DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s): original application filed on 07/09/2024, said application claims a priority filing date of 07/09/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed features of "… receiving, from a user, an input for designating a target application ….. identifying and displaying one or more RPA objects that belongs to the target application" recited in claim 1, 12 and 20 must be shown in figure. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to independent claims 1, 12 and 20, claims recite "… receiving, from a user, an input for designating a target application ….. identifying and displaying one or more RPA objects that belongs to the target application”. However, there is not a single figure found where a target application is designated by a user and RPA object is identified and displayed based on the selected target application in such a way as to reasonably convey that applicant had the possession of the claimed invention.
A skilled artisan would appreciate that reciting features in words does not mean that author has possession of the graphical user interface (GUI) features without evidence of GUI elements (such as displaying RPA objects based on the target application) that has been displayed to the user, as it is claimed.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voicu et al. (U.S. Patent 10,885,423; hereinafter “Voicu”) in view of Grigore et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0012024; hereinafter “Grigore”).
In regard to independent claims 1, 12 and 20, Voicu teaches a method of creating a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) scenario, performed by at least one computing device, the method comprising: receiving, from a user, an input for designating a target application or an RPA object within the target application (Voicu, figure 12, element 312);
identifying and rendering one or more RPA objects that belong to the target application (Voicu, figure 12, element 314); receiving, from the user, an input for selecting a target RPA object and a user activity associated with the target RPA object; and transforming the selected user activity into a corresponding RPA activity sequence and rendering the corresponding RPA activity sequence (Voicu, figure 12, element 320; “Note: activity has been transformed into RPA activity sequences”).
In the area of graphical user interface, rendering information includes displaying information to user. However, Voicu is not explicit on rendering being displaying to user.
Grigore teaches a system associated with Robotic Process Automation wherein rendering content includes displaying content to the user (Grigore, figure 6D “Note: corresponding RPA objects are displayed in response to selecting target application”; figure 6A, “Note: element 612 displays RPA activity sequence).
Voicu and Gregore are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor, system associated with Robotic Process Automation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Gregore, displaying content visually to user, to Voicu. Motivation for doing so would have been to help user to read the content with ease and make the system more effective and useful.
In regard to dependent claims 2 and 13, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches wherein the identified one or more RPA objects include one or more RPA objects that are not visible in a screen area of the target application (Gregore, figure 6A and 6K; “Note: RPA object showing in the tree view includes UI libraries which is not visible in the target application”).
In regard to dependent claims 3 and 14, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches the identifying and displaying the one or more RPA objects, includes: if an RPA object within the target application is designated, identifying the one or more RPA objects by searching for a parent object of the designated RPA object through an Operating System (OS) Application Programming Interface (API); and displaying the identified one or more RPA objects in a tree view (Voicu, col 10, lines 34-28; “Note: hierarchy implies the tree view”).
In regard to dependent claims 4 and 15, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches the identifying and displaying the one or more RPA objects, includes: receiving input from the user that designates an object identification method; if the designated object identification method is a first method, identifying the RPA objects that belong to the target application according to the first method; and if the designated object identification method is a second method, identifying the RPA objects that belong to the target application according to the second method, and at least some of RPA object identification results according to the first method differ from RPA object identification results according to the second method (Gregore, paragraph 0197; Figure 9-12; “Note: various methods (e.g. image matching, OCR-based identification CV-based identification, unified target identification etc) have been used which resulted in corresponding RPA objects based on the methods”).
In regard to dependent claims 5 and 16, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches the identifying and displaying the one or more RPA objects, includes: identifying a hierarchical structure of the one or more RPA objects; and generating an identifier (ID) for each of the one or more RPA objects based on the hierarchical structure (Voicu, Col 10, lines 49-67; “Note: RPA objects in the DOM includes hierarchical structure and each note contains unique identifier to identify parent of each node”).
In regard to dependent claims 6 and 17, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches the identifying and displaying the one or more RPA objects, includes: generating a screenshot image of the target application; and displaying the one or more RPA objects in a first area of an RPA object interface and displaying the screenshot image in a second area of the RPA object interface (Gregore, paragraph 0158; lines 1-5; Figure 6H).
In regard to dependent claims 7 and 18, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches receiving input from the user that selects a particular RPA object in the first area; determining an object area in the screenshot image where the particular RPA object is located, based on a bounds attribute of the particular RPA object; and highlighting the determined object area in the screenshot image displayed in the second area (Gregore, paragraph 0194; paragraph 0158; lines 1-5).
In regard to dependent claims 8 and 19, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches receiving input from the user that selects a particular point within the screenshot image displayed in the second area; creating a list of RPA objects whose object areas includes a location of the particular point, based on attribute information of the one or more RPA objects; determining an RPA object with a smallest object area from the list of RPA objects; and highlighting the determined RPA object in the first area (Gregore, paragraph 0158; lines 1-5; Figure 6H).
In regard to dependent claim 9, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches wherein the one or more RPA objects are identified according to an object identification method designated by the user, and the transforming the selected user activity into the corresponding RPA activity sequence and displaying the corresponding RPA activity sequence, includes: determining whether a transformation of the selected user activity into an RPA activity sequence is necessary based on the designated object identification method; and transforming the selected user activity into the corresponding RPA activity sequence when the transformation of the selected user activity into an RPA activity sequence is determined to be necessary (Voicu, figure 12, element 326; “Note: upon meeting the condition, transformation of RPA sequence is performed at element 320”).
In regard to dependent claim 10, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches the one or more RPA objects are identified according to an object identification method designated by the user, and the transforming the selected user activity into the corresponding RPA activity sequence and displaying the corresponding RPA activity sequence, includes: searching for and acquiring an RPA activity sequence that matches the designated object identification method from multiple RPA activity sequences corresponding to the selected user activity, wherein the multiple RPA activity sequences are predefined for different object identification methods; and transforming the selected user activity into the acquired RPA activity sequence (Voicu, Col 6, lines 50-52; “Note: RPA sequences were searched against the script repository where RPA sequences are stored”).
In regard to dependent claim 11, Voicu as modified by Gregore using the same motivation to combine as applied above, teaches the transforming the selected user activity into the corresponding RPA activity sequence and displaying the corresponding RPA activity sequence, includes: automatically setting attribute information of RPA activities constituting the RPA activity sequence using attribute information of the target RPA object, collected during the identification of the one or more RPA objects (Voicu, Col 11, lines 7-15, col 12, lines 32-42; “Note: attribute being location, network address etc.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Namiki et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0249766 - Teaches selecting an object highlight corresponding object in a screenshot.
Mayer et al. U.S. Patent 11,314,531 - Teaches a system transforming user activity into RPA sequence activities where RPA objects are based on the target application.
Weinberg et al. U.S. Patent 6,587,969 - Teaches selecting an object highlight corresponding object in a screenshot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZA NABI whose telephone number is (571)270-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM BASHORE can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/Reza Nabi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights