs during the workload . Supra claim 1 for obtaining current states of the first robot/first controller replicating, by the restore module, the shared storage as a replicated shared storage in a second environment; supra claim 1 for providing redundant changes via the tracking circuit) recreating, via the restore module, a context of the first robotic agent based on an execution of the workload by the first robotic agent at a time of the disaster event , supra claim 1 for duplicating the first robot states and tasks to the second robot) Claim s 2 - 3 , 7 , 9 - 10 , 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. (USPN 6170044) in view over Geffen et al. (PG/PUB 20180370033) in view over Kadakia et al. (PG/PUB 20210117302) Claim 2. McLaughlin teaches t he method of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the second robot limitation described below. Kadakia teaches the second robot limitations described below. further comprising creating, via the restore module, a second robotic agent in the second environment, wherein the second robotic agent is created based on a definition of the first robotic agent ( Kadakia , ABSTRACT, 0003, Figure 5 , claim 1 e.g. see second robot taking over workflow tasks of a first robot as reading on creating a first definition of the first robot , supra claim 1 for applying a restore module between controllers for state synchronization for fault tolerant control) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Kadakia , namely providing a second robot to takeover over tasks of a first robot, to the teachings of McLaughlin, as modified, namely providing fault tolerant control for automation systems including a first robot and a backup controller , would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting each first and second controller of McLaughlin to comprise first and second robots, respectively, for redundant control. Kadakia is reasonably pertinent to a problem of fault tolerant control and would commend itself to the teachings of McLaughlin by enabling a second robot to assume the context of the first robot during failure, see Kadakia , ABSTRACT, summary of invention. Claim 3 . The method of claim 2, wherein the second robotic agent is created during at least one of: prior to the disaster event or after the disaster event , supra claim 2 e.g. see providing a second, redundant robot for redundant control as reading on creating at least a second robot agent before failure) Claim 7 . The method of claim 2, further comprising synchronizing at least one of the first robotic agent or the second robotic agent when at least one of the first robotic agent or the second robotic agent modifies an external environment external to the first environment and the second environment (supra claim 2 for redundant robot control, the second robot being synchronized to the first robot based in part on changes to the first robot during process automation, see Geffen, ABSTRACT for task execution states that are synchronized between robots and see McLaughlin for synchronizing changes made to an external environment, Figure 1 , ABSTRACT, i.e., as applied, synchronization occurs between redundant robots during process automation activi ties or when a robot changes the environment through task implementation and concurrently synchronizing the task states between robots/controllers) Claim 9 . The computer program product of claim 8, further comprising creating, via the restore module, a second robotic agent in the second environment, wherein the second robotic agent is created based on a definition of the first robotic agent, supra claim 2 (e.g. see creating as synchronizing a second robot/second controller with a first robot/first controller via the tracking circuit/restore module) Claim 10 . The computer program product of claim 9, wherein the second robotic agent is created during at least one of: prior to the disaster event or after the disaster event , supra claim 3 , supra claim 9 e.g. see “created” as synchronizing states between first and second robots) Claim 15 . The computing system of claim 14, further comprising creating, via the restore module, a second robotic agent in the second environment, wherein the second robotic agent is created based on a definition of the first robotic agent , supra claim 2 Claim 16 . The computing system of claim 15, wherein the second robotic agent is created during at least one of: prior to the disaster event or after the disaster event , supra claim 3 Claim 20 . The computing system of claim 15, further comprising synchronizing at least one of the first robotic agent or the second robotic agent when at least one of the first robotic agent or the second robotic agent modifies an external environment external to the first environment and the second environment , supra claim 7 Claim s 4 - 6 , 11 - 13 , and 17-19 are rejec ted under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. (USPN 6170044) in view over Geffen et al. (PG/PUB 20180370033) ) in view over Kadakia et al. (PG/PUB 20210117302) in view over Kim (PG/PUB 20180376317) Claim 4 . The cited prior art teaches t he method of claim 2 but does not teach the proxy and network module limitations described below. Kim teaches the proxy and network module limitations described below further comprising maintaining, via a network module, an intermediary network between the first robotic agent and one or more external systems accessed by the first robotic agent (Kim, Figure 1, Figurre 3-210, supra claim 1 for first and second robot/controller connections, wherein a proxy is configured to impersonate the first robotic agent within the intermediary network in order to provide, to the second robotic agent, continuous access to the one or more external systems (Kim, ABSTRACT, 0004-0006 e.g. see first device acting as a communication proxy for second device for network access, supra claims 1-2 for redundant robotic communication over a communication medium) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Kim namely providing a first device to use as a proxy for a second device for accessing a network, to the teachings of McLaughlin, as modified, namely providing fault tolerant control for automation systems including a first and second robots, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the communication medium of McLaughlin, as modified, to comprise a first robot acting as a proxy for a second robot for accessing a network. Kim is reasonably pertinent to a problem of establishing device communication over a network while minimizing the number of connections as described, summary of invention. Claim 5 . The method of claim 4, further comprising performing, by the second robotic agent, one or more unfinished process steps of the workload of the first robotic agent, wherein the performing is based on at least one of: the context of the first robotic agent or a state of the intermediary network (supra claim 1, see Kadakia , ABSTRACT, Figure 5-502, 504, 506 e.g. see second robot resuming tasks of a first robot) Claim 6 . The method of claim 5, wherein the context of the first robotic agent includes at least one of: a state of the first robotic agent at the time of the disaster event or a dependency of the state of the first robotic agent on completed portions of the workload of the first robotic agent , supra claim 1, supra claim 2, supra claim 5 e.g. see first and second robotics that are synchronized prior to failover, at least the current tasks of the first robot copied to the second robot for enabling the second robot to assume the remaining tasks of the first robot) Claim 11 . The computer program product of claim 9, further comprising maintaining, via a network module, an intermediary network between the first robotic agent and one or more external systems accessed by the first robotic agent, wherein a proxy is configured to impersonate the first robotic agent within the intermediary network in order to provide, to the second robotic agent, continuous access to the one or more external systems , supra claim 4 Claim 12 . The computer program product of claim 11, further comprising performing, by the second robotic agent, one or more unfinished process steps of the workload of the first robotic agent, wherein the performing is based on at least one of: the context of the first robotic agent or a state of the intermediary network , supra claim 5 Claim 13 . The computer program product of claim 12, wherein the context of the first robotic agent includes at least one of: a state of the first robotic agent at the time of the disaster event or a dependency of the state of the first robotic agent on completed portions of the workload of the first robotic agent , supra claim 6 Claim 17 . The computing system of claim 15, further comprising maintaining, via a network module, an intermediary network between the first robotic agent and one or more external systems accessed by the first robotic agent, wherein a proxy is configured to impersonate the first robotic agent within the intermediary network in order to provide, to the second robotic agent, continuous access to the one or more external systems , supra claim 4 Claim 18 . The computing system of claim 17, further comprising performing, by the second robotic agent, one or more unfinished process steps of the workload of the first robotic agent, wherein the performing is based on at least one of: the context of the first robotic agent or a state of the intermediary network , supra claim 5 Claim 19 . The computing system of claim 18, wherein the context of the first robotic agent includes at least one of: a state of the first robotic agent at the time of the disaster event or a dependency of the state of the first robotic agent on completed portions of the workload of the first robotic agent , supra claim 6 Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Claim 1 relevancy 20090015404 8108071 20220258346 20200001455 20210224729 20210247776 20230321828 12253860 20230024387 20250103042 20230088591 20210117302 20210117302 20180370033 11642788 9361151 20220147059 11288557 20220156540 Automatic creation -11303562 20150293779 20180011766 6170044 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1645 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Sat (10-8) PST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Fennema can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2748 . 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. /DARRIN D DUNN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117