What is considered “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in patent claims?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion: A citation to…
Read MoreWhat role do “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play in Step 2B analysis?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play a crucial role in Step 2B analysis of patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(d): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Key points about well-understood, routine, conventional activities…
Read MoreHow do meaningful limitations differ from well-understood, routine, conventional activities?
Meaningful limitations transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter, while well-understood, routine, conventional activities do not. This distinction is crucial in patent eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(e) contrasts two cases to illustrate this: “In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. […]…
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 MoreWhat 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 MoreWhat 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 MoreWhat is the difference between the improvement analysis in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B?
The improvement analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from the analysis in Step 2B in a key aspect: consideration of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. According to the MPEP: “Specifically, the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to…
Read More