What is considered “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in patent claims?
“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…
Read MoreWhat role do “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play in Step 2B analysis?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play a crucial role in Step 2B analysis of patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(d): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Key points about well-understood, routine, conventional activities…
Read MoreHow does “transformation” factor into patent eligibility?
Transformation of an article to a different state or thing is an important consideration in patent eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(c) states: “Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.” The MPEP provides some factors to consider:…
Read MoreWhat is considered a “particular machine” in patent eligibility analysis?
The concept of a “particular machine” is important in patent eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(b): “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines)” is relevant to the analysis. A particular machine…
Read MoreWhat is “mere instructions to apply an exception” in patent claims?
“Mere instructions to apply an exception” is a concept in patent eligibility analysis that can render a claim ineligible. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B…
Read MoreWhat is the “mere drafting effort” exception in Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis?
The “mere drafting effort” exception in Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis refers to cases where the additional elements in a claim are simply an attempt to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This exception is explained in MPEP 2106.05(h): “[S]imply limiting the use…
Read MoreWhat is the “inventive concept” in the Alice/Mayo test?
The “inventive concept” refers to the second part of the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. As explained in MPEP 2106.05: “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’ Instead, an ‘inventive concept’ is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited…
Read MoreHow does “improvement to computer functionality” affect patent eligibility?
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a): “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” The…
Read MoreHow does “field of use” affect patent eligibility?
The concept of “field of use” is important in patent eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more…
Read MoreHow do examiners evaluate whether additional elements amount to significantly more?
According to MPEP 2106.05, examiners should evaluate whether additional elements amount to significantly more by considering: Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology/technical field Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or…
Read More