Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Conventional Activity (1)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality.
The MPEP states: “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.”
It’s important to note that even if an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional when considered individually, a combination of such elements may still amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, potentially making the claim eligible.
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality.
The MPEP states: “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.”
It’s important to note that even if an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional when considered individually, a combination of such elements may still amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, potentially making the claim eligible.
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 2106.05(D) – Well – Understood (1)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality.
The MPEP states: “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.”
It’s important to note that even if an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional when considered individually, a combination of such elements may still amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, potentially making the claim eligible.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality.
The MPEP states: “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.”
It’s important to note that even if an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional when considered individually, a combination of such elements may still amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, potentially making the claim eligible.
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)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality.
The MPEP states: “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.”
It’s important to note that even if an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional when considered individually, a combination of such elements may still amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, potentially making the claim eligible.
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:
Routine (1)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality.
The MPEP states: “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.”
It’s important to note that even if an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional when considered individually, a combination of such elements may still amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, potentially making the claim eligible.
To learn more: