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
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 08/27/2024.
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
References in applicant's IDS form 1449 received on 08/27/2024, 12/15/2025 and 05/26/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 17/489,99. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in each application are directed.
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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-30 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “monitoring, by a robot is a digital assistant configured to load the partial or full workflow based on the inputs received by the user.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe executing one or more digital assistant tasks using robotic processing automation (RPA) to load workflow. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 21 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a robot and a step for gathering information (devices recited in the claim). When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the robot amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 21 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 21 further includes a system, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 depend. As a result, claims2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a robot and a step for gathering information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 21 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 21 further includes a system, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 and 21 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 depend. As a result, claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee “US 2021/0072750 A1” (Lee).
Regarding Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for executing one or more digital assistant tasks using robotic processing automation (RPA), comprising:
monitoring, by a robot, one or more inputs received from a user (at least see Lee Abstract; Fig. 2; [0011]);
identifying or loading, by the robot, one or more triggers based on the user input (at least see Lee Abstract; Fig. 1; [0151]);
loading, by the robot, a partial or full workflow associated with the one or more triggers (at least see Lee Abstract; Fig. 4; [0001]-[0009]);
executing, by the robot, the loaded workflow to mimic or perform the one or more digital assistant tasks (at least see Lee Abstract; Fig. 6; [0012]-[0017]]), wherein
the robot is a digital assistant configured to load the partial or full workflow based on the inputs received by the user (at least see Lee Abstract; Fig. 3; [0042]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a workflow to a robot to monitor for the one or more inputs received from the user, wherein the one or more inputs cause the robot to perform an automated tasks with or without user involvement (at least see Lee [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3: The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: assigning the robot with a plurality of capabilities to mimic an executive assistant and perform the one or more digital assistant tasks (at least see Lee [0036]).
Regarding Claim 4: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the robot, one or more relevant triggers, the one or more relevant triggers are coded in advance or determined by machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) to be relevant (at least see Lee [0044]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 5: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the executing of the loaded workflow comprises using predefined user settings, machine learning (ML) models, and/or inputs from a third party source to complete the one or more digital assistant tasks associated with the one or more triggers (at least see Lee [0050]).
Regarding Claim 6: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the robot is assigned with pre-defined authority ranging from informative notifications to fully delegated authority (at least see Lee [0127]).
Regarding Claim 7: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: scanning, by the robot, the one or more triggers, wherein the scanning of the one or more triggers comprises performing, by the robot, the scanning of the one or more triggers while one or more applications are concurrently or sequentially executed on a computing device (at least see Lee Abstract; [0059]).
Regarding Claim 8: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the executing of the loaded workflow comprises executing, by the robot, a series of steps to schedule a meeting on behalf of a user of a computing device, and/or executing, by the robot, a series of steps to schedule a travel itinerary on behalf of the user of the computing device based on the scheduled meeting (at least see Lee [0100]).
Regarding Claim 9: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the executing of the loaded workflow comprises executing, by the robot, a series of steps to generate or prepare parts of an expense report on behalf of a user of a computing device (at least see Lee [0102]]).
Regarding Claim 10: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the executing of the loaded workflow comprises executing, by the robot, a series of steps to prioritize and display incoming communications received by a computing device (at least see Lee Abstract; [0139]).
Regarding Claims 11-30: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-10.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights