What is the relationship between “other meaningful limitations” and the machine-or-transformation test?

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 concept of “other meaningful limitations” in MPEP 2106.05(e) is related to, but distinct from, the machine-or-transformation test. Here’s how they are connected:

• The machine-or-transformation test is a useful tool for determining patent eligibility, but it is not the sole test.
• “Other meaningful limitations” can include elements that satisfy the machine-or-transformation test, such as applying the judicial exception with a particular machine or transforming an article to a different state or thing.
• However, “other meaningful limitations” are broader and can encompass additional ways of integrating an abstract idea into a practical application.

The MPEP notes: “While the machine-or-transformation test is an important clue to eligibility, it should not be used as a separate test for eligibility, but instead should be considered as part of the ‘integration’ determination or ‘significantly more’ determination.“

In essence, while passing the machine-or-transformation test can indicate the presence of other meaningful limitations, it is not the only way to demonstrate such limitations. The focus remains on whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.