You are here:  Ed9 08.2017 Guidebook  » Chapter 2100

2106.06  Streamlined Analysis

MPEP SECTION SUMMARY For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis should be conducted to determine whether the claim recites significantly more than the judicial exception.

The results of the streamlined analysis will always be the same as the full analysis, thus the streamlined analysis is not a means of avoiding a finding of ineligibility that would occur if a claim were to undergo the full eligibility analysis.

• Similarly, a claim that qualifies as eligible after Step 2A (Pathway B) or Step 2B (Pathway C) of the full analysis would also be eligible if the streamlined analysis (Pathway A) were applied to that claim.

In the context of the flowchart, if, when viewed as a whole, the eligibility of the claim is self-evident (e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality), the claim is eligible at Pathway A, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis.

 

MPEP SECTION SUMMARY A streamlined eligibility analysis can be used for a claim that may or may not recite a judicial exception but, when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it.

Such claims do not need to proceed through the full analysis herein as their eligibility will be self-evident.

• On the other hand, a claim that does not qualify as eligible after Step 2B of the full analysis would not be suitable for the streamlined analysis, because the claim lacks self‐evident eligibility.

 

MPEP SECTION SUMMARY As explained by the Federal Circuit, some improvements to technology or to computer functionality are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus claims to such improvements do not always need to undergo the full eligibility analysis.

If the claims are a “close call” such that it is unclear whether the claims improve technology or computer functionality, a full eligibility analysis should be performed to determine eligibility.

• Only when the claims clearly improve technology or computer functionality, or otherwise have self-evident eligibility, should the streamlined analysis be used.

 

» 2106.07 Formulating and Supporting Rejections For Lack Of Subject Matter Eligibility