How does insignificant extra-solution activity affect patent eligibility?
Insignificant extra-solution activity can negatively impact patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” This means that adding such activities to a claim does not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
The MPEP cites the Supreme Court case Parker v. Flook, which states: “The notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”.
Therefore, when evaluating patent eligibility, examiners will carefully consider whether elements in a claim constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and, if so, these elements will not contribute to making the claim patent-eligible.
To learn more: