How does the USPTO evaluate claims of improved computer functionality in patent applications?
The USPTO evaluates claims of improved computer functionality in patent applications by considering whether the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to the computer itself or to another technology. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): “[T]he claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology… That is, the claim must include…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO distinguish between improvements to computer functionality and mere automation of manual processes?
The USPTO distinguishes between improvements to computer functionality and mere automation of manual processes by examining the technical nature of the improvement. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): “[I]f the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a…
Read MoreWhat role does the specification play in evaluating improvements to technology in patent applications?
The specification plays a crucial role in evaluating improvements to technology in patent applications. It provides the context and technical details necessary for examiners to understand and assess the claimed improvements. The MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states: “The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would…
Read MoreWhat is the “improvements consideration” in patent eligibility analysis?
The “improvements consideration” is a key factor in determining patent eligibility under Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo test. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), it involves evaluating whether “the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” If such an improvement is demonstrated, the claim may be eligible…
Read MoreHow does the improvements analysis differ between Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B?
The improvements analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from that in Step 2B in a crucial way, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): “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,…
Read MoreWhat are some examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception?
The MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides several examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.: Claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were found to be an improvement in computer capabilities. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.: Claims to automatic lip synchronization…
Read MoreHow should examiners evaluate the improvement to technology in a patent application?
Examiners should follow a two-step process to evaluate improvements to technology in a patent application, as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): Evaluate the specification: The examiner should first determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The MPEP states: “The…
Read More