Associate
Client Alert
Kirk A. Damman, Miranda R. Nolan
share this page:
Despite the prominence of AI and blockchain innovations, the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to question whether computer-based inventions qualify as patentable subject matter.
Over ten years ago in 2014, the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, redefined the test for patentable subject matter (§ 101 of the patent law). A § 101 rejection (sometimes now also called an Alice rejection) arises when a patent examiner determines that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and lacks an “inventive concept” that transforms it into a patent-eligible application. The redefinition for the test for eligibility triggered a surge of new rejections, making it increasingly uncertain if applicants could secure patent protection in certain computer related fields such as AI, machine-learning, blockchain, fintech, and data-processing.
Examiners often characterize innovations in computer-based fields as abstract ideas merely implemented on generic computer technology and, as such, patent ineligible. To overcome such rejections, it is necessary to demonstrate that the claims recite a specific technological improvement or include additional features that meaningfully limit any recited abstract idea. Over the past eleven years, overcoming these patent eligibility rejections has remained a significant and ongoing challenge as there is no well-defined path or language that can definitively be used to prove claims provide the required technological improvement or additional features.
Patent attorneys have attempted to provide such proof using the declaration of an expert. The patent office had specific procedures for submission of expert declarations but no clear indications if they could be used to overcome a § 101 rejection. In 2022, the Federal Circuit addressed this procedure in its decision from International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc. The decision limited the usefulness of such a declaration as the court affirmed a rejection under § 101 concluding that expert declarations submitted to provide proof of eligibility were insufficient to establish a patentable inventive concept.
However, on December 4, 2025, the USPTO Director issued a new memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps reminding examiners and practitioners that expert declarations may be submitted specifically to address § 101 rejections. A key element of the memorandum is that it calls out the need for examiners to meaningfully consider such declarations and that examiners must provide specific written discussion on why such a declaration does, or does not, provide enough evidence to overcome the § 101 rejection. The Director also provided specific examples of declarations that would be considered sufficient to overcome a § 101 rejection with regard to certain computer-based inventions and, specifically, an AI training model. The Director’s memorandum appears to be a call to applicants to submit expert declarations when faced with a § 101 rejection and that examiners need to give them serious consideration when they are presented.
If you have questions about patenting computer-based inventions, navigating Section 101 rejections, or when and how to obtain and use expert declarations in patent filings, please contact a member of our Intellectual Property team.

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.