CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
Steve Johnson. https://www.pexels.com/photo/multicolored-abstract-painting-1269968/

USPTO Announces Revised Guidelines for Subject Matter Eligibility

USPTO
Again revises guidelines
About what’s abstract

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has again updated its guidelines for subject matter eligibility under  35 U.S.C. § 101.

The new guidance will help patent examiners deal with applications that contain functional language, and in particular with applications where functional language is used to claim computer-implemented inventions.

As the new guidelines note,

The patent examination process must ensure that: (1) The claims of an application have proper written description and enablement support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the disclosure of the application, and (2) functional limitations (i.e., claim limitations that define an element in terms of the function it performs without reciting the structure, materials, or acts that perform the function) are properly treated as means (or step) plus function limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and are sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as appropriate. These requirements are particularly relevant to computer-implemented functional claims.

While patent examiners and court have tried to distinguish between “abstract ideas” (that aren’t patentable) and non-abstract inventions (that are patentable) that dichotomy has proved problematic: 

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 concern have been raised that different examiners within and between technology centers may reach inconsistent results.

Under the new guidelines, abstract ideas are defined to include mathematical formulas, certain ways of organizing human activity, and mental processes.

The new guidelines took effect January 7. The USPTO is inviting comments on them.

Written comments about the new guidelines may be sent to 112Guidance2019@uspto.gov by March 8.

Related Articles

Buying Rival’s Trademark as Keyword Search Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff law firm claimed ...
Read More

What does copyright law have to do with McDonalds ice cream machines?

The US Copyright Office has granted a copyright exemption giving restaurants the right to repair broken equipment by bypassing locks intended to prevent anyone other ...
Read More

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. Here’s a roundup of some recent developments ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854