Lessons of Wisdom Following Athena SCOTUS Denial and October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update

By Jay S. Pattumudi
February 20, 2020

“In view of the continued denial of cases like Athena involving patent subject matter eligibility by the Supreme Court, patent practitioners and clients alike need to pay more attention to the issued USPTO guidance documents and relevant Federal Circuit case law.”

https://depositphotos.com/4191440/stock-photo-pallas-athena.htmlThis article relates to key practice pointers for making a claim patent-eligible subject matter according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) October 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019 PEG Update).

The October 2019 PEG Update expands on the January 2019 PEG (Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). In view of the continued denial of cases involving patent subject matter eligibility, such as Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 915 F.3d 743 (Feb. 6, 2019) by the U.S. Supreme Court, patent practitioners and clients alike need to pay more attention to the issued guidance documents and relevant Federal Circuit case law. Accordingly, one needs to have strategies in place for dealing with compliance of patent claims with 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The steps of the Section 101 examination process, i.e., Step 1, Step 2A and Step 2B,  can be summarized as follows:

  • Step 1 asks whether the claim is to “a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter” [Update on Section 101 Guidelines, May 9, 2019 at page 6]. The mere recitation of a judicial exception in a claim does not make that claim “directed” to that judicial exception.
  • Step 2A generally asks whether the claim is directed to “a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea” [Id.]  Step 2A is divided into two prongs.
    • Prong One of Step 2A asks whether the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon [Id.] If a claim satisfies Prong One of Step 2A, then further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A needs to occur [Id.]
    • Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [Id.]
    • If Prong Two of Step 2A is satisfied, i.e., a claim fails to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, one proceeds to Step 2B.  Step 2B is the final step of the Section 101 examination process
  • Step 2B asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [Id.] Based on such analysis, a final determination of whether a claim is patent-eligible under Section 101 can be made.

The focus of this article relates to (1) avoiding mental process claim rejections; and (2) making a claim patent-eligible by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, with special considerations given to improvements in technology and medical treatment claims, as discussed below.

Avoiding Mental Process Claim Rejections

A claim limitation that recites a mental process is an example of an “abstract idea” claim limitation, which, by itself, is patent-ineligible under Section 101.

Patent practitioners and clients should be advised that claims “recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions” [October 2019 PEG Update at page 7.] On the other hand, a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data cannot be practically performed in the mind and hence is patent-eligible under Section 101 [Id., citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (distinguishing the claims in TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc.)].

Patent practitioners and clients should also be aware that claims, nevertheless, can still recite a mental process even where a claim recites use of a physical aid (e.g., a pen or paper) or performance of a mental step by a computer [Id. at pages 8-9]. In an example of unpatentable mental process, the October 2019 PEG Update pointed out a claim that recited the steps of voting, verifying the vote and submitting the vote for tabulation [Id. at page 8, citing Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC.] Those steps constituted a patent-ineligible mental process because they could be performed in the human mind even though the steps were recited as being performed using a computer in the claim [Id. at pages 8-9].

Making a Claim Patent-Eligible by Integrating the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application

  • Improvements in Technology for Section 101 considerations

Significantly, the October 2019 PEG Update noted that the mere presence of a judicial exception under Prong One of Step 2A does not make the claim patent ineligible under Prong Two of Step 2A if that claim, as a whole, “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception” [Id. at page 10]. In that regard, additional claim limitations that reflect improvement in computer functioning or improvement to another technology or technical field integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application; such limitations impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, rendering a claim patent-eligible under Section 101 [Id. at page 11]. For example, a claim that recited a plurality of network monitors to analyze specific network traffic and integrating generated reports from the monitors to identify hackers and intruders on the network has claim features that demonstrated an improvement to computer network functioning [Id. at page 11].

Also, improvements in technology for Section 101 considerations also apply to life sciences inventions and any other technology. For example, the October 2019 PEG Update noted the Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc. case, where a new and improved way for preserving hepatocytes was deemed to be an improvement in technology even though the claim was based on natural discoveries [Id. at page 13]. This is good news for patent practitioners and clients alike. Accordingly, an improvement to any technology, irrespective of technical field, is a factor to consider in determining whether a claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A.

Moreover, patent practitioners should make sure that the specification discloses improvements as recited in the claim, in view of the USPTO instructing evaluation of the specification by examiners in that regard [Id. at page 11]. Accordingly, patent practitioners can possibly avoid the need to provide rebuttal arguments and submitting additional evidence via a Rule 132 affidavit in a situation where the examiner raises an issue concerning whether the specification discloses the improvement [Id. at page 13].

  • Avoiding rejections of medical treatment claims

For medical treatment claims, integration of a judicial exception into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition can be evaluated by the following three exemplary factors.

  • Treatment/prophylaxis claim limitation should be “particular”

Patent practitioners, when drafting claims for medical treatments, should make sure that the claim is “particular, i.e., specifically identified, and is one that does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception” [Id. at page 14.] For example, in a medical treatment claim for a patent having a genotype associated with poor metabolism of beta blocker medications, a claim reciting “administering a lower than normal dosage of beta blocker medication” successfully integrates an unpatentable mental analysis step into a practical application [Id. at page 14.] The mentioned claim limitation meets the mentioned “particularity” requirement” [Id. at page 14.] On the other hand, a claim limitation that simply recites “administering a suitable medication to a patient,” would not satisfy Section 101; it is “instead merely instructions that ‘apply’ the exception in a generic way” [Id. at page 14.]

  • Treatment/prophylaxis claim limitation having some relationship to the judicial exception

Secondly, a claim limitation, even though it is “particular,” must have some relationship to the unpatentable judicial exception also recited in the same claim. For example, a claim that recites a natural correlation (law of nature) between blood glucose levels over 250 mg/dl and the risk of developing ketoacidosis, can be made patent-eligible if it recites an administration step of “treating a patient having a blood glucose level over 250 mg/dl with insulin” [Id. at page 14.]  Once again, this administration step is “particular,” and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application [Id. at page 14.]  However, if that claim, using the mentioned natural correlation, instead recites “treating a patient having a blood glucose level over 250 mg/dl with Aspirin,” such a claim does not integrate the law of nature into a practical application” [Id. at page 14.] In this case, aspirin has no connection with ketoacidosis treatment or prevention [Id. at page 14.]

  • Treatment/prophylaxis claim limitation imposing meaningful limits on the judicial exception

In addition, integrating a judicial exception into a practical exception for treatment claims can also be achieved by including a claim limitation that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, as the following shows.

The October 2019 PEG Update considered a hypothetical claim having the following elements in the claim [Id. at pages 14–15]:

  • administering rabies and feline leukemia vaccines to a first group of domestic cats in accordance with different vaccination schedules;
  • analyzing information about the vaccination schedules and whether the cats later developed chronic immune-mediated disorders to determine a lowest risk vaccination schedule; and
  • vaccinating a second group of domestic cats in accordance with the lowest-risk vaccination schedule.

Steps of the mentioned claim must be evaluated as a whole as noted as follows. For instance, step (a) is viewed as merely gathering data for a patent-ineligible mental analysis step and merely constitutes “extra-solution” activity, because it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [ Id. at pages 14–15]. Also, step (b), like step (a), is patent-ineligible because it is classified as being within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas [Id. at pages 14–15]. However, since a claim must be considered as a whole when evaluating additional elements of a claim, step (c) makes the claim patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 even though other limitations of the claim are not patent-eligible on their own [Id. at pages 14–15]. Step (c) applies the judicial exception by using the information from step (b) in order to determine the timeframe for vaccinating cats according to the lowest-risk vaccination schedule [Id. at pages 14–15].

For further examples relating to subject matter eligibility, patent practitioners and clients are advised to review the Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.

Practice Pointers

Consider the following five points when drafting the specification and claims in order to preemptively avoid Section 101 rejections:

(1) think of the concept best stated in Aristotle’s quote “[t]he whole is greater than the sum of parts” when claim-drafting for Section 101 purposes. Accordingly, additional limitations in a claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application can make a claim patent-eligible under Section 101 even though there are unpatentable parts within a claim;

(2) in view of the point (1), a claim, as a whole, which can be performed mentally despite reciting limitations concerning use of a pen or a computer, is still patent-ineligible;

(3) improvements in technology, irrespective of technical field, are important considerations for weighing patent-eligibility under Section 101; thus, such improvements in technology should be disclosed in the specification and be tied to specific limitations in a claim;

(4) for medical treatment claims, make sure to introduce specificity into the claims such as reciting a specific drug or dosage regimen in the claim and tying those specific details with the unpatentable judicial exception; and

(5) introduce meaningful limits on the judicial exception that go beyond recitation of a data-gathering step or a mental process.

By keeping in mind the October 2019 PEG Update’s suggestions and analysis, potential roadblocks to patent eligibility under Section 101 rejections might be avoided.

Acknowledgments: The author greatly appreciates the helpful comments by his colleagues, Irv N. Feit, Ph.D. and Laurence Manber, Ph.D. on a preliminary draft of this article.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 4191440
Copyright: jorisvo 

The Author

Jay S. Pattumudi

Jay S. Pattumudi is counsel at Lucas and Mercanti, LLP, with several years of patent counseling, opinion and prosecution experience. He has prosecuted patent applications in various technological fields including biotechnology, chemical and pharmaceutical areas, material science, mechanical matters and medical devices.

This article is for general information and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

For more information or to contact Jay, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 12 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Concerned February 20, 2020 3:49 pm

    And then reality hits. The USPTO examiner does not follow his boss’ directives. Or his Deputy Director’s memos. Insubordination seems to be the rule of the day.

    As I read this article, I agree and I agree and I agree. Then I read my rejection where the examiner readily admits I solved a problem of 64 years that was beyond the reach of 100s of thousands of experts and working professionals. And yet allegedly no practical application per the examiner on a process that ensures legal compliance and minimizes financial hardship and loss.

    Ironically my State was just hit with a $5.9 billion Medicaid audit finding. Perhaps my state should reply “no practical application” and reject
    the CMS’ audit findings.

    The book that shares my story points out how the USPTO rejection (one federal agency) is in direct conflict with two other federal agencies (Social Security administration and CMS). That’s the folly of folly.

    Assigning no fault to the author, this article states the theory but not the reality, unless your IBM of course .

  2. Anon February 20, 2020 3:54 pm

    ALL of this runs for naught given the actual evidence already on record (and referred to as the Cleveland Clinic condition).

  3. Josh Malone February 20, 2020 5:44 pm

    Follow these tips and you too can get a pretty new pretend patent (frame not included). The new edition does not have a red ribbon though, so perhaps not worth the $15K.

  4. Jay Pattumudi February 20, 2020 8:02 pm

    The comments by Concerned are interesting. As some of my contacts note, even if you do try to adhere to the Guidelines, you will still get an improper rejection. That’s why I end the article by stating “[b]y keeping in mind the October 2019 PEG Update’s suggestions and analysis, potential roadblocks to patent eligibility under Section 101 rejections MIGHT be avoided” (with MIGHT in “large caps,” as I emphasize now).

  5. angry dude February 20, 2020 8:02 pm

    You can keep trying putting lipstick on a pig all you want

    But inventors are not stupid and don’t file patent applications in US anymore

    Fool me once – shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me

  6. Jay Pattumudi February 20, 2020 8:09 pm

    Josh Malone,

    Unfortunately, Section 101 law is such a mess. We need legislative reform by Congress in that regard. Unfortunately, it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

  7. Concerned February 20, 2020 8:24 pm

    Mr. Malone:

    I watched some of your interviews and perhaps I have been lucky to receive rejection after rejection.

    Your patents: 60 top attorneys and $20 million in ligation costs on your “successful” court case.

    I signed the US Inventor petition last night as you suggested. I hope that signing does not upset the USPTO and they retaliate by GRANTING me the patent. I do not know if I can find 60 attorneys to defend me. Perhaps the Russian army could defend me; I hear they are not busy.

  8. angry dude February 21, 2020 12:02 am

    Concerned @5

    “Your patents: 60 top attorneys and $20 million in ligation costs on your “successful” court case.”

    For a bunch of water balloons…

    I bought a lot of them at Walmart last summer (the official legal version, of course) – my little daughter likes to have them for summer parties with friends

    But it just boggles my mind that you have to spend 20M to defend your patent on a bunch of water balloons…

    Welcome to America circa 2020 !

    P.S. Don’t count on Russian army – dudes are busy just trying to survive
    When I was there many many years ago we were growing pigs behind rocket launch pad to feed ourselves …

  9. Pro Say February 21, 2020 5:58 pm

    A keeper for sure Jay — thanks.

    It’s important to note, however, that the PTO’s October Guidance concerning (alleged) multiple abstract ideas (I.B.) is in fact wrong; untethered as it is from SCOTUS’ Alice / Mayo eligibility analysis

    Any and all PTAB, court (including CAFC) decisions relying on such are infirm:

    “We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement …” Alice at 2352

    “First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice at 2355

    “We must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice at 2355

    “The claims at issue in Bilski described a method for hedging against the financial risk of price fluctuations.” Alice at 2355

    “It follows from our prior cases, and Bilski in particular, that the claims at issue here are directed to an abstract idea.” Alice at 2356

    “Because the claims at issue are directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement …”Alice at 2357

    “First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Mayo at 1296-1297

    In each case the Supreme Court stated one concept and stood by that one concept.

    Start to finish.

    Beginning to end.

    Never wavering in their rulings.

    The Patent Office and our Courts are legally required to do the same:

    State one concept and stand by it.

    Not two. Not three. Not four or more.

    One.

    Furthermore, there’s also not a word in any Supreme Court decision about abstract ideas being characterized at different levels of abstraction being acceptable.

    No room in any of their decisions for different levels of abstraction being acceptable.

    Accordingly, any and all PTAB, court (including CAFC) decisions to the contrary are also infirm.

  10. Jay Pattumudi February 21, 2020 8:52 pm

    Pro Say, thank you for your insightful comments. Keep in mind that most patent examiners are not attorneys, and the PTO often wants to try to enunciate bright line rules. Oftentimes those rules are agency interpretations of case law, which may not be accurate, as you mentioned. The PTO note that the 2019 PEG
    “does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law,” so we have to appeal and assert that the rejection under section 101 is in error and contrary to applicable precedent.

  11. BJ February 24, 2020 5:06 am

    I have not had a problem with claims to methods of medical treatment under Section 101. However, I have had lots of grief for claims directed to methods of diagnosis/prognosis which would be rendered fairly useless commercially if they had to have a treatment step added to be eligible subject matter. Many of the prognostic methods are rejected as being mere correlation of natural phenomenon even though the method has practical value. Jay, do you have any comments on diagnostic method claims?

  12. Jay Pattumudi February 24, 2020 11:30 am

    BJ, thanks for your comments.Unfortunately, my contacts have not had success getting allowed the diagnostic method claims presented in their applications. This is not legal advice, of course, but legislative reform of section 101 is needed.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website