{"id":1601,"date":"2026-06-24T06:51:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T06:51:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test\/"},"modified":"2026-06-24T06:51:49","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T06:51:49","slug":"patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: 2-Step Alice Test"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-rank-math-toc-block\" id=\"rank-math-toc\"><h2>Table of Contents<\/h2><nav><ul><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#what-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-m\">What Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Means Under &sect; 101<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#the-alice-mayo-two-step-test-in-plain-en\">The Alice\/Mayo Two-Step Test in Plain English<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#how-the-uspto-examines-eligibility-the-2\">How the USPTO Examines Eligibility: The 2019 Guidance Framework<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#eligible-vs-ineligible-concrete-examples\">Eligible vs. Ineligible: Concrete Examples That Set the Line<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#drafting-tactics-that-survive-a-sect-101\">Drafting Tactics That Survive a &sect; 101 Rejection<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-sect-101-r\">What to Do When You Receive a &sect; 101 Rejection<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#how-perspireip-can-help-with-patent-elig\">How PerspireIP Can Help With Patent Eligibility<\/a><ul><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#t1\">What is patent subject matter eligibility?<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#t2\">What are the two steps of the Alice test?<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#t3\">Can software still be patented after Alice?<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#t4\">Does using AI to create an invention affect eligibility?<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#t5\">How do I respond to a Section 101 rejection?<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a href=\"#t6\">What&#8217;s the difference between Section 101 and Sections 102\/103?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>You spent two years building something genuinely new, filed a patent, and then the examiner says your invention is an &#8220;abstract idea&#8221; that nobody can own. Welcome to the most frustrating doctrine in patent law. <strong>Patent subject matter eligibility<\/strong> under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101 decides whether your invention is even the kind of thing a patent can protect &mdash; before novelty or non-obviousness ever come up. Most guides explain the rule and stop. This one shows you how the two-step Alice test actually works, where software, business methods, and diagnostics fall, and the concrete drafting moves that get a claim across the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-m\">What Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Means Under &sect; 101<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig1.jpg\" alt=\"Patent subject matter eligibility analysis under Section 101\" class=\"wp-image-1597\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig1.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig1-300x169.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig1-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig1-768x432.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Photo: <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=136327304\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Ghalib Law Library Books on the shelve<\/a> by Iliaswiki23 (<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/35\/101\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Section 101 of the Patent Act<\/a> says you can patent &#8220;any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.&#8221; Those four buckets are the statutory categories. If your claim doesn&#8217;t fit one of them, it&#8217;s out before the analysis even starts &mdash; though in practice that&#8217;s rarely the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The real fight is over a rule the Supreme Court read into the statute. Over more than a century, the Court carved out three things you cannot patent no matter how you claim them. These are the <strong>judicial exceptions<\/strong>, and patent subject matter eligibility turns almost entirely on whether your claim falls into one of them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Abstract ideas<\/strong> &mdash; mathematical concepts and formulas, certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions), and mental processes a person could perform in their head or with pen and paper.<\/li><li><strong>Laws of nature<\/strong> &mdash; naturally occurring principles and relationships, such as the correlation between a drug dose and a metabolite level in the blood.<\/li><li><strong>Natural phenomena<\/strong> &mdash; products of nature that haven&#8217;t been meaningfully transformed, like an isolated gene sequence or a naturally occurring bacterium.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The logic is that no one should monopolize the basic tools of science and commerce. The hard part is that almost every invention uses an abstract idea or a natural law somewhere. The question is never &#8220;does the claim touch one,&#8221; but &#8220;does the claim do enough beyond it.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-alice-mayo-two-step-test-in-plain-en\">The Alice\/Mayo Two-Step Test in Plain English<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig2.jpg\" alt=\"Two-step Alice Mayo eligibility test flowchart on a whiteboard\" class=\"wp-image-1598\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig2.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig2-300x169.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig2-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig2-768x432.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Photo: <a href=\"https:\/\/stocksnap.io\/photo\/flowchart-whiteboard-CDC8HFPYWR\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Flowchart Whiteboard<\/a> by Startup Stock Photos (<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/publicdomain\/zero\/1.0\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">CC0 1.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The framework comes from two Supreme Court cases. <em>Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories<\/em> (2012) supplied the structure for laws of nature; <em>Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International<\/em> (2014) extended it to abstract ideas and gave us the version examiners and courts use today. It&#8217;s a two-step inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Step 1: Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?<\/strong> The examiner reads your claim and asks whether, at its core, it&#8217;s aimed at an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. A claim to &#8220;a method of hedging financial risk&#8221; is directed to a fundamental economic practice &mdash; an abstract idea. If the claim isn&#8217;t directed to an exception at all, it&#8217;s eligible and the analysis stops. If it is, you move to step two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Step 2: Is there an inventive concept &mdash; something significantly more?<\/strong> Here the examiner looks at the claim&#8217;s elements, individually and as an ordered combination, to see whether they add enough to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application. Generic computer hardware doing what computers normally do is not enough. Reciting the exception and then saying &#8220;apply it&#8221; is not enough. You need a concrete, non-conventional implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The clearest contrast in the case law is <em>Diamond v. Diehr<\/em> (1981), still cited as the eligible side of the line. The claim used a well-known mathematical equation but tied it to a specific process for curing rubber &mdash; constantly measuring mold temperature and using the calculation to control when the press opened. The claim wasn&#8217;t trying to own the equation; it improved a physical manufacturing process. That&#8217;s an inventive concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-the-uspto-examines-eligibility-the-2\">How the USPTO Examines Eligibility: The 2019 Guidance Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Examiners don&#8217;t apply Alice freehand. They follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now baked into <strong>MPEP &sect; 2106<\/strong>. The guidance breaks the two-step test into a more predictable flow, which is good news because it gives you specific places to win.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Step 1<\/strong> &mdash; Does the claim fall within a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, composition)? Almost always yes.<\/li><li><strong>Step 2A, Prong One<\/strong> &mdash; Does the claim recite a judicial exception? The examiner checks whether it recites a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. If no, the claim is eligible.<\/li><li><strong>Step 2A, Prong Two<\/strong> &mdash; If it does recite an exception, do the additional elements integrate it into a practical application? A claimed improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology gets you out here, before you ever reach the inventive-concept search.<\/li><li><strong>Step 2B<\/strong> &mdash; If the claim is still directed to an exception, do the additional elements amount to significantly more &mdash; an inventive concept that&#8217;s more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity?<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>The practical takeaway: Prong Two is your best friend. If you can frame your invention as a specific technical improvement, you can secure eligibility at Step 2A without ever arguing about &#8220;inventive concept.&#8221; That&#8217;s why how you draft the improvement matters so much &mdash; more on that below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In July 2024, the USPTO issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/about-us\/news-updates\/uspto-issues-ai-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">guidance update addressing AI-assisted inventions<\/a>, with three new worked examples (Examples 47&ndash;49). The headline point: the fact that an invention was developed with help from AI does not affect its eligibility. What matters is the claimed invention itself &mdash; whether it recites an exception and whether it improves a technology. If you&#8217;re working in this space, our guide to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patenting-ai-inventions\">patenting AI inventions<\/a> goes deeper on how machine-learning claims fare under &sect; 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"eligible-vs-ineligible-concrete-examples\">Eligible vs. Ineligible: Concrete Examples That Set the Line<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig3.jpg\" alt=\"Engineer reviewing software claims for patent eligibility\" class=\"wp-image-1599\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig3.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig3-300x169.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig3-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig3-768x432.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Photo: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.rawpixel.com\/image\/463152\/free-photo-image-software-engineering-programming-internet\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Closeup binary coding screen<\/a> by Markus Spiske (<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/publicdomain\/zero\/1.0\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">CC0 1.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Abstract rules are hard to apply. Real fact patterns are easier. Here&#8217;s how the line tends to fall across the three areas where &sect; 101 bites hardest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Software.<\/strong> A claim to &#8220;collecting data, analyzing it, and displaying the result&#8221; on a generic computer is the classic ineligible software claim &mdash; it automates a mental process without improving the computer. Compare a claim that changes how a database is structured to run searches faster, or improves how a network handles traffic. Courts have upheld claims directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality. The dividing question is whether the computer is the tool or the thing being improved &mdash; see our deeper treatment of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/software-patents-what-can-cannot-be-patented\">what can and cannot be patented in software<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Business methods.<\/strong> This is the hardest category. <em>Bilski v. Kappos<\/em> (2010) struck down a claim to hedging risk in commodities trading as an abstract idea, and <em>Alice<\/em> did the same to computerized escrow settlement. A business method claimed at the level of &#8220;the idea, plus a computer&#8221; almost always fails. The rare survivors solve a problem that&#8217;s specifically rooted in technology &mdash; for example, a way of doing something on the internet that overrides how the internet conventionally behaves &mdash; rather than just moving an offline business practice online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Diagnostics.<\/strong> <em>Mayo<\/em> set the trap here. A claim that observes a natural correlation &mdash; &#8220;measure the metabolite, and if it&#8217;s above X, adjust the dose&#8221; &mdash; is directed to a law of nature, and routine &#8220;determining&#8221; and &#8220;administering&#8221; steps don&#8217;t save it. Eligible diagnostic claims generally need a new, non-conventional technique to detect or apply the correlation, or a specific treatment step that does more than tell a doctor to think about a natural relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"drafting-tactics-that-survive-a-sect-101\">Drafting Tactics That Survive a &sect; 101 Rejection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This is where most guides go quiet. Eligibility isn&#8217;t only decided by what you invented &mdash; it&#8217;s heavily shaped by how the claim and specification are written. These are the moves that consistently improve your odds before the examiner ever picks up the file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Frame a specific technical improvement.<\/strong> Don&#8217;t claim a result (&#8220;reduce fraud,&#8221; &#8220;improve efficiency&#8221;). Claim how the system achieves it in a way that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology. The specification should name the technical problem and explain, in detail, the technical solution &mdash; that disclosure is what Step 2A, Prong Two rewards.<\/li><li><strong>Claim concrete steps and structure, not pure outcomes.<\/strong> Result-oriented claiming (&#8220;a system that determines the optimal price&#8221;) invites an abstract-idea rejection. Recite the specific operations, data transformations, and components that produce the result.<\/li><li><strong>Avoid generic, conventional language for the technical parts.<\/strong> &#8220;A processor configured to&#8221; plus an abstract idea reads as &#8220;apply it on a computer.&#8221; Tie the steps to non-conventional structure or an unconventional ordered combination of elements.<\/li><li><strong>Anchor the abstract part to something concrete.<\/strong> A physical transformation, a measurement, a sensor input, a specific hardware interaction, or a change in how a machine operates can pull a claim out of the abstract bucket.<\/li><li><strong>Build a layered claim set.<\/strong> Use independent claims for breadth and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-claims-independent-vs-dependent\">dependent claims<\/a> to add the technical detail you can fall back on if the independent claim draws a &sect; 101 rejection.<\/li><li><strong>Write the specification to support eligibility.<\/strong> Your <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-abstract-writing-guide\">abstract and detailed description<\/a> should make the technical improvement obvious to a reader. You can usually only argue from what the spec already discloses, so put the improvement story in there from the start.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>None of this is clever wording for its own sake. It&#8217;s about making sure the genuine technical contribution you actually made shows up clearly in the claim and the disclosure &mdash; because an examiner can only credit what&#8217;s on the page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-sect-101-r\">What to Do When You Receive a &sect; 101 Rejection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig4.jpg\" alt=\"Patent attorney drafting a response to a Section 101 office action\" class=\"wp-image-1600\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig4.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig4-300x169.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig4-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-subject-matter-eligibility-alice-test-fig4-768x432.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Photo: <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=113579760\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Bullshit Bingo &#8211; Wood Green Style<\/a> by Alan Stanton (<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>A &sect; 101 rejection is common, not fatal. The examiner has to make a specific case, and that gives you specific openings to push back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Read the rejection precisely.<\/strong> Identify which exception the examiner says you recite (which abstract-idea grouping?) and exactly where they say the analysis fails &mdash; Prong Two or Step 2B. Your response is only as good as the part of the framework it targets.<\/li><li><strong>Argue Prong Two first.<\/strong> If you can show the additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application &mdash; a real improvement to technology &mdash; you win at Step 2A and skip the inventive-concept fight entirely.<\/li><li><strong>Attack the &#8220;conventional&#8221; finding.<\/strong> Under <em>Berkheimer<\/em>, whether an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a factual question. If the examiner just asserts it, you can demand evidence and point to your specification showing the combination isn&#8217;t conventional.<\/li><li><strong>Amend toward the technical detail.<\/strong> Pull specific, eligibility-supporting limitations from your dependent claims or specification into the independent claim. This is where a layered claim set pays off.<\/li><li><strong>Use the USPTO&#8217;s own examples.<\/strong> The guidance examples (including the 2024 AI set) are persuasive with examiners. Map your claim to an example the office already treats as eligible.<\/li><li><strong>Request an interview.<\/strong> A short call with the examiner often resolves a &sect; 101 rejection faster than another written round.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>If amendments and arguments stall, you still have appeal options. But the cheapest fix is almost always the one you build in at drafting &mdash; which is why getting eligibility right before you file beats arguing about it for two years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-perspireip-can-help-with-patent-elig\">How PerspireIP Can Help With Patent Eligibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Eligibility is won or lost in the claims and the specification, long before the office action arrives. PerspireIP&#8217;s patent professionals draft software, AI, and life-sciences applications with the Alice framework in mind &mdash; framing the technical improvement, building layered claim sets, and crafting disclosures that hold up under &sect; 101. Already facing a rejection? We respond strategically, targeting the exact prong the examiner relied on. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/contact\">Contact us<\/a> to protect your invention the right way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>This article is general information, not legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for your situation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"faq\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n<div id=\"rank-math-faq\" class=\"rank-math-block\">\n<div class=\"rank-math-list \">\n<div id=\"t1\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">What is patent subject matter eligibility?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>It&#8217;s the threshold question under 35 U.S.C. 101 of whether your invention is the kind of thing a patent can protect at all. A claim must fit a statutory category and must not be directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon) without adding significantly more.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"t2\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">What are the two steps of the Alice test?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>Step 1 asks whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Step 2 asks whether the claim adds an inventive concept &mdash; something significantly more than the exception itself. The USPTO subdivides Step 1 into Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"t3\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">Can software still be patented after Alice?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>Yes. Software claims directed to a specific improvement in how a computer or technology functions remain eligible. Claims that simply automate a known process or business method on a generic computer are the ones that fail.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"t4\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">Does using AI to create an invention affect eligibility?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>No. The USPTO&#8217;s July 2024 guidance update confirms that whether an invention was made with AI assistance is not relevant to subject matter eligibility. The analysis focuses on the claimed invention itself.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"t5\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">How do I respond to a Section 101 rejection?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>Pinpoint which exception and which prong the examiner relied on, then argue that your additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) or amount to significantly more (Step 2B). Amending to add specific technical limitations and requesting an examiner interview often help.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"t6\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">What&#8217;s the difference between Section 101 and Sections 102\/103?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>Section 101 governs eligibility &mdash; whether the invention is patentable subject matter. Sections 102 and 103 govern novelty and non-obviousness &mdash; whether it&#8217;s new and not obvious over the prior art. A claim must clear all three.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A practitioner&#8217;s guide to patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the two-step Alice\/Mayo test, with eligible vs ineligible examples and drafting tactics that beat a 101 rejection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1602,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[332,316,63,198,80],"class_list":["post-1601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-patent","tag-alice-test","tag-patent-eligibility","tag-patent-prosecution","tag-section-101","tag-uspto"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1601","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1601\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1602"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}