MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1) — Form Paragraphs for use in Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections (Annotated Rules)
§2106.07(a)(1) Form Paragraphs for use in Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1), including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Form Paragraphs for use in Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections
This section addresses Form Paragraphs for use in Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 101. Contains: 2 requirements and 4 other statements.
Key Rules
Signature Requirements
4. In bracket 2, insert the TC Director's signature. Approval of the TC Director is required to treat a claim limitation that does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3).
4. In bracket 2, insert the TC Director's signature. Approval of the TC Director is required to treat a claim limitation that does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3).
35 U.S.C. 101 – Patent Eligibility
This form paragraph must precede the first use of 35 U.S.C. 101 in all first actions on the merits and final rejections.
Composition of Matter
2. In bracket 1, explain why the claimed invention is not patent eligible subject matter by identifying what the claim(s) is/are directed to and explain why it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), e.g., the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data, a contract between two parties, or a human being. Note, it is not necessary for a claim to fall into only a single category, so long as it is clear that it falls into at least one category (see MPEP § 2106.03).
Patent Eligibility
Use form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.01 for rejections based on a failure to claim an invention that falls within any of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., the claim is not to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention and is thus rejected at Step 1 of the eligibility analysis). As a reminder, it is not necessary to identify a single category into which a claim falls, so long as it is clear that the claim falls into at least one category. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Significantly More Analysis
Use form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016 for rejections based on a failure to claim an invention that is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim is directed to a judicial exception without providing an inventive concept/significantly more, and is thus rejected at Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the judicial exception to which the claim is directed is a "tentative abstract idea," i.e., an abstract idea that does not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), then the Step 2B rejection must also use form paragraph 7.05.017 (in addition to form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016) and include the TC Director's signature.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
Use form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016 for rejections based on a failure to claim an invention that is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim is directed to a judicial exception without providing an inventive concept/significantly more, and is thus rejected at Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the judicial exception to which the claim is directed is a "tentative abstract idea," i.e., an abstract idea that does not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), then the Step 2B rejection must also use form paragraph 7.05.017 (in addition to form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016) and include the TC Director's signature.
Examiner Form Paragraphs
Examiner form paragraphs are standard language that you might see in an Office Action or communication from the USPTO. Examiners have latitude to change the form paragraphs, but you will often see this exact language.
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| 35 U.S.C. 101 – Patent Eligibility Composition of Matter | 35 U.S.C. § 101 |
| – | MPEP § 2105 |
| Composition of Matter Patent Eligibility | MPEP § 2106.03 |
| Signature Requirements Significantly More Analysis Step 2B – Inventive Concept | MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) |
| Signature Requirements | MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3) |
| – | MPEP § 2106.05(d) |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.04.01 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.05 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.05.016 |
| Significantly More Analysis Step 2B – Inventive Concept | Form Paragraph § 7.05.017 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1) — Form Paragraphs for use in Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections
Source: USPTO2106.07(a)(1) Form Paragraphs for use in Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections [R-01.2024]
Use form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.01 for rejections based on a failure to claim an invention that falls within any of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., the claim is not to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention and is thus rejected at Step 1 of the eligibility analysis). As a reminder, it is not necessary to identify a single category into which a claim falls, so long as it is clear that the claim falls into at least one category. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Use form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016 for rejections based on a failure to claim an invention that is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim is directed to a judicial exception without providing an inventive concept/significantly more, and is thus rejected at Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the judicial exception to which the claim is directed is a “tentative abstract idea,” i.e., an abstract idea that does not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), then the Step 2B rejection must also use form paragraph 7.05.017 (in addition to form paragraphs 7.04.01, 7.05, and 7.05.016) and include the TC Director’s signature.
¶ 7.04.01 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Examiner Note:
- This form paragraph must precede the first use of 35 U.S.C. 101 in all first actions on the merits and final rejections.
¶ 7.05 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, -Heading Only- (Utility, Nonstatutory, Inoperative)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 in first actions and final rejections.
- 2. This form paragraph must be followed by a detailed explanation of the grounds of rejection using one or more of form paragraphs 7.05.01, 7.05.016, 7.05.017, 7.05.02, 7.05.03, or another appropriate reason.
- 3. See MPEP §§ 2105 – 2107.03 for additional guidance.
¶ 7.05.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Not One of the Four Statutory Categories)
the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because [1]
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05.
- 2. In bracket 1, explain why the claimed invention is not patent eligible subject matter by identifying what the claim(s) is/are directed to and explain why it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), e.g., the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data, a contract between two parties, or a human being. Note, it is not necessary for a claim to fall into only a single category, so long as it is clear that it falls into at least one category (see MPEP § 2106.03).
- 3. For a claim that is directed to a judicial exception and is nonstatutory, use form paragraph 7.05.016.
¶ 7.05.016 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
the claimed invention is directed to [1] without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) [2]. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because [3]. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because [4].
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05. For claims that recite a tentative abstract idea (i.e., a limitation identified as an abstract idea even though it does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)), this form paragraph should be accompanied by form paragraph 7.05.017.
- 2. This form paragraph is for use with all product (machine, manufacture, and composition of matter) and process claims, and for all claims directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon (including a product of nature), or abstract idea.
- 3. In bracket 1, identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (including a product of nature), or an abstract idea.
- 4. In bracket 2, identify the exception by referring to how it is recited in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception (e.g., for an abstract idea, identify the abstract idea grouping in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) into which the recited exception falls). For example, “the Arrhenius equation, which is a law of nature and a mathematical concept which describes the relationship between temperature and reaction rate” or “the series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions.” For a product of nature exception, refer to how it is recited in the claim and explain why its characteristics are not markedly different from the product’s naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. For example, “the naturally occurring DNA segment, which is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same genetic information.” Provide additional explanation regarding the exception and how it has been identified when appropriate.
- 5. In bracket 3, explain why the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, explain that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; or, if the claim is directed to a method of using a naturally occurring correlation, explain that data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Similarly, if the claim recites a “naturally occurring DNA segment” with an additional element of a test tube, explain that merely placing the product of nature into a generic container such as a test tube does not add a meaningful limitation as it is merely a nominal or token extra-solution component of the claim, and is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment.
- 6. In bracket 4, identify the additional elements and explain why, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. For example, if the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory, explain that these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
¶ 7.05.017 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, TC Director Approval for “Tentative Abstract Idea”
The identified claim limitation(s) that recite(s) an abstract idea do/does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Nonetheless, the claim limitation(s) is/are being treated as reciting an abstract idea because [1].
This rejection has been approved by the Technology Center Director signing below.
[2]
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05.016.
- 2. Approval from the TC Director is required to treat a tentative abstract idea (i.e., a claim limitation(s) that does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)) as an abstract idea. This form paragraph should be used to demonstrate that this approval has been obtained.
- 3. In bracket 1, provide the justification for why the claim limitation(s) is/are being treated as an abstract idea. For example, provide an explanation of why the claim limitation is among the “basic tools of scientific and technological work.”
- 4. In bracket 2, insert the TC Director’s signature. Approval of the TC Director is required to treat a claim limitation that does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3).