• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent application process / After Filing a Patent Application / Drafting tip: software applications and responses to office actions

Drafting tip: software applications and responses to office actions

November 20, 2015 by James Yang

helpfultipBottom line:  Patent applications directed to software inventions should be written to disclose the result and the effect of the software, but more importantly, the mechanism of the result or effect of the software.  Doing so may increase the odds that the software invention will be considered to be eligible for patent protection.  Nevertheless, inventors should be aware that current statistics for allowance of software related patent application is significantly lower than patent applications related to other technical art units.

In Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Networks (Fed. Cir. 2015), the patent was directed to maintaining data between dynamically generated web pages.  The patented invention was helpful when filling out multi-page forms on the web.  Oftentimes, the user may want to go back to a different web page but was warned that doing so will cause some sort of data loss.  The patented invention allows the user to go back and forth between web pages while maintaining the data.

Personally, I like the idea because it saves time and frustration.  I’ve had my share of loss of data when filling out forms on the web.

In Active Networks, the court found that the patented invention was ineligible for patent protection and invalidated the patent.  But why?

The Active Networks case adds to the growing body of case law related to Section 101 or patentable subject matter.  Here, the Federal Circuit admits that the current Section 101 analysis has been conflated to a certain degree with Section 102 (i.e., Novelty) and Section 103 (i.e., obviousness) analyses.  The Court states:

Determination of what is an inventive concept favors inquiries analogous to those undertaken for determination of patentable invention, for a known idea, or one that is routine and conventional, is not inventive in patent terms.

Courts have found guidance in deciding whether the allegedly abstract idea (or other excluded category) is indeed known, conventional, and routine, or contains an inventive concept, by drawing on the rules of patentability.

The difficulty in conducting a Section 101 (i.e., patent eiligibility) analysis based on Sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) inquiries is that the court does not conduct a thorough Section 102 (novelty) and Section 103 (non-obviousness) analysis when determining Section 101 (eligibility).  In other words, based on less than all of the information for novelty and non obviousness, the court makes a go / no-go determination of eligibility.  In light of this deficiency, as a drafting tip, it may be a good idea to argue the novelty and non-obviousness aspects prior to providing arguments in favor of patent eligibility so that the examiner, the Patent Trademark Appeal Board, judge or jury can have a better appreciation of the invention before ruling on patent eligibility.

The part of the opinion that I also found helpful as a drafting tip for patent applications and advising clients dealing with software patents is that the court made a distinction between claiming the result or effect versus the mechanism (i.e., how-to)for the result or effect. The court states that:

“The mechanism for maintaining the state is not describe, although this is stated to the essential innovation.  The court concluded that the claims is directed to the idea itself – the abstract idea of avoiding loss of data. IPC’s proposed interpretation of “maintaining state” describes the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished … .”

The court looked to the claims, not the specification to determine what the invention is.  Here, the patent’s claims were directed to the effect, not the mechanism for maintaining data between web pages.

Over 150 years ago, this country dealt with similar issues dealing with patentability.  In O’Reily v. Morse, Samuel Morse built repeater stations in order to transmit information long distance over a wire.  The problem with transmitting an electrical signal over a wire long distance was with the loss over a distance.  The repeaters restored the information and signal before it became noise.  Morse attempted to claim much more than that. He wanted patent protection for all ways of transmitting information with electromagnetism.  In this case, the court held that his claim was invalid for not enabling the full scope of the claimed invention.  Morse invented one way (i.e., repeaters) for long range electronic communication, not all ways.  Hence, he didn’t enable the full scope or reach of the claims.

In today’s environment, the court attempts to use Section 101 instead of enablement (Section 112) to work through the eligibility issues.  In my estimation, the courts seems to be using the blunt tool of Section 101 to do the fine work required by Sections 102 (i.e., anticipation) and 103 (obviousness).  Nevertheless, this is how the court has chosen to weed out certain inventions from being patented.

The Section 101 analysis used to be a sort of quick check to make sure that the invention met minimum standards for patent eligibility and that eligibility leaned on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.  If we set the bar too high then worthy inventions will not be awarded a patent.  If the bar is low, then some patents will issue which should not have for the sake of ensuring that all worthy inventions are patented.  Hopefully, the fine tools of sections 102 and 103 will prevent unworthy invention from being protected by a patent if it does inadvertently pass over the section 101 hurdle.  Currently, the Patent Office and the courts are struggling with what is and is not eligible for patent protection.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney