How 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 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 a sale by a third party trigger the on-sale bar?
Yes, a sale by an independent third party can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP states: A sale or offer for sale of the invention by an independent third party more than 1 year before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention may be applied as prior art and may…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle therapeutic or pharmacological utility claims?
The USPTO applies the same legal requirements for utility to therapeutic or pharmacological inventions as it does to inventions in other fields. According to MPEP 2107.01: “Inventions asserted to have utility in the treatment of human or animal disorders are subject to the same legal requirements for utility as inventions in any other field of…
Read MoreWhat is the procedure for identifying a ‘tentative abstract idea’?
The MPEP describes a procedure for identifying a ‘tentative abstract idea’ in rare circumstances where an examiner believes a claim limitation should be treated as an abstract idea, but it doesn’t fall within the established groupings. The process is as follows: The examiner evaluates the claim under the subject matter eligibility framework. If the claim…
Read MoreAre all synthetic or artificial products automatically patent-eligible?
No, synthetic or artificial products are not automatically patent-eligible. The MPEP Section 2106.04(b) clarifies this point: “Thus, a synthetic, artificial, or non-naturally occurring product such as a cloned organism or a human-made hybrid plant is not automatically eligible because it was created by human ingenuity or intervention.” Key points to understand: The mere fact that…
Read MoreWhat is the “substantial utility” requirement in patent law?
The “substantial utility” requirement in patent law refers to the need for an invention to show a significant and presently available benefit to the public. According to MPEP 2107.01: “[A]n application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some…
Read MoreWhat is a streamlined eligibility analysis?
A streamlined eligibility analysis is a simplified approach for assessing patent eligibility when a claim’s eligibility is self-evident. According to MPEP 2106.06(a), “A streamlined eligibility analysis can be used for a claim that may or may not recite a judicial exception but, when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any…
Read MoreWhat is the streamlined eligibility analysis in patent examination?
The streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) is an efficient method used by patent examiners when the eligibility of a claim is self-evident, particularly when the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. As stated in MPEP 2106.06: “For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the…
Read More