The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Is Working to Clarify Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is working to clarify when inventions are eligible for patent protection. Early last month, the agency published revised guidance for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
“These guidance documents aim to improve the clarity, consistency, and predictability of actions across the USPTO,” USPTO Director Andrei Iancu stated. “The USPTO will provide training to examiners and administrative patent judges on both documents to ensure that guidance is being properly administered.”
U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo Test
The first step of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The second step involves determining whether the claimed invention also qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter. The three judicial exceptions that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention are abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), a patent claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. Stated another way, the first part of the Alice/Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In its Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the USPTO notes that, in the wake of Alice, courts have been comparing patent claims before them to those previously determined to be directed to abstract ideas. “While that approach was effective soon after Alice was decided, it has since become impractical,” the guidance states. “The Federal Circuit has now issued numerous decisions identifying subject matter as abstract or non-abstract in the context of specific cases, and that number is continuously growing. In addition, similar subject matter has been described both as abstract and not abstract in different cases. The growing body of precedent has become increasingly more difficult for examiners to apply in a predictable manner, and concerns have been raised that different examiners within and between technology centers may reach inconsistent results.”
To provide greater clarity, the guidance makes two significant changes to how patent examiners apply the first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. First, in accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve certainty and reliability, the revised guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes certain groupings of subject matter: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
As detailed by the USPTO, mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations. Methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Mental processes include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Claims that do not recite matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas, except in rare circumstances that require approval by the Technology Center Director.
The Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance goes on to establish a two-prong inquiry for whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. In the first prong, examiners will evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception and if so, proceed to the second prong. In the second prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
According to the guidance:
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
If a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. In such a case, further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test is required. To illustrate the analysis, the USPTO provides the following example:
For example, when evaluating a claim reciting an abstract idea such as a mathematical equation and a series of data gathering steps that collect a necessary input for the equation, an examiner might consider the data gathering steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity in revised Step 2A, and therefore find that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, when the examiner reconsiders the data gathering steps in Step 2B, the examiner could determine that the combination of steps gather data in an unconventional way and therefore include an “inventive concept,” rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.
What’s Next for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility?
The USPTO is seeking public comment on all the issues addressed by the guidance. Impacted entities are encouraged to submit written comments to Eligibility2019@uspto.gov(link sends e-mail) on or before March 8, 2019.
If finalized in its current form, the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance provides useful insight into how patent examiners will analyze claims under the Mayo/Alice test. The new framework also strongly favors eligibility, which is good news for entities that are seeking patent protection.
While the USPTO guidance is welcome news, this area of patent law is expected to continue to develop. We encourage our readers to stay tuned for updates and contact one of Scarinci Hollenbeck’s experienced technology law attorneys with any questions you may have.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Is Working to Clarify Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is working to clarify when inventions are eligible for patent protection. Early last month, the agency published revised guidance for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
“These guidance documents aim to improve the clarity, consistency, and predictability of actions across the USPTO,” USPTO Director Andrei Iancu stated. “The USPTO will provide training to examiners and administrative patent judges on both documents to ensure that guidance is being properly administered.”
U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo Test
The first step of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The second step involves determining whether the claimed invention also qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter. The three judicial exceptions that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention are abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), a patent claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. Stated another way, the first part of the Alice/Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In its Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the USPTO notes that, in the wake of Alice, courts have been comparing patent claims before them to those previously determined to be directed to abstract ideas. “While that approach was effective soon after Alice was decided, it has since become impractical,” the guidance states. “The Federal Circuit has now issued numerous decisions identifying subject matter as abstract or non-abstract in the context of specific cases, and that number is continuously growing. In addition, similar subject matter has been described both as abstract and not abstract in different cases. The growing body of precedent has become increasingly more difficult for examiners to apply in a predictable manner, and concerns have been raised that different examiners within and between technology centers may reach inconsistent results.”
To provide greater clarity, the guidance makes two significant changes to how patent examiners apply the first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. First, in accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve certainty and reliability, the revised guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes certain groupings of subject matter: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
As detailed by the USPTO, mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations. Methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Mental processes include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Claims that do not recite matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas, except in rare circumstances that require approval by the Technology Center Director.
The Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance goes on to establish a two-prong inquiry for whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. In the first prong, examiners will evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception and if so, proceed to the second prong. In the second prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
According to the guidance:
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
If a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. In such a case, further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test is required. To illustrate the analysis, the USPTO provides the following example:
For example, when evaluating a claim reciting an abstract idea such as a mathematical equation and a series of data gathering steps that collect a necessary input for the equation, an examiner might consider the data gathering steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity in revised Step 2A, and therefore find that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, when the examiner reconsiders the data gathering steps in Step 2B, the examiner could determine that the combination of steps gather data in an unconventional way and therefore include an “inventive concept,” rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.
What’s Next for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility?
The USPTO is seeking public comment on all the issues addressed by the guidance. Impacted entities are encouraged to submit written comments to Eligibility2019@uspto.gov(link sends e-mail) on or before March 8, 2019.
If finalized in its current form, the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance provides useful insight into how patent examiners will analyze claims under the Mayo/Alice test. The new framework also strongly favors eligibility, which is good news for entities that are seeking patent protection.
While the USPTO guidance is welcome news, this area of patent law is expected to continue to develop. We encourage our readers to stay tuned for updates and contact one of Scarinci Hollenbeck’s experienced technology law attorneys with any questions you may have.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
