How does “transformation” factor into patent eligibility?

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.

Transformation of an article to a different state or thing is an important consideration in patent eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(c) states:

“Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.”

The MPEP provides some factors to consider:

• The particularity or generality of the transformation
• The degree to which the recited article is particular
• The nature of the transformation in terms of the type or extent of change in state or thing
• The nature of the article transformed
• Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use

An example of a patent-eligible transformation is “a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products” as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr.

However, mere manipulation of abstract concepts or data is not considered a qualifying transformation.