How does the field of use consideration differ from insignificant extra-solution activity?

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 field of use consideration and insignificant extra-solution activity are both important aspects of patent eligibility analysis, but they can sometimes overlap. According to MPEP 2106.05(h):

“Examiners should keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”

The key difference is that field of use limitations attempt to limit the application of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, while insignificant extra-solution activity refers to activities that are not central to the main idea of the invention.

However, in practice, these concepts can overlap. For example, limiting data gathering to a specific source (like the Internet) could be seen as both a field of use limitation and insignificant extra-solution activity. Patent examiners are advised to carefully consider each claim on its own merits and evaluate all relevant considerations before making a determination.