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.
Insignificant extra-solution activity can negatively impact patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” This means that adding such activities to a claim does not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
The MPEP cites the Supreme Court case Parker v. Flook, which states: “The notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”.
Therefore, when evaluating patent eligibility, examiners will carefully consider whether elements in a claim constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and, if so, these elements will not contribute to making the claim patent-eligible.