DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed 13 February 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 10, 15, 19, and 20 are currently amended; claims 4-9, 11-14, and 16-18 are original.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have been considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 19, in lines 2-3, there is no antecedent basis for “the computer-readable recording medium.” Applicant may have intended this to read as “the non-transitory computer readable medium” in light of the other amendments made to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the receiving of the search reference object includes receiving.” Receiving of the search reference object, as already claimed in parent claim 1 already includes receiving. Since the claim does not recite anything not already present in claim 1, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes reasonably performed in the human mind or on pen and paper without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claims recites the mental steps of a method for identifying a grid-format object , the method being performed by a computing device, wherein the method comprises:
receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control (A person can mentally receive a search reference object, e.g. by reading from a display it after a user has designated it.);
searching for an ancestor object of the search reference object on a hierarchical structure tree (A person can mentally look through a tree searching for an ancestor object.) and determining the searched ancestor object as a first row candidate object, wherein a node in the hierarchical structure tree includes automation characteristic information including a position, a size, and a control type of the UI object expressed by the node (Said person can mentally determine the searched ancestor object as a first row candidate object upon finding it from looking at the tree, and can read and mentally utilize data presented to them such as the claimed characteristic information.);
determining a sibling object of the first row candidate object on the hierarchical structure tree as a second row candidate object, by using automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object and automation characteristic information of the sibling object of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally identify a sibling of an object from a tree by reading the tree and mentally comparing automation characteristic information of objects presented to them, and mentally determine it as a second row candidate object.);
determining whether a child object of the first row candidate object and a child object of the second row candidate object satisfy a column relationship with each other on the hierarchical structure tree (A person can mentally identify children objects in a tree, and look at their relative positionings as displayed to them (e.g. mentally seeing if the objects start at the same vertical or horizontal locations), and mentally determine if they satisfy a column relationship with each other upon such observation.);
identifying each of the first row candidate object and the second row candidate object as a grid-format object, based on a result of determination on the column relationship (A person can mentally identify each of the objects as a grid-format object, e.g. as cell members of a row object in a table/grid being displayed, based on determining if they represent different columns from determining the vertical starting points are the same and the horizontal starting points are different.);
creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object (A person formulate an automation scenario, e.g. mentally or by writing it down, that can perform ‘automated work processing’. Traversing items of the grid-format object is recited generically as to be done by a person mentally reviewing information available to them, and thus a person traversing using their ‘automation scenario’ is performing automated work processing. At best, the limitation merely attempts to use a computer to ‘automatically’ perform the abstract idea and is thus merely a tool for implementing the mental process.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional features of performing the steps “in a robotic process automation (RPA) environment, the method being performed by a computing device and automating work processing based on the identified grid-format object,” merely attempt to generically link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. an RPA environment) for merely generically automating work by a general purpose computer and thus using the general purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Such features are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f) and §2106.05(h). Additionally, while the features “receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control” are mental processes as set forth above, even if they were not, they would be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering required to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Similarly, the features “creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object” are mental processes as set forth above, and even if they were not, merely recite generically automating mental processes of traversing grid-format objects, and thus merely attempt to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no steps being performed beyond those already recited as mental processes, and no additional elements beyond the generic linkage to an RPA environment and generic computer use previously recited, and thus nothing to possibly amount to significantly more.
As to claim 15, the claim recites the mental steps of identifying a grid-format object
performing:
an operation of receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control (A person can mentally receive a search reference object, e.g. by reading from a display it after a user has designated it.);
an operation of searching for an ancestor object of the search reference object on a hierarchical structure tree (A person can mentally look through a tree searching for an ancestor object.) and determining the searched ancestor object as a first row candidate object, wherein a node in the hierarchical structure tree includes automation characteristic information including a position, a size, and a control type of the UI object expressed by the node (Said person can mentally determine the searched ancestor object as a first row candidate object upon finding it from looking at the tree, and can read and mentally utilize data presented to them such as the claimed characteristic information.);
an operation of determining a sibling object of the first row candidate object on the hierarchical structure tree as a second row candidate object, by using automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object and automation characteristic information of the sibling object of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally identify a sibling of an object from a tree by reading the tree and mentally comparing automation characteristic information of objects presented to them, and mentally determine it as a second row candidate object.);
an operation of determining whether a child object of the first row candidate object and a child object of the second row candidate object satisfy a column relationship with each other on the hierarchical structure tree (A person can mentally identify children objects in a tree, and look at their relative positionings as displayed to them (e.g. mentally seeing if the objects start at the same vertical or horizontal locations), and mentally determine if they satisfy a column relationship with each other upon such observation.);
an operation of identifying each of the first row candidate object and the second row candidate object as a grid-format object, based on a result of determination on the column relationship (A person can mentally identify each of the objects as a grid-format object, e.g. as cell members of a row object in a table/grid being displayed, based on determining if they represent different columns from determining the vertical starting points are the same and the horizontal starting points are different.); and
an operation of creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object (A person formulate an automation scenario, e.g. mentally or by writing it down, that can perform ‘automated work processing’. Traversing items of the grid-format object is recited generically as to be done by a person mentally reviewing information available to them, and thus a person traversing using their ‘automation scenario’ is performing automated work processing. At best, the limitation merely attempts to use a computer to ‘automatically’ perform the abstract idea and is thus merely a tool for implementing the mental process.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional features of “a system for identifying a grid-format object in a robotic process automation (RPA) environment and automating work processing based on the identified grid-format object” merely attempt to generically link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. an RPA environment) for merely generically automating work by a general purpose computer and thus using the general purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The features “the system comprising: a communication interface; a memory configured to load thereon a computer program; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program, wherein the computer program includes instructions for performing” the mental steps recited above, merely recite generic computer components performing their routine functions in a general purpose computer. As such, they merely attempt to generally implement the abstract idea on a computer. Such features are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f) and §2106.05(h). Additionally, while the features “an operation of receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control” are mental processes as set forth above, even if they were not, they would be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering required to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Similarly, the features “an operation of creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object” are mental processes as set forth above, and even if they were not, merely recite generically automating mental processes of traversing grid-format objects, and thus merely attempt to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no steps being performed beyond those already recited as mental processes, and no additional elements beyond the generic linkage to an RPA environment and generic computer use previously recited, and thus nothing to possibly amount to significantly more.
As to claim 19, the claim recites the mental steps a method for identifying a grid-format object (A person can mentally identify grid-format objects) , the method comprising:
an operation of receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control (A person can mentally receive a search reference object, e.g. by reading from a display it after a user has designated it.);
an operation of searching for an ancestor object of the search reference object on a hierarchical structure tree (A person can mentally look through a tree searching for an ancestor object.) and determining the searched ancestor object as a first row candidate object, wherein a node in the hierarchical structure tree includes automation characteristic information including a position, a size, and a control type of the UI object expressed by the node (Said person can mentally determine the searched ancestor object as a first row candidate object upon finding it from looking at the tree, and can read and mentally utilize data presented to them such as the claimed characteristic information.);
an operation of determining a sibling object of the first row candidate object on the hierarchical structure tree as a second row candidate object, by using automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object and automation characteristic information of the sibling object of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally identify a sibling of an object from a tree by reading the tree and mentally comparing automation characteristic information of objects presented to them, and mentally determine it as a second row candidate object.);
an operation of determining whether a child object of the first row candidate object and a child object of the second row candidate object satisfy a column relationship with each other on the hierarchical structure tree (A person can mentally identify children objects in a tree, and look at their relative positionings as displayed to them (e.g. mentally seeing if the objects start at the same vertical or horizontal locations), and mentally determine if they satisfy a column relationship with each other upon such observation.);
an operation of identifying each of the first row candidate object and the second row candidate object as a grid-format object, based on a result of determination on the column relationship (A person can mentally identify each of the objects as a grid-format object, e.g. as cell members of a row object in a table/grid being displayed, based on determining if they represent different columns from determining the vertical starting points are the same and the horizontal starting points are different.); and
an operation of creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object (A person formulate an automation scenario, e.g. mentally or by writing it down, that can perform ‘automated work processing’. Traversing items of the grid-format object is recited generically as to be done by a person mentally reviewing information available to them, and thus a person traversing using their ‘automation scenario’ is performing automated work processing. At best, the limitation merely attempts to use a computer to ‘automatically’ perform the abstract idea and is thus merely a tool for implementing the mental process.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the features of “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program stored in a computer-readable recording medium, wherein the computer- readable recording medium is connected to a computer device, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program causes the computer device to perform a method” to perform the above recited mental steps, merely recite generic computer components performing their routine functions in a general purpose computer. Likewise, the features, “for identifying a grid-format object in a robotic process automation (RPA) environment and automating work processing based on the identified grid-format object” merely attempt to generically link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. an RPA environment) for merely generically automating work by a general purpose computer and thus using the general purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, they merely attempt to generally implement the abstract idea on a computer, and such features are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Additionally, while the features “an operation of receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control” are mental processes as set forth above, even if they were not, they would be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering required to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Similarly, the features “an operation of creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object” are mental processes as set forth above, and even if they were not, merely recite generically automating mental processes of traversing grid-format objects, and thus merely attempt to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no steps being performed beyond those already recited as mental processes, and no additional elements beyond the generic computer use previously recited, and thus nothing to possibly amount to significantly more.
As to claim 2, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In addition, the claim recites the mental steps of wherein the receiving of the search reference object includes receiving (The claim does not recite details as to how the UI object is received. As such, a person can visually/mentally see a designation made by a user so as to receive the search reference object.).
Additionally, even though the step is a mental step, the step is also insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering of necessary information required, which has been held to not amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
As to claim 3, the claim is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the determining of the searched ancestor object as the first row candidate object includes:
determining whether an application of the search reference object and an application of a parent object of the search reference object are identical with each other (A person can mentally determine if two objects are the same.); and
upon determination that the application of the search reference object and the application of the parent object of the search reference object are identical with each other, determining the search reference object as the first row candidate object (No details are provided with respect to how the determining is performed, and as such, is at a high level of generality so as to be performed in the mind by a person merely deciding the search reference object is a first row candidate object.),
wherein the determining of the sibling object of the first row candidate object as the second row candidate object includes:
determining whether the automation characteristic information of the sibling object of the first row candidate object and the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object are identical with each other (A person can mentally determine if multiple characteristics presented to them are the same.); and
comparing a structure of a first sibling object having the automation characteristic information identical with the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object with a structure of the first row candidate object (The comparison and structures are recited at a high level of generality. As such, a person can mentally compare two given structures by looking at them and making mental determinations therefrom.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 1 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 4, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above. In addition, the claim recites additional mental steps of wherein the determining of whether the automation characteristic information of the sibling object of the first row candidate object and the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object are identical with each other includes:
upon determination that there is no sibling object having the automation characteristic information identical with the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object, determining a parent object of the first row candidate object as the first row candidate object (A person can mentally determine that there is no sibling object having the automation characteristic information identical with the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object upon seeing something not the same, and in response, mentally determine a parent object of the first row candidate object as the first row candidate object.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 3 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the comparing of the structure of the first sibling object having the automation characteristic information identical with the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object with the structure of the first row candidate object includes:
determining whether a horizontal start position of the first sibling object and a horizontal start position of the first row candidate object are identical with each other (A person can mentally look at provided horizontal start positions, whether graphically or numerically, and mentally determine whether they are identical or not.);
determining whether a vertical height of the first sibling object and a vertical height of the first row candidate object are equal to each other (A person can mentally look at provided vertical heights, whether graphically or numerically, and mentally determine whether they are identical or not.); and
determining whether a position of the first sibling object and a position of the first row candidate object are consecutive (A person can mentally determine whether positions are consecutive, either numerically or graphically.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 3 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 6, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the determining of whether the horizontal start position of the first sibling object and the horizontal start position of the first row candidate object are identical with each other includes:
upon determination that the horizontal start position of the first sibling object and the horizontal start position of the first row candidate object are not identical with each other, determining a parent object of the first row candidate object as the first row candidate object (A person can mentally make a decision to determine the parent object as the first row candidate object based on the information they’ve already mentally acquired.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 5 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 7, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the determining of whether the vertical height of the first sibling object and the vertical height of the first row candidate object are equal to each other includes:
upon determination that the vertical height of the first sibling object and the vertical height of the first row candidate object are not equal to each other, determining a parent object of the first row candidate object as the first row candidate object (A person can mentally make a decision to determine the parent object as the first row candidate object based on the information they’ve already mentally acquired.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 5 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 8, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the determining of whether the position of the first sibling object and the position of the first row candidate object are consecutive includes:
upon determination that the position of the first sibling object and the position of the first row candidate object are not consecutive, determining a parent object of the first row candidate object as the first row candidate object (A person can mentally make a decision to determine the parent object as the first row candidate object based on the information they’ve already mentally acquired.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 5 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 9, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the determining of whether the child object of the first row candidate object and the child object of the second row candidate object satisfy the column relationship with each other includes:
selecting a second object to be compared with a first object, wherein the first object is the child object of the first row candidate object, wherein the second object is the child object of the second row candidate object (A person can mentally decide and select a second object based on their knowledge.);
comparing automation characteristic information of the first object and automation characteristic information of the second object with each other (A person can mentally compare information provided to them to mentally determine any similarities and/or differences.);
comparing a structure of the first object and a structure of the second object with each other, based on a result of the comparing between the automation characteristic information of the first and second objects (A person can mentally decide to compare information based on prior decisions they’ve already made. Given the breadth of the claim structure, a person can mentally compare structures of objects, e.g. graphically or with provided numerical values.); and
generating a column element list of a row constituting the grid-format object, based on a result of the comparing between the structures of the first and second structures (A person can mentally form a list of column elements based on their mental comparisons.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 1 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 10, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the selecting of the second object to be compared with the first object includes:
obtaining a first sorting reference position as a sorting criterion of the first object (A person can mentally obtain a sorting reference position by reading one, when provided, or by mentally determining one as they see fit.); and
selecting an object having a sorting reference position identical with the first sorting reference position as the second object, and wherein the sorting criterion includes at least one of left sorting, right sorting, and center sorting (A person can mentally use the sorting reference position to mentally selecting identical objects, e.g. by comparing visually with graphical information, or reading provided values.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 9 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the comparing of the structure of the first object and the structure of the second object with each other includes:
upon determination that the automation characteristic information of the first object and the automation characteristic information of the second object are identical with each other, adding the first object to the column element list (A person can mentally add items to a mental list upon making prior mental determinations that would lead them to add them to the list.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 9 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the comparing of the structure of the first object and the structure of the second object with each other includes:
upon determination that the automation characteristic information of the first object and the automation characteristic information of the second object are not identical with each other, comparing a horizontal width of the first object with a horizontal width of the second object (A person can mentally, decide to, and then compare horizontal widths of objects, e.g. visually with graphical elements or by provided numerical values, based upon prior mental determinations.); and
upon determination that the horizontal width of the first object and the horizontal width of the second object are equal to each other, adding the first object to the column element list (A person can mentally add items to a mental list upon making prior mental determinations that would lead them to add them to the list.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 9 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the comparing of the structure of the first object and the structure of the second object with each other includes:
upon determination that the automation characteristic information of the first object and the automation characteristic information of the second object are not identical with each other, comparing a horizontal width of the first object with a horizontal width of the second object (A person can mentally, decide to, and then compare horizontal widths of objects, e.g. visually with graphical elements or by provided numerical values, based upon prior mental determinations.); and
upon determination that the horizontal width of the first object and the horizontal width of the second object are not equal to each other, determining a parent object of the search reference object as the first row candidate object (A person can mentally determine a parent object as the first row candidate object based upon previously mental determinations and mental knowledge.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 9 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 14, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the identifying of each of the first row candidate object and the second row candidate object as the grid-format object, based on the result of determination on the column relationship includes:
comparing automation characteristic information of a third row candidate object as a sibling object of the determined first row candidate object with automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally compare information provided to them to mentally determine any similarities and/or differences.);
determining whether a child object of the first row candidate object and a child object of the third row candidate object satisfy a column relationship with each other (Column relationship is not described in any detail. As such, a person can mentally determine if candidate objects satisfy a column relationship with each other as they see fit, e.g. by some visual comparison of graphical elements or comparing provided values.); and
upon determination the automation characteristic information of the third row candidate object and the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object are identical with each other, and the child object of the first row candidate object and the child object of the third row candidate object satisfy the column relationship with each other, identifying the third row candidate object as the grid-format object (A person can use obtained mental information to mentally determine and identify a candidate object as a grid-format object.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 1 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 16, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the operation of determining the searched ancestor object as the first row candidate object includes:
an operation of determining whether an application of the search reference object and an application of a parent object of the search reference object are identical with each other (A person can mentally look at displayed applications on a screen and mentally determine if two objects are part of the same application.); and
an operation of determining the search reference object as the first row candidate object, upon determination that the application of the search reference object and the application of the parent object of the search reference object are identical with each other (A person can mentally determine an object as a first row candidate object based on their obtained knowledge.), wherein the operation of determining the sibling object of the first row candidate object as the second row candidate object includes:
an operation of determining whether automation characteristic information of the sibling object of the first row candidate object and automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object are identical with each other (A person can mentally determine if information of two objects are identical, e.g. visually if presented graphically or by comparing provided values.); and
an operation of comparing a structure of a first sibling object having the automation characteristic information identical with the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object with a structure of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally compare structures of two objects, e.g. visually if presented graphically or by comparing provided values, and mentally determine if they are the same or not.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 15 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the operation of determining of whether the child object of the first row candidate object and the child object of the second row candidate object satisfy the column relationship with each other includes:
an operation of selecting a second object to be compared with a first object, wherein the first object is the child object of the first row candidate object, wherein the second object is the child object of the second row candidate object (A person can mentally select a second object to compare with a first using hierarchical relationships between the objects.);
an operation of comparing automation characteristic information of the first object and automation characteristic information of the second object with each other (A person can mentally compare automation characteristic information of two objects provided to them.);
an operation of comparing a structure of the first object and a structure of the second object with each other, based on a result of the comparing between the automation characteristic information of the first and second objects (A person can mentally determine to compare structures of two objects based on past mental determinations and then mentally compare them, e.g. visually if presented graphically or by comparing provided values, and mentally determine if they are the same or not.); and
an operation of generating a column element list of a row constituting the grid-format object, based on a result of the comparing between the structures of the first and second structures (A person can make a mental list of column elements based on their mental comparisons.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 15 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 18, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the operation of identifying of each of the first row candidate object and the second row candidate object as the grid-format object, based on the result of determination on the column relationship includes:
an operation of comparing automation characteristic information of a third row candidate object as a sibling object of the determined first row candidate object with automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally compare automation characteristic information of two objects provided to them.);
an operation of determining whether a child object of the first row candidate object and a child object of the third row candidate object satisfy a column relationship with each other (Column relationship is not described in any detail. As such, a person can mentally determine if candidate objects satisfy a column relationship with each other as they see fit, e.g. by some visual comparison of graphical elements or comparing provided values.); and
an operation of identifying the third row candidate object as the grid-format object, upon determination the automation characteristic information of the third row candidate object and the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object are identical with each other, and the child object of the first row candidate object and the child object of the third row candidate object satisfy the column relationship with each other (A person can use obtained mental information to mentally determine and identify a candidate object as a grid-format object.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 15 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 20, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19 above. In addition, the claim recites the additional mental steps of wherein the operation of identifying of each of the first row candidate object and the second row candidate object as the grid-format object, based on the result of determination on the column relationship includes:
an operation of comparing automation characteristic information of a third row candidate object as a sibling object of the determined first row candidate object with automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object (A person can mentally compare automation characteristic information of two objects, e.g. visually or with provided values, and mentally determine any similarities and/or differences.);
an operation of determining whether the child object of the first row candidate object and a child object of the third row candidate object satisfy a column relationship with each other (A person can mentally determine if two objects satisfy a mentally determined column relationship with each other.); and
an operation of identifying the third row candidate object as the grid-format object, upon determination the automation characteristic information of the third row candidate object and the automation characteristic information of the first row candidate object are identical with each other, and the child object of the first row candidate object and the child object of the third row candidate object satisfy the column relationship with each other (A person can use obtained mental information to mentally determine and identify a candidate object as a grid-format object.).
Accordingly, the claim merely further describes the mental steps of the abstract idea of claim 19 without any further elements to possibly amount to significantly more or integrate it into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. For Examiner’s response, see discussion below:
(a) Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, with respect to the objection to claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 10 has been withdrawn.
(b) Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, with respect to the rejections of claims 19 and 20 under 35 USC §101 for being directed to software per se. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejections of claims 19 and 20 under 35 USC §101 for being directed to software per se have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
(c) At pages 15-18, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 19 under 35 USC §101, Applicant argues that the claims provide a practical application because the provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant then proceeds to cite DDR Holdings and argues that similarly, Applicant’s disclosure addresses a problem in the realm of computerized automation of work processing in identifying grid format objects in an RPA environment to automate work processing when an object is displayed in a non-standard user interface format, i.e. in a non-grid-format user interface format.
As to (c), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Step 2A: Prong Two, for integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. However, as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 15, and 19 above, all of the steps performed are mental processes performing the abstract idea. He additional elements of performing the steps “in a robotic process automation (RPA) environment, the method being performed by a computing device and automating work processing based on the identified grid-format object,” merely attempt to generically link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. an RPA environment) for merely generically automating work by a general purpose computer and thus using the general purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Such features are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f) and §2106.05(h). Additionally, while the features “receiving a search reference object, which is a user interface (UI) object designated by a user and displayed using a non-grid-format UI control” are mental processes as set forth above, even if they were not, they would be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering required to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Similarly, the features “creating an automation scenario that performs automated work processing by traversing items of the grid-format object” are mental processes as set forth above, and even if they were not, merely recite generically automating mental processes of traversing grid-format objects, and thus merely attempt to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The claims do not improve functioning of a computer or improve a technological field, but merely implement mental processes on a computer in a particular technological environment, i.e. RPA. Thus, the features of the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Madhalam et al. (US 2016/0335303 A1) discloses relating hierarchical trees to hierarchical elements making up tables.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES E RICHARDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/James E Richardson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169