What 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 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 claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
• The claim may demonstrate an improvement to existing technology even if it does not improve on well-understood, routine, conventional activity.

In contrast, Step 2B considers whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which can include an analysis of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.

To learn more:

• patent eligibility
• improvement analysis
• Step 2A
• Step 2B
• well-understood routine conventional