Service
Patent Information : Patent Laws : Patentable Matter - 35 USC Sec. 101
Patent Laws
TITLE 35 > PART II > CHAPTER 10 > Sec. 101.
Sec. 101. - Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Does your Invention Fall Within § 101 Judicial Exceptions – Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena and Abstract Ideas?
Determining whether the claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories
of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101 (process, machine,
manufacture or composition of matter) does not end the analysis because claims
directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as mathematical algorithms),
natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible and therefore are
excluded from patent protection. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185, 209 USPQ at 7; accord,
e.g., Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978); Benson, 409 U.S. at 67-68 , 175 USPQ at 675;
Funk, 333 U.S.at 130, 76 USPQ at 281. “A principle, in the abstract, is a
fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no
one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy, 55 U.S. (14 How.)
at 175. Instead, such “manifestations of laws of nature” are “part of the
storehouse of knowledge,” “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.”
Funk, 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281.
Thus, “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is
not patentable subject matter” under Section 101.
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting, methods and products employing abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature to perform a real-world function may well be. In evaluating whether a claim meets the requirements of section 101, the claim must be considered as a whole to determine whether it is for a particular application of an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature, rather than for the abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature itself.
Determining Whether the Claimed Invention Covers Either a § 101 Judicial Exception or a Practical Application of a § 101 Judicial Exception
An examiner must ascertain the scope of the claim to determine whether it covers
either a § 101 judicial exception or a practical application of a § 101 judicial
exception. The conclusion that a particular claim includes a § 101 judicial
exception does not end the inquiry because “[i]t is now commonplace that an
application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or
process may well be deserving of patent protection.” Thus, “[w]hile a scientific
truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a
novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth
may be.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188, 209 USPQ at 8-9 (quoting Mackay, 306 U.S. at
94); see also Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252, 268, 14 L.Ed. 683
(1854)(“It is for the discovery or invention of some practical method or means
of producing a beneficial result or effect, that a patent is granted . . .”).
For claims including such excluded subject matter to be eligible, the claim must
be for a practical application of the abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 209 USPQ at 8 (“application of a law of
nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.”); Benson, 409 U.S. at 71, 175 USPQ at 676
(rejecting formula claim because it “has no substantial practical application”).
To satisfy section 101 requirements, the claim must be for a practical
application of the § 101 judicial exception, which can be identified in various
ways:
-
.The claimed invention “transforms” an article or physical object to a
different state or thing. -
The claimed invention otherwise produces a useful, concrete and
tangible result, based on the factors discussed below.
The examiner first will review the claim and determine if it provides a transformation or reduction of an article to a different state or thing. If the examiner finds such a transformation or reduction, the examiner shall end the inquiry and find that the claim meets the statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. If the examiner does not find such a transformation or reduction, the examiner has not determined as a final matter that the claim is non-statutory. The examiner must proceed in further inquiry.
Practical Application That Produces a Useful, Concrete, and Tangible ResultFor eligibility analysis, physical transformation “is not an invariable requirement, but merely one example of how a mathematical algorithm [or law of nature] may bring about a useful application.” AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358-59, 50 USPQ2d at 1452. If the examiner determines that the claim does not entail the transformation of an article, then the examiner shall review the claim to determine if the claim provides a practical application that produces a useful, tangible and concrete result. In determining whether the claim is for a “practical application,” the focus is not on whether the steps taken to achieve a particular result are useful, tangible and concrete, but rather that the final result achieved by the claimed invention is “useful, tangible and concrete.” The claim must be examined to see if it includes anything more than a § 101 judicial exception. If the claim is directed to a practical application of the § 101 judicial exception producing a result tied to the physical world that does not preempt the judicial exception, then the claim meets the statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. If the examiner does not find such a practical application, the examiner has determined that the claim is nonstatutory.
In determining whether a claim provides a practical application that produces a
useful, tangible, and concrete result, the examiner should consider and weigh
the following factors:
-
“USEFUL RESULT”
For an invention to be “useful” it must satisfy the utility requirement of section 101. The USPTO’s official interpretation of the utility requirement provides that the utility of an invention has to be (i) specific, (ii) substantial and (iii) credible. MPEP §2107 and Fisher, 421 F.3d at ___, 76 USPQ2d at 1230 (citing the Utility Guidelines with approval for interpretation of “specific” and “substantial”). In addition, when the examiner has reason to believe that the claim is not for a practical application that produces a useful result, the claim should be rejected, thus requiring the applicant to distinguish the claim from the three § 101 judicial exceptions to patentable subject matter by specifically reciting in the claim the practical application. In such cases, statements in the specification describing a practical application may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for section 101 with respect to the claimed invention. Likewise, a claim that can be read so broadly as to include statutory and nonstatutory subject matter must be amended to limit the claim to a practical application. In other words, if the specification discloses a practical application of a § 101 judicial exception, but the claim is broader than the disclosure such that it does not require a practical application, then the claim must be rejected. - “TANGIBLE RESULT”
The tangible requirement does not necessarily mean that a claim must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a different state or thing. However, the tangible requirement does require that the claim must recite more than a § 101 judicial exception, in that the process claim must set forth a practical application of that § 101 judicial exception to produce a real-world result. Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676-77 (invention ineligible because had “no substantial practical application.”). “[A]n application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a … process may well be deserving of patent protection.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 209 USPQ at 8 (emphasis added); - “CONCRETE RESULT”
Another consideration is whether the invention produces a “concrete” result. Usually, this question arises when a result cannot be assured. In other words, the process must have a result that can be substantially repeatable or the process must substantially produce the same result again. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864, 56 USPQ2d 1703, 1704 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (where asserted result produced by the claimed invention is “irreproducible” claim should be rejected under section 101). The opposite of “concrete” is unrepeatable or unpredictable. Resolving this question is dependent on the level of skill in the art. For example, if the claimed invention is for a process which requires a particular skill, to determine whether that process is substantially repeatable will necessarily require a determination of the level of skill of the ordinary artisan in that field. An appropriate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be accompanied by a lack of enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, where the invention cannot operate as intended without undue experimentation.
In early 2010, the Supreme Court has held
that a "machine-or-transformation new test" is one of many new tests for determining the
patent-eligibility of processes. It states that a process patent must either be tied to a
particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or
materials to a “different state or thing.”
The USPTO's position, as of late 2010, is that Examiners should continue to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using the existing guidance concerning the machine-or-transformation new test as a tool for determining whether the claimed invention is a process under section 101. If a claimed method meets the machine-or-transformation new test, the method is likely patent eligible under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is directed to an abstract idea. If a claimed method does not meet the machine-or-transformation new test, the examiner should reject the claim under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea. If a claim is rejected under section 101 on the basis that it is drawn to an abstract idea, the applicant then has the opportunity to explain why the claimed method is not drawn to an abstract idea.