How does the improvements analysis differ between Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B?
The improvements analysis in Step 2A Prong Two differs from that in Step 2B in a crucial way, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1):
“Specifically, the ‘improvements’ analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
This means that in Step 2A Prong Two, the focus is on whether the claimed invention improves the relevant existing technology, even if it’s not an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In contrast, Step 2B considers whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which often involves analyzing whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The MPEP further clarifies: “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
To learn more: