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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 January 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim does not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating blocks of a hash chain is “an abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device” using “a process that employes mathematical algorithms” (“a hash value calculated based on data within the block and a hash value for a preceding block”) “to manipulate existing information to generate additional information.” See Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In any event, generating a hash chain block is practically performable in the human mind using pen and paper. Shirriff, Mining Bitcoin with pencil and paper: 0.67 hashes per day.
Applicant argues that a “hash chain” is a particular data structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A hash chain is claimed not as a structure but merely a structureless abstract collection of data without limitation on how it is stored.
Applicant argues that the claims solve a specific technical problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The tamper-resistant nature of the hash chain is not technical but mathematical, i.e., abstract.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technical solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating, calculating, and coupling are all abstract, and therefore are not a technical solution. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to computer functionality. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The relied-upon language is functionally equivalent to reciting “apply the abstract idea.” MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 9, and 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “generating blocks of a hash chain, in which an event related to a manufacturing process of a product is recorded,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of blocks using pen and paper. Fig. 4. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “the hash chain including a plurality of blocks cryptographically linked using hash values, each of the plurality of blocks including a hash value calculated based on data within the block and a hash value fo a preceding block, and the blocks including identifiers of other blocks coupled before each block in the blocks only when the block is generated, such that once a block is generated, another block cannot be subsequently couple before the block while maintaining the integrity of the hash chain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. Fig. 4. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “forming the blocks to include identifiers of other blocks coupled after each block in the blocks of the hash chain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “forming” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of blocks using pen and paper. Fig. 4. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “accepting a first request of newly coupling a second block, which relates to the supply of a first product of which information is recorded in a first block to a second product of which information is recorded in the second block, before the first block managed by the computer, among the plurality of blocks of the hash chain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “accepting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a request was received. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “updating, in a case where the first request is accepted, the hash chain, the updating includes generating a copy of the first block by duplicating at least event data recorded in the first block, while setting an identifier of the second block as a previous block identifier for the copy of the first block, calculating a new hash value for the copy of the first block based on data within the copy of the first block, and coupling the copy of the first block, including the new hash value, after the second block, thereby enabling a pseudo-linking of a block to a forward position within the hash chain, which has been impossible under the specification,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “updating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by producing a drawing such as Figure 1. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely the social activity of making a particular drawing in response to being asked. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements of computer, memory, and processor are generic computer elements. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
As an ordered combination, the claim(s) is directed to mere instruction to follow a system of rules for the abstract arrangement of information on a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of following a system of rules for the abstract arrangement of information because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 2:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the controlling includes controlling, in a case where the first request is accepted, the plurality of blocks such that the copy of the first block that includes a copy flag which indicates the copy of the first block is added to the plurality of blocks and is coupled after the second block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” and “including” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by making a particular mark on a drawing such as Figure 1. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 3:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “accepting a display request for all or some of the plurality of blocks,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “accepting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a request was received. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “specifying, when the all or some of the plurality of blocks are displayed in a case where the display request is accepted, the copy of the first block based on the copy flag,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “specifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to indicate the copy of the first block based on the copy flag, e.g., by a drawn indication, e.g., by drawing the drawing of Figure 1. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “displaying the copy of the first block as the original first block or a correspondence with the original first block in a distinguishable manner,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the social activity of showing someone a specific drawing, e.g., the drawing of Figure 1. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely the social activity of showing a particular drawing in response to being asked. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 4:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “accepting a second request of invalidating a third block managed by the computer, among the plurality of blocks,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “accepting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a request was received. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “controlling, in a case where the second request is accepted, the plurality of blocks such that a fourth block which indicates that the third block is to be invalidated is added to the plurality of blocks and coupled after the third block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by producing a drawing such as Figure 11. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely the social activity of making a particular drawing in response to being asked. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 5:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “accepting a display request for all or some of the plurality of blocks,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “accepting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a request was received. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “specifying, when the all or some of the plurality of blocks are displayed in a case where the display request is accepted, the third block based on the fourth block, and excluding the third block from a display target or displaying the third block in a display mode which corresponds to the invalidation,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the social activity of showing someone a specific drawing, e.g., the drawing of Figure 11. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely the social activity of showing a particular drawing in response to being asked. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 6:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein an accompanying block that includes related data related to data of each of the blocks is coupled to the block, and the controlling includes controlling, in a case where the first request is accepted, the plurality of blocks such that the copy of the first block is added to the plurality of blocks and coupled after the second block, and a copy of the accompanying block coupled to the first block is coupled to the copy of the first block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by producing a drawing such as Figure 18. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 7:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein an accompanying block that includes an identifier of related data related to data of each of the blocks is coupled to the block, and the controlling includes controlling, in a case where the first request is accepted, the plurality of blocks such that the copy of the first block is added to the plurality of blocks and coupled after the second block, and a copy of the accompanying block coupled to the first block is coupled to the copy of the first block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by producing a drawing such as Figure 18. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “generating blocks of a hash chain, in which an event related to a manufacturing process of a product is recorded,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of blocks using pen and paper. Fig. 4. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “the hash chain including a plurality of blocks cryptographically linked using hash values, each of the plurality of blocks including a hash value calculated based on data within the block and a hash value fo a preceding block, and the blocks including identifiers of other blocks coupled before each block in the blocks only when the block is generated, such that once a block is generated, another block cannot be subsequently couple before the block while maintaining the integrity of the hash chain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. Fig. 4. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “forming the blocks to include identifiers of other blocks coupled after each block in the blocks of the hash chain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “forming” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of blocks using pen and paper. Fig. 4. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “accepting a request of changing a supply source from a first product of which information is recorded a first block managed by the computer to a second product, among the plurality of blocks of the hash chain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “accepting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a request was received. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “controlling, in a case where the request is accepted, the plurality of blocks such that a second block which indicates that the first block is to be invalidated is added to the plurality of blocks and coupled after the first block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by producing a drawing such as Figure 11. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely the social activity of making a particular drawing in response to being asked. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements of computer, memory, and processor are generic computer elements. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
As an ordered combination, the claim(s) is directed to mere instruction to make a particular drawing in response to being asked on a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of make a particular drawing in response to being asked because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “accepting a second request of invalidating the first block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “accepting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a request was received. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “controlling, in a case where the second request is accepted, the plurality of blocks such that a third block which indicates that the first block is to be invalidated is added to the plurality of blocks and coupled after the first block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the layout of blocks on pen and paper, e.g., by producing a drawing such as Figure 11. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely the social activity of making a particular drawing in response to being asked. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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 Lo can be reached on 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159