In some of my prosecution cases, some claims were / are rejected under 35 USC 101. In order to develop rebuttal arguments, I need to check the latest USPTO guideline(s) about the 101 SME (Subject Matter Eligibility).
First, the following is the link for the 2019 PEG (Patent Eligibility Guideline) published in January 2019: https://www.regulations.gov/document/PTO-P-2019-0034-0001
Second, the 2019 PEG was updated in October 2019 after the USPTO received public comments about the 2019 PEG: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf
Also, it is very helpful to review the USPTO’s training materials preprared for its examiners (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/training-materials-subject-matter-eligibility):
Current training on patent subject matter eligibility
- Step 1: Statutory requirements and four categories of invention (posted September 24, 2015)
- Step 2A: Revised examination procedures in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)
- Subject Matter Eligibility: Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (posted May 7, 2018)
Also, the four categories of statutory subject matter, as defined by MPEP 2106(I) [Roman numeral I] , include (1) process; (2) machine; (3) manufacture; and (4) composition of matter.
Process is defined as “an act, or series of acts or steps”
Machine is defined as “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices”
Manufacture is defined as “an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by handlabor or by machinery”
Composition of Matter is defined as “all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids, for example”