How does the USPTO handle “incredible” or “wholly inoperative” inventions?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The USPTO treats “incredible” or “wholly inoperative” inventions as lacking utility under 35 U.S.C. 101. According to MPEP 2107.01:

“An invention that is ‘inoperative’ (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a ‘useful’ invention in the meaning of the patent law.”

However, the MPEP clarifies that for an invention to violate 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be “totally incapable of achieving a useful result.” Partial success or imperfection does not necessarily mean an invention lacks utility:

“If an invention is only partially successful in achieving a useful result, a rejection of the claimed invention as a whole based on a lack of utility is not appropriate.”

The MPEP notes that such cases are rare and often involve inventions that contradict established scientific principles, such as perpetual motion machines or uncharacterized compositions for curing a wide array of cancers.