What are the key considerations for computer-implemented inventions under 35 U.S.C. 112?

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.

For computer-implemented inventions, there are several key considerations under 35 U.S.C. 112, particularly regarding written description and enablement requirements. The MPEP 2185 highlights:

“If the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, see MPEP § 2161.01 and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”

Key considerations include:

• Providing a detailed disclosure of both the computer hardware and the algorithm used to perform the claimed function
• Ensuring the level of detail is sufficient for a person skilled in the art to understand how the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention
• Avoiding mere reference to a general purpose computer without explaining how it is programmed to perform the claimed function
• Considering potential indefiniteness issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the algorithm is not clearly disclosed

Applicants should be particularly careful when using means-plus-function language for computer-implemented inventions to ensure compliance with all aspects of 35 U.S.C. 112.