New USPTO Section 101 Guidelines Impact Examination Process, Are Anticipated to Reduce Number of Rejections

January 10, 2019 Advisory

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new patent application examination guidelines with respect to subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. These new guidelines went into effect Jan. 7, 2019, and are for use by all examiners in all art units. The new guidelines attempt to create a more consistent and predictable atmosphere for examination, and seek in particular to clarify the determination by examiners as to whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, the first step of the two-step Alice/Mayo test. (These two steps are incorporated as Steps 2A and 2B in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2106.) This should reduce the number of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These guidelines will have the most significant impact for clients filing patent applications specific to the computer science and biotechnology fields.

Step 1 of the patent-eligibility examination, a determination of whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), has not changed. Step 2A entails assessing whether the claim is “directed to” a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea (i.e., the judicial exceptions to the four categories of Step 1). If the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception, Step 2B assesses whether additional elements in the claim, either individually or as an ordered combination, comprise an inventive step that transforms the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Formerly, Step 2A was conducted primarily by comparing the claim under consideration to claims addressed in previous court decisions. Because of the quickly growing number of court decisions with respect to subject-matter eligibility, some of which conflict with each other, the USPTO asserts that a more consistent and predictable analysis by examiners across all technology fields is needed in order to provide more clarity and predictability.

Under the new guidelines, revised Step 2A is divided into two prongs. Prong One evaluates whether the claim recites one of the judicial exceptions. If a judicial exception is found, Prong Two assesses whether the judicial exception is “integrated into a practical application.” If so, then the claim comprises patent-eligible subject matter and no further analysis under Section 101 is required. “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.” Notably, the Step 2A-Prong Two analysis specifically excludes the determination of whether the additional elements of a claim are routine or conventional, which remains a basis solely of Step 2B (and thus is applicable only in cases where Step 2B must be reached). As a result, even “conventional” elements of the claim may contribute to a finding that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.

If the claim includes a judicial exception at Step 2A-Prong One and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A-Prong Two, then the previously established Step 2B analysis is performed to determine if an inventive concept is present. The Step 2B analysis takes into account whether the additional elements of a claim are routine or conventional (i.e., the analysis under Berkheimer) and whether the additional elements otherwise transform the judicial exception into patentable subject matter.

The new guidelines also provide more specific rules on what constitutes an “abstract idea,” the judicial exception most commonly found at Step 2A in claims directed to computer-implemented inventions. Abstract ideas now must fit into at least one of only three categories: mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. Claims that do not fit into at least one of these categories are presumed not to recite an abstract idea. In the rare event that an examiner believes a claim element outside of these three categories is an abstract idea, the examiner must get approval from the Technology Center Director in order to reject the claims under Section 101.

As with all rules promulgated by the USPTO, the changes introduced by the new guidelines are only procedural. They do not change the substantive law on the issue. Also, the USPTO is accepting comments on the new guidelines until March 8, 2019, which may result in further clarification. While we expect the number of rejections under Section 101 to decrease because of these new examination guidelines, federal courts will continue to have the final word on issues of subject-matter eligibility.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Orange County, CA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, IL
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606-1520
Google Maps
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
7160 Rafael Rivera Way
Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Orange County, CA
19800 MacArthur Boulevard
Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Google Maps
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
222 South Main St.
Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware