How should examiners analyze claims for ‘significantly more’ in Step 2B?

When analyzing claims for ‘significantly more’ in Step 2B, examiners should:

• Identify the additional elements beyond the judicial exception
• Explain why the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more
• Consider whether the additional elements provide an inventive concept
• Provide evidence if asserting that elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities

MPEP 2106.07(a) states: “For Step 2B, the rejection should explain why the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. For instance, when the examiner has concluded that certain claim elements recite well understood, routine, conventional activities in the relevant field, the examiner must expressly support the rejection in writing with one of the four options specified in Subsection III.”

To learn more:

• significantly more
• subject matter eligibility
• 101 rejection
• judicial exception
• Step 2B
• inventive concept