Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is 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 – Eligibility Step 2B: Whether A Claim Amounts To Significantly More (1)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is eligible.”
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is 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 a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is 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: