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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 20 have been previously cancelled.
Claim 22 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 8-12, filed 2 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a unitary, technical, and inventive solution to review, authenticate, and procure materials for engineering drawings, as well as automatically reject procurement. Applicant further submits that the claims recite specific technical detail related to hashing and chaining of blocks.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite(s) a system and series of steps for reviewing and authenticating engineering drawings, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and/or managing interactions between people. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Similarly to the case of PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-1543 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (slip op. at 15), "The district court was also right that '[u]sing a generic hash function, a server system, or a computer does not render these claims non-abstract.”
Applicant further submits that the claims, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because they improve upon existing systems by reciting a system that automatically handles authentication in secure manner not possible with traditional centralized systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. Automation is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a database’, ‘A machine-readable storage medium’, ‘a server’, ‘a first computing device’, ‘a second computing device’, ‘a third computing device’, ‘a fourth computing device’, ‘an immutable ledger’, ‘a first user-operable computing device’, ‘a second user-operable computing device’, ‘a third user-operable computing device’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
⦁ mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a database’, ‘A machine-readable storage medium’, ‘a server’, ‘a first computing device’, ‘a second computing device’, ‘a third computing device’, ‘a fourth computing device’, ‘a first user-operable computing device’, ‘a second user-operable computing device’, ‘a third user-operable computing device’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
⦁ generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘an immutable ledger’).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) a system and series of steps for reviewing and authenticating engineering drawings, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and/or managing interactions between people. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘recording one or more drawings and drawing metadata…’, ‘predict required materials for future procurement…’, ‘a creator node…to assign a first hash to an engineering drawing and store drawing information and a creator signature for the engineering drawing’, ‘identifying, via a creator node…a frame and specification of a drawing, and assigning a first hash to the drawing…’, ‘reviewing, via a reviewer node…the drawing by performing a modification including commenting, remarking, or editing the drawing’, ‘a first reviewer node…to perform a given modification of the drawing and store drawing information and a first reviewer signature…’, ‘updating the first hash to generate a second hash…’, ‘updating a plurality of nodes…with the modification or a change in drawing metadata’, ‘the first reviewer node verifies the engineering drawing with the creator signature’, ‘a second reviewer node…to perform another modification of the drawing and store drawing information and a second reviewer signature…’, ‘a procurer node…to verify the engineering drawing using the creator and reviewer signatures’, ‘analyzing… recorded drawing metadata and forecasting a set of next steps in the drawing review process’, ‘a procurer node…to procure a given set of required materials…’, ‘rejecting, by the procurer node, another set of required materials… and determining that the another set of required materials are infeasible’, ‘regulating, via a regulator node, to provide end-to-end supervision for regulators to monitor status or ensure compliance with laws’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a database’, ‘A machine-readable storage medium’, ‘a server’, ‘a first computing device’, ‘a second computing device’, ‘a third computing device’, ‘a fourth computing device’, ‘an immutable ledger’, ‘a first user-operable computing device’, ‘a second user-operable computing device’, ‘a third user-operable computing device’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
⦁ mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a database’, ‘A machine-readable storage medium’, ‘a server’, ‘a first computing device’, ‘a second computing device’, ‘a third computing device’, ‘a fourth computing device’, ‘a first user-operable computing device’, ‘a second user-operable computing device’, ‘a third user-operable computing device’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
⦁ generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘an immutable ledger’).
Claim(s) 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 17-19, and 21 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for reviewing and authenticating engineering drawings, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and/or managing interactions between people. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data via a cloud network. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The subject matter of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel. However, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record are Krueger (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210192470), Hudelson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220156857), Nawari (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20240202379), Sinha (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190377904), Johnson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20240171414), and Wilbrecht (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210192084).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record, fails to teach or suggest an analyzer, operating on a server, configured to predict recommended or required materials for future procurement based on a received hash; a plurality of nodes comprising: a creator node, operating on a first computing device, configured to assign a first hash to an engineering drawing and store drawing information and a creator signature for the engineering drawing; a reviewer node, operating on a second computing device, configured to perform a modification of the drawing and store drawing information and a reviewer signature, wherein the first hash is updated to a second hash by the reviewer node in response to the modification of the drawing and the reviewer node verifies the engineering drawing with the creator signature; and a procurer node, operating on a third computing device, configured to: verify the engineering drawing using the creator and reviewer signatures; procure recommended or required materials predicted by the analyzer in response to receiving the second hash; and store drawing information, engineering tag data, and a procurement signature; and a blockchain framework operable to propagate the second hash to each node of the plurality of nodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628