What types of transformations are generally not considered patent-eligible under MPEP 2106.05(c)?

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.

MPEP 2106.05(c) provides guidance on transformations that are generally not considered patent-eligible:

1. Mental Processes: Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation.
2. Data Manipulation: For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation.
3. Insignificant Transformations: Transformations that contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method are not likely to provide significantly more or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
4. Mere Location Changes: The MPEP notes that “Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article.”

Additionally, transformations that are merely extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are less likely to be considered patent-eligible. The MPEP cites an example from the Mayo case: The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that this step was only a field-of-use limitation and did not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.