Abstract Ideas: The Patent Office’s First Take on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

by K&L Gates LLP


The United States Patent Office periodically issues guidelines for Examiners, often in response to a recent court decision or new statute. These guidelines do not have the force of law, but nevertheless establish the specific procedures that examiners apply during examination of patent applications. Consequently, consider these guidelines when preparing new patent applications and prosecuting pending patent applications.

New examination guidelines were issued on June 25, 2014 (the “Guidelines”),[1] in response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International[2] that addressed the subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims related to an abstract idea.[3] The Guidelines provide preliminary instructions for analyzing claims involving an abstract idea, and the applicability of these instructions to many technology areas. As such, they are worthy of attention from applicants in the software and business method fields, as well as in other areas. Although the Patent Office has not yet finalized the Guidelines, the preliminary version governs examination presently and provides insight into the Patent Office’s own understanding of the case law and how it will be applied during day-to-day prosecution of applications.

The Guidelines

The recent court decision on which the Guidelines are based, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, addressed the patent eligibility of a method for reducing settlement risk by effecting trades through a third-party intermediary, a computer system configured to carry out the method, and a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the method. From this decision, the Patent Office developed the Guidelines; however, Examiners will not limit their use to cases involving business transactions. Examiners will use a test outlinedin the Guidelines to determine the patent eligibility of all categories of claims. Furthermore, the test complements, but does not supersede, previous guidelines based on Prometheus v. Mayo that are used to analyze the patent subject-matter eligibility of claims involving natural laws and natural products.[4] The Patent Office states that the new Guidelines differ from the previous framework in two ways, namely (i) claims involving abstract ideas should not be treated differently than other claims when determining subject-matter eligibility and (ii) the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, instead of treating product claims and process claims differently.

The test outlined in the Guidelines includes two steps: (i) determine if the claim is directed to an abstract idea[5] and (ii) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element or combination of elements ensures that the claim is directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.[6]

Consequences for Patent Practice

With its first step focused on the notion of “an abstract idea”, the test may ultimately be applied to many technology areas because the Patent Office, like the Supreme Court in the opinion for CLS Bank v. Alice, does not provide a definition of an abstract idea, leaving the meaning of the term and the scope of the test open to interpretation. However, the Patent Office does provide a few examples of abstract ideas, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical relationships and formulae, and “and idea itself.”[7] While these examples of abstract ideas suggest that analyzing patent claims to avoid abstraction will continue to be important for inventors with patent applications directed to software or business methods, there is little guidance as to the scope ofwhat may constitute an abstract idea. Therefore, anyone with applications outside these areas should also expect to see rejections under this new test, particularly if the claim involves application of a technique using a computer.

Building upon the Patent Office’s recent guidelines on natural laws and natural products based on the teachings of the Prometheus v. Mayo and Myriad[8] cases, the new Guidelines provide a familiar read with respect to whether a claim directed to an abstract idea claims “significantly more” than the judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. Similar to the previous guidelines for natural products and natural laws, the test based on CLS Bank v. Alice sets forth factors and characteristics to which Examiners and applicants may analogize to provide information on precisely when a claim recites “significantly more” than an abstract idea and, thus, claims patent-eligible subject matter. The test suggests that if the claims include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of a computer (as opposed to mere implementation of an idea using a computer), or other meaningful limitations beyond linking the idea to a technological environment, then the claim will likely be directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In contrast, claims that only apply the abstract idea, implement it using a computer, or require a computer to perform known and generic functions or conventional activities will likely not be patent-eligible. The Patent Office is expected to provide additional examples and clarification upon release of final guidelines.

Further Clarification from the Patent Office

As the present Guidelines are only preliminary, the Patent Office will come out with final instructions in due course. Nevertheless, there are some hints as to the form the final guidelines may take. For example, the previous natural laws and natural products guidelines currently note that claims that may be directed to abstract ideas should be examined separately;[9] however, as expressly noted in the memorandum accompanying the present Guidelines, the Prometheus v. Mayo framework is also applied.[10] In light of this, the Patent Office will likely provide a series of examples applying factors similar to those in the natural laws and natural products guidelines. The Patent Office may even provide a new combination document addressing how claims including any type of judicial exception should be treated.

At present, the Patent Office is seeking comments and feedback from the public. Based on analysis of the preliminary guidelines and comment process that led to the final guidelines for examination of claims directed to natural laws or natural products, the comment process will likely play a large role in shaping the structure and details of the final guidelines for abstract ideas. Accordingly, applicants with portfolios including applications that may be interpreted to include an abstract idea, regardless of the technology area, should strongly consider submitting comments to the Patent Office regarding the scope and application of the Guidelines.


Time will tell whether more frequent non-statutory subject matter rejections will result from the preliminary instructions based on CLS Bank v. Alice. New rejections may also be seen in areas outside of business methods or software as well. Preventing or overcoming these rejections may be possible using a forward-thinking approach that includes adding detailed descriptions of all elements that could be understood to be “significantly more” than just an abstract idea, such as improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or limitations beyond a general link between the abstract idea and a particular technological environment.


[1] Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Deputy Comm’r for Pat. Examination Pol’y, to Pat. Examining Corps (June 25, 2014) [hereinafter Guidelines] available at http:// http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf.

[2] Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, slip op. (2014).

[3] 35 U.S.C. § 101 states as follows: “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.”

[4] Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

[5] Guidelines at 2-3.

[6] Id. at 3.

[7] Id. at 2–3.

[8] Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)

[9] Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Deputy Comm’r for Pat. Examination Pol’y, to Pat. Examining Corps at 2 (March 4, 2014) available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf.

[10] Guidelines at 2.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.