What is the evidentiary standard for subject matter eligibility rejections?

The evidentiary standard for subject matter eligibility rejections varies depending on the step of the analysis: For Step 2A Prong One (identifying the judicial exception), no evidence is required For Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, evidence is only required to support a finding that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)…

Read More

What evidence is required to support a finding that claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional?

To support a finding that additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, examiners must provide one of the following: A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution A citation to one or more court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d) A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature…

Read More

How is a claim with a tentative abstract idea evaluated for subject matter eligibility?

When a claim contains a tentative abstract idea, it is evaluated using the standard subject matter eligibility framework: Step 2A: If the claim integrates the tentative abstract idea into a practical application, it’s eligible. Step 2B: If not integrated, the claim is assessed for an inventive concept. The MPEP outlines this process: If the claim…

Read More

How does the USPTO evaluate “significantly more” in Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis?

The evaluation of “significantly more” occurs in Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05. This step determines whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The MPEP states: “Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?“…

Read More

How should examiners handle dependent claims in a subject matter eligibility analysis?

Examiners should evaluate the eligibility of dependent claims separately, as they may be eligible even if the independent claim is ineligible. The MPEP states: “The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis, because claims do not automatically rise or fall with similar claims in…

Read More

How should an examiner evaluate an applicant’s response to a subject matter eligibility rejection?

When evaluating an applicant’s response to a subject matter eligibility rejection, an examiner should: Carefully consider all of applicant’s arguments and evidence Determine if any claim amendments change the broadest reasonable interpretation Reevaluate eligibility if persuasive arguments or evidence are presented Provide a rebuttal in the next Office action if maintaining the rejection The MPEP…

Read More

What should examiners consider when evaluating an applicant’s response to a subject matter eligibility rejection?

Examiners must carefully evaluate all aspects of an applicant’s response to a subject matter eligibility rejection. The MPEP 2106.07(b) provides guidance: “When evaluating a response, examiners must carefully consider all of applicant’s arguments and evidence rebutting the subject matter eligibility rejection. If applicant has amended the claim, examiners should determine the amended claim’s broadest reasonable…

Read More

What is the basis for rejecting a claim under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of subject matter eligibility?

A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of subject matter eligibility must be based on failure to comply with the substantive law as interpreted by judicial precedent. The MPEP states: “Eligibility rejections must be based on failure to comply with the substantive law under 35 U.S.C. 101 as interpreted by judicial precedent. The substantive…

Read More