How does the USPTO determine if a claim is directed to a law of nature or natural phenomenon?
The USPTO uses a two-step analysis to determine if a claim is directed to a law of nature or natural phenomenon. This process is outlined in MPEP Section 2106.04(b): Step 2A, Prong One: Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a law of nature or natural phenomenon. Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claim recites an…
Read MoreWhat is the “markedly different characteristics” analysis in patent examination?
The “markedly different characteristics” analysis is a key part of determining the patent eligibility of nature-based products. According to the MPEP Section 2106.04(b): “When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners should use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to…
Read MoreHow does insignificant extra-solution activity relate to the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration?
The relationship between insignificant extra-solution activity and the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration is addressed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The MPEP states: “Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis.” This means that when evaluating whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution…
Read MoreHow does a “clear improvement” affect the patent eligibility analysis?
A “clear improvement” to technology or computer functionality can significantly simplify the patent eligibility analysis. According to MPEP § 2106.06(b): “In these cases, when the claims were viewed as a whole, their eligibility was self-evident based on the clear improvement, so no further analysis was needed.“ This means that if a claim demonstrates a clear…
Read More