What is the difference between a claim ‘reciting’ and ‘involving’ an abstract idea?

The distinction between a claim ‘reciting’ an abstract idea and ‘involving’ an abstract idea is crucial in patent eligibility determinations. According to the MPEP:

“Some claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea, although it may be apparent that at some level they are based on or involve an abstract idea.”

This statement from MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) highlights the key differences:

• Reciting an abstract idea: The claim explicitly sets forth or describes the abstract idea. These claims require further analysis under Step 2A Prong Two and potentially Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
• Involving an abstract idea: The claim may be based on or involve an abstract idea at some level, but does not explicitly set forth or describe it. These claims may be eligible at Step 2A Prong One without further analysis.

Examiners must carefully evaluate the claim language to distinguish between these two scenarios, as it significantly impacts the patent eligibility analysis.

To learn more:

• abstract ideas
• patent eligibility
• claim analysis
• reciting vs involving