How does the USPTO evaluate the nature of a transformation in patent claims?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The USPTO evaluates the nature of a transformation in patent claims by considering several factors. According to MPEP 2106.05(c), examiners should consider the following:

• The particularity or generality of the transformation: More specific transformations are more likely to be meaningful.
• The degree to which the recited article is particular: A transformation applied to a specific article is more likely to provide significantly more than a general transformation.
• The nature of the transformation in terms of the type or extent of change in state or thing: Transformations resulting in fundamental changes are more likely to be meaningful.
• The nature of the article transformed: Transformation of physical or tangible objects is more likely to provide significantly more than transformation of intangible concepts or data.
• Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use: Transformations that are mere data gathering or post-solution activity are less likely to be meaningful.

These factors help examiners determine whether a claimed transformation is “particular” and thus potentially patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.