How can patent applicants avoid having claim elements classified as insignificant extra-solution activity?

To avoid having claim elements classified as insignificant extra-solution activity, patent applicants should consider the following strategies based on guidance from MPEP 2106.05(g):

  • Ensure that claim elements are integral to the invention’s core purpose
  • Demonstrate how the elements impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope
  • Show that the elements are more than mere data gathering or result outputting
  • Integrate the elements with the judicial exception in a way that goes beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment

The MPEP advises: “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output) is also a factor in determining whether a limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity.” Applicants should focus on crafting claims that show how each element contributes significantly to the invention’s function or provides an improvement to the technology or technical field.

By carefully drafting claims to highlight the integral nature of all elements and their relationship to the inventive concept, applicants can increase the likelihood that examiners will view the elements as more than insignificant extra-solution activity.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2106.05(G) - Insignificant Extra - Solution Activity, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: claim drafting, Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP 2106.05(G), patent claims