Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The concept of “clear improvement” in MPEP § 2106.06(b) relates to the Alice/Mayo test by potentially allowing claims to bypass parts of the test. The MPEP states:
“Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2A as not being directed to abstract ideas, it would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A based on the clear improvement, or at Pathway B (Step 2A) as not being directed to an abstract idea.“
This means that if a claim shows a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality, it might be found eligible without going through the entire Alice/Mayo test. The claim could be considered eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis) or at Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, depending on the examiner’s assessment of the improvement.
To learn more:
The improvement analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from the analysis in Step 2B in a key aspect: consideration of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
According to the MPEP:
“Specifically, the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
This means that in Step 2A Prong Two:
- The focus is on whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
- The claim may demonstrate an improvement to existing technology even if it does not improve on well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
In contrast, Step 2B considers whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which can include an analysis of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.04(D) – Integration Of A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application (1)
The improvement analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from the analysis in Step 2B in a key aspect: consideration of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
According to the MPEP:
“Specifically, the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
This means that in Step 2A Prong Two:
- The focus is on whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
- The claim may demonstrate an improvement to existing technology even if it does not improve on well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
In contrast, Step 2B considers whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which can include an analysis of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.06(B) – Clear Improvement To A Technology Or To Computer Functionality (1)
The concept of “clear improvement” in MPEP § 2106.06(b) relates to the Alice/Mayo test by potentially allowing claims to bypass parts of the test. The MPEP states:
“Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2A as not being directed to abstract ideas, it would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A based on the clear improvement, or at Pathway B (Step 2A) as not being directed to an abstract idea.“
This means that if a claim shows a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality, it might be found eligible without going through the entire Alice/Mayo test. The claim could be considered eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis) or at Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, depending on the examiner’s assessment of the improvement.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The concept of “clear improvement” in MPEP § 2106.06(b) relates to the Alice/Mayo test by potentially allowing claims to bypass parts of the test. The MPEP states:
“Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2A as not being directed to abstract ideas, it would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A based on the clear improvement, or at Pathway B (Step 2A) as not being directed to an abstract idea.“
This means that if a claim shows a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality, it might be found eligible without going through the entire Alice/Mayo test. The claim could be considered eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis) or at Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, depending on the examiner’s assessment of the improvement.
To learn more:
The improvement analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from the analysis in Step 2B in a key aspect: consideration of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
According to the MPEP:
“Specifically, the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
This means that in Step 2A Prong Two:
- The focus is on whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
- The claim may demonstrate an improvement to existing technology even if it does not improve on well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
In contrast, Step 2B considers whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which can include an analysis of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The concept of “clear improvement” in MPEP § 2106.06(b) relates to the Alice/Mayo test by potentially allowing claims to bypass parts of the test. The MPEP states:
“Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2A as not being directed to abstract ideas, it would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A based on the clear improvement, or at Pathway B (Step 2A) as not being directed to an abstract idea.“
This means that if a claim shows a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality, it might be found eligible without going through the entire Alice/Mayo test. The claim could be considered eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis) or at Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, depending on the examiner’s assessment of the improvement.
To learn more:
The improvement analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from the analysis in Step 2B in a key aspect: consideration of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
According to the MPEP:
“Specifically, the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
This means that in Step 2A Prong Two:
- The focus is on whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
- The claim may demonstrate an improvement to existing technology even if it does not improve on well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
In contrast, Step 2B considers whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which can include an analysis of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
To learn more: