How does the USPTO evaluate the nature of a transformation in patent claims?
The USPTO evaluates the nature of a transformation in patent claims by considering several factors. According to MPEP 2106.05(c), examiners should consider the following: The particularity or generality of the transformation: More specific transformations are more likely to be meaningful. The degree to which the recited article is particular: A transformation applied to a specific…
Read MoreWhat qualifies as a “transformation” under MPEP 2106.05(c)?
According to MPEP 2106.05(c), a transformation under the particular transformation consideration involves changing an “article” to a different state or thing. The MPEP provides the following guidance: Article: “An ‘article’ includes a physical object or substance.” Particularity: “The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified.” Change: “‘Transformation’ of an…
Read MoreHow does the transformation of an article to a different state or thing impact patent eligibility?
The transformation of an article to a different state or thing can significantly impact patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(c): “A transformation resulting in the transformed article having a different function or use, would likely provide significantly more, but a transformation resulting in the transformed article merely having a different location, would likely not provide…
Read MoreWhat factors are considered when evaluating a transformation under MPEP 2106.05(c)?
MPEP 2106.05(c) outlines several factors to consider when evaluating a transformation for patent eligibility: Particularity or generality of the transformation: More particular transformations are more likely to provide significantly more. Degree of particularity of the article: Transformations applied to specific articles are more likely to provide significantly more than those applied to generic or all…
Read MoreCan you provide an example of a patent-eligible transformation under MPEP 2106.05(c)?
MPEP 2106.05(c) provides a classic example of a patent-eligible transformation from the case of Tilghman v. Proctor: In that case, the claim was directed to a process of subjecting a mixture of fat and water to a high degree of heat and included additional parameters relating to the level of heat, the quantities of fat…
Read MoreHow does the “particular transformation” consideration relate to the Alice/Mayo test?
The “particular transformation” consideration is an important factor within the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility, but it is not a standalone test. According to MPEP 2106.05(c): If a claim passes the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is not directed to an exception at Step 2A, or amounts to significantly more than any recited exception in Step 2B),…
Read MoreWhat is the “particular transformation” consideration in patent eligibility?
The “particular transformation” consideration is an important factor in determining patent eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(c). It evaluates whether a claim “effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.” As stated in the MPEP: “[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue…
Read MoreWhat are some examples of transformations that are not considered “particular” for patent eligibility?
The MPEP 2106.05(c) provides several examples of transformations that are not considered “particular” for patent eligibility purposes: Data manipulation: Organizing information through mathematical correlations. Displaying data: Presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information without more. Combining data: Gathering and combining data that does not require a particular transformation of a particular…
Read MoreWhat types of transformations are generally not considered patent-eligible under MPEP 2106.05(c)?
MPEP 2106.05(c) provides guidance on transformations that are generally not considered patent-eligible: Mental Processes: Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation. Data Manipulation: For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. Insignificant Transformations:…
Read MoreWhat is the “machine-or-transformation test” in patent eligibility?
The “machine-or-transformation test” is a useful tool for determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. According to MPEP 2106.05(c), this test states that: “A claimed process is patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a…
Read More