How does MPEP 2106.05(e) distinguish between meaningful and insignificant limitations?

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.

MPEP 2106.05(e) provides guidance on distinguishing between meaningful and insignificant limitations in patent claims. The key factors are:

• Integration into a practical application: Meaningful limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
• Beyond general linking: The limitation should go beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
• Transformation of the judicial exception: The limitation should transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.

The MPEP states: “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.“

Insignificant limitations, on the other hand, do not provide meaningful limits on the claim and are typically considered extra-solution activity or mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.