Key takeaways for me. 1st, an abstract idea has to fit into 3 categories:
Note: 'Judicial Exemption' in the SFOR context means that if SFOR patents are not considered to land in any one of the 3 groupings below for abstract ideas that they would NOT fall within a Judicial Exemption or, in other words, would be considered valid and enforceable.
The 2019 Guidelines revise this procedure to be based on subject matter groupings of abstract ideas set forth in Section I of the 2019 Guidelines. These include (i) mathematical concepts, (ii) certain methods of organizing human activity and (iii) mental processes.[/b] Thus, when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the examiners must now identify the specific limitation in the claim and determine whether such identified limitation falls within one of these three groups. If a claim is not directed toward a judicial exception, then the inquiry ends at Prong One of Step 2A, and the claim of the patent application is determined to be patent eligible
2nd. Even if the patents fell within the 3 groupings, more examination is required and NOW, there is an exemption, quote:
'if the claim recites a judicial exception, then the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
In Prong Two of Step 2A, the examiners must evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a "practical application" of the exception. This prong is new to prior Step 2A. In fact, if the recited exception is integrated into a "practical application," then the claim is determined to be patent eligible at Step 2A, and the eligibility analysis is concluded. The 2019 Guidelines state that a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a "practical application" will "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." However, if the elements of the claim do not integrate the exception into a "practical application," then further analysis is required under Step 2B. The "practical application" analysis specifically excludes whether the additional elements in a claim represent well-understood, routine and conventional activity, which is an analysis now performed in Step 2B.
Winds of change are here...
Note: 'Judicial Exemption' in the SFOR context means that if SFOR patents are not considered to land in any one of the 3 groupings below for abstract ideas that they would NOT fall within a Judicial Exemption or, in other words, would be considered valid and enforceable.
The 2019 Guidelines revise this procedure to be based on subject matter groupings of abstract ideas set forth in Section I of the 2019 Guidelines. These include (i) mathematical concepts, (ii) certain methods of organizing human activity and (iii) mental processes.[/b] Thus, when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the examiners must now identify the specific limitation in the claim and determine whether such identified limitation falls within one of these three groups. If a claim is not directed toward a judicial exception, then the inquiry ends at Prong One of Step 2A, and the claim of the patent application is determined to be patent eligible
2nd. Even if the patents fell within the 3 groupings, more examination is required and NOW, there is an exemption, quote:
'if the claim recites a judicial exception, then the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
In Prong Two of Step 2A, the examiners must evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a "practical application" of the exception. This prong is new to prior Step 2A. In fact, if the recited exception is integrated into a "practical application," then the claim is determined to be patent eligible at Step 2A, and the eligibility analysis is concluded. The 2019 Guidelines state that a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a "practical application" will "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." However, if the elements of the claim do not integrate the exception into a "practical application," then further analysis is required under Step 2B. The "practical application" analysis specifically excludes whether the additional elements in a claim represent well-understood, routine and conventional activity, which is an analysis now performed in Step 2B.
Winds of change are here...
5
