What 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 significance of the Mackay Radio case in determining a particular machine?
What is the significance of the Mackay Radio case in determining a particular machine? The Mackay Radio case is significant in determining what constitutes a particular machine in the context of patent eligibility. The MPEP states: “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, formula, or equation, but does not sufficiently limit the use of the…
Read MoreHow does the use of a machine or transformation test affect patent eligibility?
The machine-or-transformation test can be a useful tool in determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. However, it is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05(f): “Use of a machine or transformation of an article must impose…
Read MoreWhat are the key factors in determining if a machine is “particular” for patent eligibility?
When determining if a machine is “particular” enough to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application for patent eligibility, examiners consider several key factors: The machine’s specificity: A general-purpose computer is not typically considered a particular machine, while a specialized computer system might be. The degree to which the machine implements the steps of…
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 the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank case relate to mere instructions to apply an exception?
The Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank case provides an important example of how courts evaluate claims that may amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. According to MPEP 2106.05(f): “In Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank, the claims recited a system for providing web pages tailored to an individual user, comprising…
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 should examiners identify and explain abstract ideas in claims?
When identifying and explaining abstract ideas in claims, examiners should: Identify the specific claim limitation(s) that recite the abstract idea Explain why those limitations are considered abstract Identify which grouping of abstract ideas the concept falls into (mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) If not in an enumerated grouping, provide…
Read MoreHow should an examiner formulate a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility?
An examiner should formulate a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility by following these steps: Identify the judicial exception recited in the claim Explain why the identified limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings Identify any additional elements beyond the judicial exception Explain why the additional elements do not integrate the exception…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle claims with multiple judicial exceptions?
When a claim recites multiple judicial exceptions, the USPTO recommends the following approach: If possible, treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for efficiency. If the exceptions are distinct, select one exception for the eligibility analysis. If the exceptions are interrelated, consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea. As stated in…
Read More