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
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 were amended.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 112, applicant has amended the claims however line 6 in claim 1 still needs to be amended to recite “the provider site”.
With respect to ODP examiner has maintained his ODP.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that none of the cited references explicitly disclose “Telecommunication Expense Management (TEM) data” and therefore the rejection fails to establish a Perma facie case.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant and maintained his mappings. Specifically, The claims do not define TEM data structurally, nor does it require telecommunication-specific parsing logic, billing reconciliation algorithms, invoice normalization or telecom-specific data structures. Under BRI consistent with the specification, “TEM data” constitutes data retrieved from a provider site relating to telecommunications expenses. The claimed RPA system performs generic data retrieval, path determination, template-based navigation, and storage operations, none of which are structurally dependent upon telecommunications-specific content. The claimed operations (template access, path determination, saving a path, gathering data, storing data) are content-agnostic and operate identically regardless of whether the retrieved data relates to telecommunications expense, medical billing, financial transactions, or other categories of expense data. Accordingly, TEM data is reasonably interpreted as a type of data retrieved from a provider site, and does not impose structural or functional limitations on the claimed RPA system.
With respect to applicants argument that the cited references do not contain the word “telecommunications” is unpersuasive.
Examiner respectfully agrees with the applicant. However, A reference need not use identical terminology to teach a claimed limitation. The relevant inquiry is whether the reference teaches the claimed structure and functionality, not whether identical words appear. See MPEP 2144. Allen teaches an RPA system retrieving data from a provider side using execution-data templates and storing retrieved data in persistent storage. Under BRI, TEM data retrieved from such a site. The cited references therefore teach the claimed structure and operation of the RPA system regardless of the specific content category of the data. Specifically the claim does not require TEM data structurally nor require telecommunications-specific billing algorithms, reconciliation engines, invoice normalization structures or carrier-specific data formats. The specification describes TEM data broadly as telecom-related billing and expense information retrieved from vendor portals. The operations performed by the RPA system defined in the specification are content-agnostic and operate identically regardless of whether the retrieved data relates to telecommunications expense, medical expenses, financial invoices or other categories of expense data.
Under BRI, claim with consistent with the specification, “TEM data” constitutes a category of expense-related data retrieved from a provider site. The claim does not recite telecommunications-specific processing logic, billing scpema, carrier-specific interface requirements, or specialized data structures that would alter the structure or operation of the claimed RPA system. The recited RPA operations – template, access, path determination, saving an identified path, data gathering, and storage – are performed in the same manner regardless of whether the retrieved data related to telecommunications expense or another category of expense data. Accordingly, the term “TEM data” does not impose additional structural or functional limitations on the claimed system beyond the generic retrieval of provider-site data.
Furthermore, in view of compact prosecution, examiner has further detailed his combination of the prior arts to in view of 103 motivation for combining.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the site" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 2nd line in preamble recites “a provider site” examiner is assuming this is what is meant by “the site” because “a site” does not exist. However this still create an antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required however.
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 1-17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of Patent No. US 12,112,274. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Instant Application
US Patent: US 12,112,274
1
1 and 18
2
2
3
3
4-7
4-7
8
8 and 24
9-10
9-10 and 25-26
11-12
11-12 and 27-28
13
13 and 29
14
14 and 30
15-17
15-17 and 31-33
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
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 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 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 1-8 and 11-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2018/0345489 - IDS) in view of Desineni et al. (US 10,152,488) further in view of Monsarrat (US 7,647,351)
1. Allen teaches, A Robotic Process Automation (RPA) system for gathering Telecommunication Expense Management (TEM) data from a provider site (Fig 1: 101, 102 and 103), the system comprising:
a computer having a storage and a network connection (Fig 1 teaches a network with connectivity);
software executing on said computer comprising an RPA bot adapted to access the site using a template including data relating to the TEM data (Paragraph 38, Fig 2: RPA bot 152 stores its credentials and pulls execution-data templates from the rules database 103, 141);
said RPA bot accessing the site for a first time (Paragraph 38 - requires bots to present authentication credentials before accessing applications);
said RPA bot gathering and transmitting the TEM data to said computer, where said computer saves the TEM data on said storage (Paragraph 38 - teaches bot pulls operations data 153 and writes it to persistent storage).
Allen does not explicitly teach or disclose,
said template including information indicative of names or tags for the TEM data the RPA bot is to obtain;
said RPA bot accessing the data in said template to determine a path to access the TEM data on the site; and
said RPA bot saving an identified path that allows the RPA bot to obtain the TEM data, the identified path including steps needed to reach the TEM data;
However, Monsarrat teaches,
said template including information indicative of names or tags for the TEM data the RPA bot is to obtain (Col 2: lines 44-49 – teaches a template utilizing contextual clues; Col 7: last paragraph - teaches field name, Fig 5 – teaches using template for scaping and col 9: first paragraph teaches category tags used by experts to label an event for easy reference data scaped from the Web, Monsarrat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to incorporate the field-tagging template technique of Monsarrat into the template-driven RPA system of Allen. While Allen teaches retrieving provider-site data using execution-data template, Allen does not describe structuring those templates with tagged data fields identifying specific elements to be extracted. Monsarrat teaches annotating templates with field names and tags to identify and categorize extracted data elements. Incorporating Monsarrat’s tagging approach into Allen’s template framework would have been predictably enhanced identification and organization of extracted provider-site data, thereby improving automation and reducing manual configuration, which would have been with the ordinary skill in the art.
Desineni teaches,
said RPA bot accessing the data in said template to determine a path to access the TEM data on the site (Col 2: lines 17-30 - teaches to builds a shortest path from a template-derived activity graph and uses it to navigate the UI, Desineni); and
said RPA bot saving an identified path that allows the RPA bot to obtain the TEM data, the identified path including steps needed to reach the TEM data (Col 19: lines 54-60 - teaches drops unreachable edges, re-computes the shortest alternate path and stores the updated breadcrumb trail, Desineni);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to incorporate techniques of Desineni into the combined system of Allen and Monsarrat. Although the combined system retrieves tagged data from provider interfaces, it does not describe determining and storing optimized navigation paths through dynamic provider-site interface. Desineni teaches constructing interface graph, computing navigation paths, and storing updated navigation guides to reliably reach desired data states. Applying Desineni’s navigation methodology to the template-driven RPA system would have predictable improved robustness and repeatability of provider-ste data extraction, particularly in environments where interface layouts may change, which would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
2. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the TEM data comprises first TEM data, wherein, said RPA bot accessing the site for a second time to obtain second TEM data (Col 16: lines 8-15 teaches a breadcrumb trail which is used by the scraper in order to reach the destination, Desineni);
said RPA bot accessing the saved identified path data (Col 16: lines 16-24 teaches optimized graph is replayed exactly for each new crawl, Desineni);
said RPA bot gathering and transmitting the second TEM data to said computer, where said computer saves the TEM data on said storage (Paragraph 38 - teaches bot pulls operations data 153 and writes it to persistent storage, Allen).
3. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the identified path data is saved to said template (Fig 5: 500, 503 teaches embedding updates URLs/paths back into the same template object after processing, Monsarrat; Col 17: lines 23-27 teaches storing the breadcrumb trail inside its graph/template, Desineni).
4. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the TEM data comprises first TEM data, wherein, said RPA bot accessing the site for a second time to obtain second TEM data; said RPA bot accessing the saved identified path data; said RPA bot discarding failed path attempts to access the second TEM data and saving a second identified path that allows the RPA bot to obtain the second TEM data, the second identified path steps needed to reach the second TEM data said RPA bot gathering and transmitting the second TEM data to said computer, where said computer saves the TEM data on said storage (Fig 10: 748, 752, 756, 736 and 716 teaches dynamically analysis drops failed edges, discovers a new route and writes it to the updated graph, Desineni).
5. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 4, wherein when the RPA bot experiences a failed path by following the saved identified path data, the RPA bot initially searches for the second identified path by following a subset of the steps making up the saved identified path (Fig 10: 748, 752, 756, 736 and 716 teaches dynamically analysis drops failed edges, discovers a new route and writes it to the updated graph, Desineni).
6. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 4, wherein the second identified path data is saved to said template (Fig 5a – teaches embedding updates URLs/paths back into the same template object after processing, Monsarrat; Col 17: lines 23-27 teaches storing the breadcrumb trail inside its graph/template, Desineni).
7. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 4, wherein, said RPA bot accessing the site for a third time to obtain third TEM data; said RPA bot accessing the saved second identified path data; said RPA bot gathering and transmitting the third TEM data to said computer, where said computer saves the third TEM data on said storage (Fig 10 teaches a crawler loop reuses the latest validated path on every later run, Desineni).
8. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the TEM data is selected from the group consisting of: invoices, reports, provider plan offerings, inventories of active TEM related devices, licenses, currently available features, device models, accessories and combinations thereof (Paragraph 51 teaches operations database storing biographical information, account information, transfer data and the like, typical invoice/report material- so the same bot merely points to telecom tables (field of use variation), Allen).
11. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein said template is copied from a master template and the master template data is updated based on new synonyms, new pseudonyms, or new image files identified by the RPA bot (Abstract, teaches macro-bot pushes edits from a central rules data to cloned templates for all bots, Allen; Col 7: lines 48-55, teaches template engine resolves new category tags and conflicts, updating the master for future scrapes, Monsarrat).
12. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 11, wherein a plurality of RPA bots subsequently obtains the updated data from the master template (Paragraph 45 teaches explicitly redistributing modified execution data to multiple RPA bots, Allen). .
13. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the data on said template comprises a first language, said RPA bot correlating the first language data on said template with second language data found on the site (Col 9: lines 42-55 teaches statistical tagger maps category-text to equivalent tags on scraped page (synonyms /pseudonyms), Monsarrat).
14. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the provider site comprises a telecommunications carrier website (Col 4: lines 15-24 teach techniques are domain-agnostic, (field of choice) on what domain the provider site should be off, Monsarrat).
15. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 1, wherein the data on said template includes time information indicating when the RPA bot should attempt to obtain the TEM data (teaches macro-bot can periodically generate reports within a particular timeframe, driven by schedule fields in the rules database, Allen).
16. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 15, wherein if the TEM data is not yet available at the time indicated by the time information, the RPA bot will attempt to access the TEM data periodically (Paragraph 49 teaches a periodic report generation when data is absent and retrying until available, Allen).
17. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat teach, The system according to claim 16, wherein when the RPA bot accesses the TEM data, the time that the TEM data was obtained will be used to adjust the time information in the template (Paragraph 45 teaches macro-bot monitors bots metadata and redistributes tasks/schedules accordingly thereby updating execution data for the next run, Allen).
Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2018/0345489 - IDS) in view of Desineni et al. (US 10,152,488) and Monsarrat (US 7,647,351) and further in view of Huynh (US 10,397,207)
All the limitations of claim 1 are taught above.
9. The combination of Allen, Desineni and Monsarrat do not explicitly teach, wherein if said RPA bot is denied access to the site after presenting access credential information, said RPA bot automatically calls for reset of or adjustment of the input credentials or of a URL for the site.
However, Huynh teaches,
wherein if said RPA bot is denied access to the site after presenting access credential information, said RPA bot automatically calls for reset of or adjustment of the input credentials or of a URL for the site (Abstract teaches an automatic credential rotation- including generating a new credential string and new iteration count when authentication fails – and can also refresh the URL as part of the retry).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow the combination of Allen/Desineni/Monsarrat’s invention to be combined with Huynh’s invention because all the Allen and Huynh reference sare in the same technical field – unattended, programmatic access to remove services, the components in both references are modular therefore integrating the module requires only ordinary API calls and yields the predicable, improved result of higher uptime and reduced maintenance.
10. The combination of Allen, Desineni, Monsarrat and Huynh teach, The system according to claim 9, wherein the adjusted input credentials or adjusted URL are saved to said template (Col 4: lines 27-37 teaches storing the modified credential string and iteration number for future accesses, Huynh).
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 AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159