DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant Arguments/Remarks dated 3/16/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-20 are pending in the application.
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 Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments on pages 9-10, step 2A “A "mental process" encompasses steps that are practically performable in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment). Amended claim 1 recites no steps whatsoever and instead defines data structures and machine-resident elements of a blockchain system, including cryptographic addresses, tokens with named attributes, and interactions that are recorded on the ledger. These are not mental operations; they require computer execution and network validation to exist and function. Under the Oct. 2019 Update and MPEP §2106.04(a), examiners must determine whether the claim language itself recites a mental concept; claim 1 does not.”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are broadly directed to storing a Kanban workflow on a blockchain. Kanban itself is either a mental process, or more largely a certain method of organizing human activity as a fundamental economic activity or form of managing user behavior/interactions. That is Kanban itself is essentially a signboard/card based system that tracks production, typically in a factory setting, consistent with the description in the specification at [0017] A Kanban board basically tracks development/processes as progress, including interactions between tasks. Thus, it can be said that Kanban as a process recites either a fundamental economic practice or managing interactions or behavior of those in a manufacturing plant. It could also be considered a mental process organization of the manufacturing/development tasks, essentially a mental scheduling with pen and paper.
The specification is plain in [0018] that the inventive concept is described as merely “implement Kanban functionality on the Blockchain” and as in [0022] where “tokens acts as Kanban cards”. The specification also describes in [0027] that this is done with “traditional blockchain” and in [0029] “traditional address in blockchain technology” so all of that is admitted as WURC computer implementation.
Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of Kanban workflows (a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity that manages manufacturing behavior/interactions) and the recitations of “blockchain” are merely “apply it” on a computer with generic computer components of traditional blockchain, and or insignificant extra-solution as storage on the blockchain. At Step 2B this insignificant storage in the blockchain is also well-understood, routine, convention/WURC based on the spec in [0027]-[0029]. It has long been practiced also that an online order/user interaction, for example, includes at least the buyer/customer identity, e.g., name attribute/field, the seller/store/source attribute, and item identity – Similar to the specification, para. 36.
Claims 1, 8 and 16 were amended to include in the limitation “interaction”: a start interaction, and end interaction, and a reserve interaction. It is common that a customer initiates/starts an interaction by request to buy or acquire an item or service etc. A reserve interaction is equivalent to a time-bound lock on the item or service in anticipation of the purchase process which provides a guarantee that the item, e.g., airplane ticket/resource will be available when the process is ready to begin or the ticket is reserved for the customer to pay for etc. The end interaction signifies the completion of the ticket purchase process.
The evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the data fields (a name attribute, a source attribute, a value attribute, a start interaction, an end interaction, and a reserve interaction) relating to “interaction” as explained above are well-known and therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 16, the same analysis applies. Under certain methods of organizing human activity even the “receive a start request for an individual workflow represented…” is part of the abstract idea. As is the rest of the claim after “the at least one Kanban token”. The only additional elements are “on a workflow blockchain by an individual address” and “the workflow blockchain comprises one or more addresses; each address of the one or more addresses represent a workflow…” which is mere storage on the blockchain and “apply it” or insignificant extra-solution activity. Even if performing this mentally/manually is time consuming, “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible”. (Citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept)). The claims are not eligible.
In response to applicant's argument on page 10 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., immutable, append-only ledger state, cryptographic addressing, and distributed consensus) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Applicant's improvement argument is also not an improvement to computer related technology because any improvement is purely in the abstract idea. The claims are considered to recite entirely mental processes. The additional elements are generic computing components. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a), "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements." Here, the only improvement applicant argues for is found fully in the abstract idea (judicial exception) alone. That is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Claims 8-15 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 15-20 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Please see below.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claims recite a Judicial Exception.
Claim 1 recites the step of “storing a workflow blockchain comprising one or more addresses, each address comprising at least one Kanban token, wherein: the at least one Kanban token comprises at least one interaction and the at least one interaction comprises a name attribute, a source attribute, a value attribute, a start interaction, an end interaction, and a reserve interaction; the at least one Kanban token represents at least one physical unit of workflow, and the name and value attributes provide a key-value pair, and the source attribute provides information as to a source of the value attribute.”
Claim 8 recites the steps of “receiving a start request for a workflow, the workflow represented on the workflow blockchain by an address; and assigning a Kanban token associated with the address to a physical unit of workflow according to the start request, wherein the Kanban token comprises at least one interaction comprising a name attribute, a source attribute, a value attribute, a start interaction, an end interaction, and a reserve interaction”.
Claims 1 and 8 recite mental processes because in a BRI, “Kanban” itself is either a mental process, or a certain method of organizing human activity as a fundamental economic activity or form of managing user behavior/interactions. That is Kanban itself is essentially a signboard/card-based system that tracks production, typically in a factory setting, consistent with the description in the specification at [0017] A Kanban board basically tracks development/processes as progress, including interactions between tasks. Thus, it can be said that Kanban as a process recites either a fundamental economic practice or managing interactions/behavior of those in a manufacturing plant. It could also be considered a mental process organization of the manufacturing/development tasks, essentially a mental scheduling with pen and paper.
The specification is plain in [0018] that the inventive concept is described as merely “implement Kanban functionality on the Blockchain” and as in [0022] where “tokens acts as Kanban cards”. The specification also describes in [0027] that this is done with “traditional blockchain” and in [0029] “traditional address in blockchain technology” so all of that is admitted as WURC computer implementation.
Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of Kanban workflows (a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity that manages manufacturing behavior/interactions) and the recitations of “blockchain” are merely “apply it” on a computer with generic computer components of traditional blockchain, and or insignificant extra-solution as storage on the blockchain.
Claims 1, 8 and 16 were amended to include in the “interaction” the limitations: a start interaction, and end interaction, and a reserve interaction. It is common that a customer initiates/starts an interaction by request to buy or acquire an item or service etc. A reserve interaction is equivalent to a time-bound lock on the item or service in anticipation of the purchase process which provides a guarantee that the item, e.g., airplane ticket/resource will be available when the process is ready to begin or the ticket is reserved for the customer to pay for etc. The end interaction signifies the completion of the ticket purchase process.
Regarding claim 16, the same analysis applies. Under certain methods of organizing human activity even the “receive a start request for an individual workflow represented…” is part of the abstract idea. As is the rest of the claim after “the at least one Kanban token”.
Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of Kanban workflows (a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(11)(C) as falling within the enumerated subgrouping of "commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)." Particularly, the claims are directed to managing manufacturing behavior/interactions). Thus, claims 1, 8, 16 are directed to abstract ideas as mental processes.
Step 2A, Prong Two: exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the additional elements are "storing on a ... blockchain", "record on a ... blockchain", “on a workflow blockchain by an individual address” and “the workflow blockchain comprises one or more addresses; each address of the one or more addresses represent a workflow…”, “a system comprising a non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:”, which is mere storage on the blockchain and “apply it” or insignificant extra-solution activity. This insignificant storage in the blockchain is described in the specification in [0018] that the inventive concept is described as merely “implement Kanban functionality on the Blockchain” and as in [0022] where “tokens act as Kanban cards”, [0027] that this is done with “traditional blockchain” and in [0029] “traditional address in blockchain technology” demonstrating the insignificance and merely applying the abstract idea on a computer as per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide integration into a practical application. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 16 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B: “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are “on a workflow blockchain by an individual address” and “the workflow blockchain comprises one or more addresses; each address of the one or more addresses represent a workflow…” which is mere storage on the blockchain and “apply it” or insignificant extra-solution activity. This insignificant storage in the blockchain is also WURC based on the specification in [0018] that the inventive concept is described as merely “implement Kanban functionality on the Blockchain” and as in [0022] where “tokens act as Kanban cards”, [0027] that this is done with “traditional blockchain” and in [0029] “traditional address in blockchain technology” so all of that is admitted as WURC computer implementation.
The evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the data fields relating to “interaction” as explained above are well-known and therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Here, said claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that were not well understood, routine, and conventional. More particularly, the claims recite generic computer components (“a system comprising a non-transitory, computer-readable medium” and “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:”, in claims 1 and 16) performing generic computing functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network--with no further specification--is not even arguably inventive.”)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4 recite "wherein the at least one Kanban token stores a cycle number, and the at least one Kanban token stores at least one interaction for a plurality of cycles, and wherein each cycle number is associated with a different individual physical article”, “the start interaction comprises a start name attribute, a start source attribute and a start value attribute; the end interaction comprises an end name attribute, an end source attribute and an end value attribute; the start value attribute comprises a unique reference number corresponding to a request to build a vehicle; and the end value attribute comprises a vehicle identification number for a completed vehicle”.
In the broadest reasonable interpretation, said limitations recite mental processes which are abstract ideas because in the BRI, said steps are broadly directed to a Kanban token which is used to track workflow or information over time; storing interactions for a plurality of cycles which keeping history of its usage through different stages of a process. Each cycle number is associated with a different individual physical article, or token reused, data recorded for each cycle associated with the specific physical item, e.g., relating to vehicle in this case. Thus, maintaining a detailed history different articles/items using a token system which is common characteristics in manufacturing systems. The steps recite a fundamental economic practice or managing interactions/behavior of those in a manufacturing plant. It could also be considered a mental process organization of the manufacturing/development tasks, essentially a mental scheduling. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas without significantly more and therefore, ineligible.
Claims 5-7 and similar claims 12, 14, 19-20 recite "wherein the one or more addresses comprises a first address representing a first workflow and a second address representing a second workflow”, “the at least one interaction comprises a start interaction, an end interaction, and a reserve interaction; the first address is for a manufacturing workflow for manufacturing a device; the second address is for a shipping workflow for shipping a device; the first address and the second address are linked by one or more Kanban token connectors; when the at least one Kanban token on the first address records an end interaction indicating completion of the device, the one or more Kanban token connectors initiates a start interaction for at least one Kanban token on the second address”, “wherein at least one of the first address and the second address comprises a Kanban token connector that monitors the other of the first address and the second address and updates the value attribute of a Kanban token when a criteria is met”.
In a BRI, said limitations recite mental processes which are an abstract idea because Kanban itself is either a mental process, or more largely a certain method of organizing human activity as a fundamental economic activity or form of managing user behavior/interactions. That is Kanban itself is essentially a signboard/card-based system that tracks production, typically in a factory setting, consistent with the description in the specification at [0017] A Kanban board basically tracks development/processes as progress, including interactions between tasks. Thus, Kanban is a process which recites either a fundamental economic practice or managing interactions/behavior of those in a manufacturing plant. It could also be considered a mental process organization of the manufacturing/development tasks. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of Kanban workflows (a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity that manages manufacturing behavior/interactions where one or more Kanban token connectors link necessary processes/workflows: manufacturing, shipping etc. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas without significantly more and therefore, ineligible.
Claims 9-11 and the similar claim 18 recite "recording on the workflow blockchain, for the Kanban token, a cycle number and a start interaction comprising a start name attribute, a start source attribute, and a start value attribute, wherein the cycle number is associated with a different individual physical article; recording on the workflow blockchain, for the Kanban token and the cycle number, at least one process interaction comprising a process interaction name attribute, a process interaction source attribute, and a process interaction value attribute; and recording on the workflow blockchain, for the Kanban token and the cycle number, an end interaction comprising an end name attribute, an end source attribute and an end value attribute”, “receiving one or more additional start requests for the workflow associated with the address; assigning one or more additional Kanban tokens associated with the address to one or more additional physical units of workflow according to the one or more additional start requests; recording on the workflow blockchain, for the one or more additional Kanban tokens, an additional cycle number and an additional start interaction comprising an additional start name attribute, an additional start source attribute, and an additional start value attribute; recording on the workflow blockchain, for the one or more additional Kanban tokens and the additional cycle number, at least one additional process interaction comprising an additional process interaction name attribute, an additional process interaction source attribute, and an additional process interaction value attribute; and recording on the workflow blockchain, for the one or more additional Kanban tokens and the cycle number, an additional end interaction comprising an additional end name attribute, an additional end source attribute, and an additional value attribute”, “process interaction name attribute, an additional process interaction source attribute, and an additional process interaction value attribute; and recording on the workflow blockchain, for the one or more additional Kanban tokens and the cycle number, an additional end interaction comprising an additional end name attribute, an additional end source attribute, and an additional value attribute”.
In the broadest reasonable interpretation, said limitations recite mental processes which are abstract ideas because in the BRI, said steps are broadly directed to a Kanban token which is used to track workflow or information over time; storing interactions for a plurality of cycles in relating to requests which keeping history of its usage through different stages of a workflow. Each cycle number is associated with a different individual physical article, or token reused, data recorded for each cycle associated with a specific physical item, e.g., relating to vehicle in this case. Thus, maintaining a detailed history different articles/items using a token system which is common characteristics in manufacturing systems. The steps recite a fundamental economic practice or managing interactions/behavior of those in a manufacturing plant. It could also be considered a mental process organization of the manufacturing/development tasks, essentially a mental scheduling. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of Kanban workflows (a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity that manages manufacturing behavior/interactions) and the recitations of “blockchain” are merely “apply it” on a computer with generic computer components of traditional blockchain, and or insignificant extra-solution as storage on the blockchain. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas without significantly more and therefore, ineligible.
Claims 13, 15 and the similar claim 17 recite "the at least one interaction comprises a start interaction, an end interaction, and a reserve interaction; the first address is for a manufacturing workflow for manufacturing a device; the second address is for a shipping workflow for shipping a device; the first address and the second address are linked by one or more Kanban token connectors; when the at least one Kanban token on the first address records the end interaction indicating completion of the device, the one or more Kanban token connectors initiates a start interaction for at least one Kanban token on the second address”, “wherein a Kanban token is initiated in at least one of the first address and the second address when the criteria is met”, “a start interaction comprising a start name attribute, a start source attribute, and a start value attribute; at least one process interaction comprising a process interaction name attribute, a process interaction source attribute, and a process interaction value attribute; and an end interaction comprising an end name attribute, an end source attribute and an end value attribute”.
In a BRI, said limitations recite mental processes which are an abstract idea because Kanban itself is either a mental process, or more largely a certain method of organizing human activity as a fundamental economic activity or form of managing user behavior/interactions. That is Kanban itself is essentially a signboard/card-based system that tracks production, typically in a factory setting, consistent with the description in the specification at [0017] A Kanban board basically tracks development/processes as progress, including interactions between tasks. Thus, Kanban is a process which recites either a fundamental economic practice or managing interactions/behavior of those in a manufacturing plant. It could also be considered a mental process organization of the manufacturing/development tasks. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of Kanban workflows (a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity that manages manufacturing behavior/interactions) where one or more Kanban token connectors link necessary processes/workflows: manufacturing, shipping etc. For the reasons stated above dependent claims 13, 15 and 17 also recite mental processes which are abstract ideas Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and therefore, ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schmidt-Karaca (US 20190123889) teaches at para. 82-83: the blockchain transaction record can include a transaction ID. The transaction ID can be a unique identifier for the particular blockchain transaction record.
Dymshyts et al. (US 9596350) teaches at col. 7:10-16: for a car dealership, customers may be calling to arrange service and maintenance, establish a lease, buy a new car, and so on. For manufacturers of consumer computer equipment, customers may be calling to get guidance in setting up a computer station, guidance for installing software or troubleshooting operation, and so forth.
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 LINH BLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-4106. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/LINH BLACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2163 7/27/2026
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights