USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
1 like468 views
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International ruled that the patent claims were not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as they were deemed abstract ideas without significant additional features. This memorandum provides preliminary instructions for the patent examining corps to evaluate claims involving abstract ideas, emphasizing a two-part analysis to determine eligibility. The analysis now applies uniformly to all judicial exceptions and categories of claims, replacing earlier differing guidelines.
![•
"[A]n idea ofitself,J; and,
• Mathematical reiationships/fonnulas4 •
Claims that include abstract ideas like these should be examined under Part 2 below to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
Ifan abstract idea is present in the claim, proceed to Part 2 below. Ifnot, proceed with examination of the claim for compliance with the other statutory requirements for patentability.
Part 2: If an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination ofelements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, are there other limitations in the claim that show a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea? Consider the claim as a whole by considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination.
Limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples:
•
Improvements to another technology or technical fields;
•
Improvements to the functioning ofthe computer itselr;
•
Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment7•
Limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as "significantly more"
when recited in a claim with an abstract idca include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive
examples:
•
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computerS;
•
Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that
are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the . d 9
m ustry .
If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent
eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself,
the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter (use Fom1 ~ 7.05.01).
After conducting the two-part analysis, proceed with examination of the claim, regardless of
whether a rejection under § 101 has been made, to determine patentability in accordance with
the other requirements of 35 U.S.c. § 101 (utility and double patenting), non-statutory double
patenting, and §§ 112, 102, and 103.
1 Alice Corp., slip op. at 7·9: e.g., intermediated settlement, i.e. , the use of a third party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk.
3](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/alicepec25jun2014-141121154930-conversion-gate02/85/USPTO-Examiner-Guidelines-Post-Alice-v-CLS-Bank-3-320.jpg)
![2 Id , slip op. at 10: e.g., a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk (ciling Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 599
(2010)).
3 Id., slip op. at 7-8: e.g., a principle, an original cause, a motive (citing GolI~'chalk v. Benson, 409 US. 63, 67 (1972) and LeRoy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853)). ~ Id., slip op. at 8: e.g., a mathematical formula for computing alarm limits in a catalytic conversion process (Parker
v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 594-595 (1978)), or a fonnula for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure
binary form (Benson. 409 U.S. at 71-72).
~ Id., slip op. at 15: e.g., a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber molding process (citing Diamond v.
Diehr,4S0U.S. 175,177-178(1981)).
6 Id., slip op. at 15.
7 Id., slip op. at 16: noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking
'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" (citing
Bilski. 561 U.S. at 610, 611).
8!d, slip op. at 12, 13: e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a
computer (citing Mayo. slip op., al 16).
9 Id. , slip op. at 15: e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions.
4](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/alicepec25jun2014-141121154930-conversion-gate02/85/USPTO-Examiner-Guidelines-Post-Alice-v-CLS-Bank-4-320.jpg)
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
- 1. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE CommissiOlltf fOf Patent, Ulliled Stales Pattm and Trademurk Office PO. Ho~ 1450 AIe~aJldfia, VA 22313-14S0 ""'.,., "'I"<>~Q' MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2014 TO: Patent Examining Corps FROM: Andrew H. Hirshfeid Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy SUBJECT: Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Illternational, et af. Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.c. § 101. The patents at issue disclose a scheme for mitigating "settlement risk," i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation, in which a computer system is used as a third-party intermediary between the parties to the exchange. The patent claims are styled as a method for exchanging financial obligations, a computer system configured to carry out the method, and a computer-readable storage medium containing program code for causing a computer to perfonn the method. The Court determined that Alice Corp.'s claims to methods were ineligible because "the claims at issue amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to apply the abstract idca of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer." Alice Corp.'s claims to computer systems and computer-readable storage media were he ld ineligible for substantially the same reasons, e.g., that the generically-recited computers in the claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Notably, Alice Corp. neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requ irements for eligibility of software or business methods. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide preliminary instructions effective today to the Patent Examining Corps relating to subject matter eligibility of claims involving abstract ideas, particularly computer-implemented abstract ideas, under 35 U.S.c. § 101. The USPTO is continuing to study Alice Corp. in the context of existing precedent and will seek public feedback on the instructions. Further guidance will be issued after additional consideration of the decision and public feedback in the context of the existing law under 35 U.S.c. § 101. Preliminary Instructions for Analvzing Claims with Abstract Ideas The Supreme Court made clear in Alice Corp. that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus LaboralOries, Inc., 566 U.S. _ (2012) (Mayo), to analyze all claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.c. § 101. This framework is currently being used by the
- 2. USPTO to examine claims involving laws of nature, but had not been used for claims involving abstract ideas. Therefore, the following instructions differ from prior USPTO guidance in two ways: 1) Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all types ofjudicial exceptions, whereas prior USPTO guidance applied a dilTerent analysis to claims with abstract ideas (Bilski guidance in MPEP 2106(1I)(B)) than to claims with laws of nature (Mayo guidance in MPEP 2106.01). 2) Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims), whereas prior guidance applied a different analysis to product claims involving abstract ideas (relying on tangibility in MPEP 2106(Il)(A)) than to process claims (Bilski guidance). Despite these· changes, the basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First determine whether the claim is directed to onc of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does not fall within one ofthe categories, reject the claim as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Next, if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, determine whether the claim is directed to ajudicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) using Part I of the two-part analysis detailed below, and, if so, determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of an exception using Part 2. This two-part analysis supersedes MPEP 21 06(1I)(A) and 2106(11)(8). For purposes of this preliminary instruction memo, only claims that involve abstract ideas are addressed, since the USPTO's current guidance for claims that involve laws of nature/natural phenomena already uses the Mayo framework . See Guidance For Determining Subject Maller Eligibility O/Claims Reciting Or involving Laws o/NalUre, Nalural Phenomena. & Nalural Products (March 4,2014). Two-part Analysis for Abstract Ideas Following Alice Corp., now analyze all claims (product and process) having an abstract idea using the following two-part analysis set forth in Mayo : Part I: Determine whether the claim is di rected to an abstract idea. As emphasized in Alice Corp., abstract ideas are excluded from eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. At the same time, the courts have tread carefully in construing this exclusion because, at some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon or apply abstract ideas and the other exceptions. Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible simply because it involves an abstract concept. In fact, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are eligible. Examples of abstract ideas referenccd in Alice Corp. include: • Fundamental economic practices I; • Certain methods of organizing human activities2; 2
- 3. • "[A]n idea ofitself,J; and, • Mathematical reiationships/fonnulas4 • Claims that include abstract ideas like these should be examined under Part 2 below to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner. Ifan abstract idea is present in the claim, proceed to Part 2 below. Ifnot, proceed with examination of the claim for compliance with the other statutory requirements for patentability. Part 2: If an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination ofelements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, are there other limitations in the claim that show a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea? Consider the claim as a whole by considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination. Limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: • Improvements to another technology or technical fields; • Improvements to the functioning ofthe computer itselr; • Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment7• Limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idca include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: • Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computerS; • Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the . d 9 m ustry . If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (use Fom1 ~ 7.05.01). After conducting the two-part analysis, proceed with examination of the claim, regardless of whether a rejection under § 101 has been made, to determine patentability in accordance with the other requirements of 35 U.S.c. § 101 (utility and double patenting), non-statutory double patenting, and §§ 112, 102, and 103. 1 Alice Corp., slip op. at 7·9: e.g., intermediated settlement, i.e. , the use of a third party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk. 3
- 4. 2 Id , slip op. at 10: e.g., a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk (ciling Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010)). 3 Id., slip op. at 7-8: e.g., a principle, an original cause, a motive (citing GolI~'chalk v. Benson, 409 US. 63, 67 (1972) and LeRoy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853)). ~ Id., slip op. at 8: e.g., a mathematical formula for computing alarm limits in a catalytic conversion process (Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 594-595 (1978)), or a fonnula for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Benson. 409 U.S. at 71-72). ~ Id., slip op. at 15: e.g., a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber molding process (citing Diamond v. Diehr,4S0U.S. 175,177-178(1981)). 6 Id., slip op. at 15. 7 Id., slip op. at 16: noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" (citing Bilski. 561 U.S. at 610, 611). 8!d, slip op. at 12, 13: e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer (citing Mayo. slip op., al 16). 9 Id. , slip op. at 15: e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions. 4