United States: Supplemental Examinations And Alice: The Bare Essentials Of When Not To Poke The Bear

Decision: Supplemental Examination No. 96/000,128

Holding: All reexamined claims canceled.

Background: Among its myriad changes to U.S. patent law, the America Invents Act created Supplemental Examination as a new procedure for patent owners to have the Patent Office consider, reconsider, or correct information in their patents. Patentees may request Supplemental Examination for a variety of reasons, as the statute authorizes requests based on "information believed to be relevant to the patent." 35 U.S.C. § 257(a) (2012) (emphasis added). In response to a Request for Supplemental Examination, an examiner considers whether the Request raises a substantial new question of patentability ("SNQ"). If so, the examiner orders an ex parte reexamination of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 257(a)-(b). Anything considered during Supplemental Examination "shall not be" the basis for later holding the patent unenforceable. 35 U.S.C. § 257(c). A detailed discussion of Supplemental Examination may be found at Nyshadham et al, "Supplemental Examination Nuts and Bolts: Get it in Your Toolbox and Don't Leave Home Without It," AIA blog post June 3, 2019, https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/america-invents-act/aia-supplemental-examination-nuts-and-bolts-get-it-in-your-toolbox-and-dont-leave-home-without-it.html.

The question of patent-eligible subject matter became particularly relevant to Supplemental Examinations after the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Alice altered the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by ruling that abstract ideas implemented on generic computers are not patent-eligible subject matter. Since Alice, the courts, the USPTO, and patent owners have struggled to discern what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter. This article explores how one patent owner responded to this uncertainty with Supplemental Examination and considers whether the patent owner could have chosen other options.

In Supplemental Examination No. 96/000,128, patent owner Exceleron Software, Inc. ("Exceleron") filed a Request for Supplemental Examination of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,475 ("the '475 patent"). The '475 patent issued prior to Alice and included 34 claims directed to utility billing software allowing customers to manage their utility accounts and prepay for utility services.

Before Alice, applicants commonly received patents on software claims like those in the '475 patent. Once Alice changed the landscape for software patents, however, the enforceability of software claims running on generic computers became uncertain.

Perhaps sensing the precarious future of its patent, Exceleron took a proactive approach. It filed a Request for Supplemental Examination to review all 34 claims under § 101 in light of Alice. In its Request, Exceleron described in detail how the claims could be construed as abstract. Exceleron likely submitted this information to comply with its obligations under 37 C.F.R. § 1.610(b)(5). That paragraph requires Requests to include an explanation of the "relevance and manner of applying each item of information to each claim of the patent for which supplemental examination is requested." 37 C.F.R. § 1.610(b)(5).

Exceleron's plan backfired. Using Exceleron's own language on abstractness against it, the USPTO determined that Alice raised a SNQ for the '475 patent. The USPTO then ordered an ex parte reexamination, resulting in the rejection of all claims.

To evaluate the patent's eligibility, the examiner followed the guidelines issued by the USPTO after Alice. Those guidelines included the following flowchart:

Manual of Patent Examining and Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.

Under these guidelines, assessing a claim's eligibility involved three steps. First, the Office considers whether the claim covers a statutory category of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. If so, the Office applies Alice's two-step eligibility framework. Under "Step 2A," the Office asks whether the claim is directed to an "abstract idea." If not, the claim is patent-eligible. But if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, "Step 2B" asks whether the claim recites "significantly more." The Supreme Court described this inquiry as a search for an "inventive concept" preventing the claim from preempting the idea itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-28.

Applying these guidelines, the reexamination examiner found Exceleron's claims ineligible. As for the first question, the examiner considered whether the claims fell within a statutory category. Because the patent claimed an apparatus performing certain tasks, the examiner determined that the claims passed this test, likely as a machine.

The reexamination examiner then proceeded to Step One of Alice (MPEP "Step 2A"). In the examiner's view, the '475 patent was directed to the abstract ideas of "collecting and comparing known information" and the "administration of financial accounts." Because precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled these concepts unpatentably abstract, the examiner found Exceleron's claims similarly nonconcrete. See Office Action of Apr. 22, 2016, at 4-5 (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).

Finally, in applying Step Two of Alice (MPEP "Step 2B"), the reexamination examiner determined that the claims as a whole did not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. He concluded that the hardware elements performed well-understood, routine, and conventional tasks. While the claims involved computing elements, they added only generic functionality to the abstract software. According to the examiner, such routine, abstract claims were not eligible for patenting.

After the Reexamination rejection, Exceleron sought to salvage the claims by adding a utility "meter interface," claiming it was not a generic computer. According to Exceleron, the amended claims were directed to a technological improvement facilitating real-time data collection and processing with the meter interface. Exceleron also argued that the amended claims recited "significantly more" than an abstract idea because they provided specific, nongeneric improvements to the technological challenge of accurately prebilling utilities.

The reexamination examiner rejected these arguments. To the examiner, the claims remained abstract because they were still directed to administering financial accounts and comparing known information. Exceleron's amendments did not resolve this issue because they failed to change the basic concept behind the patent's technology, regardless of its implementation.

The examiner further determined that the amended claims did not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the claimed invention did not improve computer technology, it did not embody an inventive concept worthy of patent protection. In the examiner's view, the claims instead recited an abstract idea for prepayment of utility services, a concept existing since at least 1900. See Attachment to Form PTO-467: Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action, p. 2. Furthermore, the examiner reasoned that reciting a computer network did not add anything patentable to the claims; it merely provided a generic tool for running the billing software. Thus, the amended claims were ruled patent-ineligible.

Exceleron did not appeal the examiner's decision. Shortly thereafter, the USPTO canceled every claim of the '475 patent.

Practice Takeaways: What Patent Owners Can Do Differently

Exceleron did not file a Request for Supplemental Examination intending to lose every claim in the '475 patent. But was this outcome inevitable? Or could Exceleron have done something else to avoid this untoward result? Either way, Exceleron's experience highlights several lessons for patent owners.

First, patentees undertaking Supplemental Examination need not hand the Patent Office the keys to rendering their own patents unpatentable. We are not aware of any ethical duty compelling the patent owner to provide a specific roadmap articulating how the claims could be abstract. Paragraph 37 C.F.R. § 1.610(b)(5) requires a "detailed description" of the relevance of submitted information, but the patent owner need not supply the examiner with the exact wording for rendering the claims unpatentable. To be sure, a less incriminating description may not have prevented Exceleron's claims from cancellation. But Requests that identify the issues at a broader level may provide patent owners with better opportunities to avoid triggering a SNQ in the first place.

Furthermore, Exceleron could have chosen more strategic claim amendments. While the claimed "meter interface" narrowed the rejected claims, it did not change the claims' fundamental character as a whole. As claimed, the meter interface just collected usage data. Even at the time of Exceleron's amendment, the Federal Circuit had found such data collection steps uninventive. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known.").

Instead, Exceleron could have amended the claims to recite specific technical improvements to the existing technology. For example, the Federal Circuit has held claims patent-eligible when they recite improvements to graphical user interfaces (see, e.g., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), database structures (see, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and computer networks (see, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In fact, Supplemental Examination may be helpful for borderline pre-Alice patents whose specifications permit more technical claiming—particularly if the patentee has no pending continuation. Patentees armed with technological limitations will find it easier to delineate the specific improvements the invention provides to computer technology. While it is unclear whether Exceleron could have successfully accomplished these changes in its case, other patent owners should consider how their specifications may support technological advancements in a sea of evolving case law.

Patent owners may also benefit from USPTO guidelines that were updated in January 2019 for examiners reviewing claims under § 101. See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). These guidelines, which aim to provide renewed clarity on what the USPTO considers patent-eligible subject matter, may provide applicants other avenues of securing patents. First, under the new procedure, examiners should find claims abstract only when they fall into three categories for abstract ideas: formulas and calculations, methods of organizing human activity (such as fundamental economic principles), and mental processes (such as observation and evaluation). Only in "rare circumstances" may an examiner find a claim abstract when it falls outside one of these categories.

Second, under the revised MPEP Step 2A, examiners must find claims patent-eligible when they are "integrated into a practical application." According to the Patent Office, a claim embraces a "practical application" when it "imposes a meaningful limit on the [abstract idea], such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]." The idea of using monopolization as a barometer of eligibility was addressed in Alice, where Justice Thomas explained how "generic computer implementation[s]" do not provide "any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)). The USPTO's "practical application" clarification of examination under the Alice framework, drawn from earlier Supreme Court cases like Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), provides practitioners with significant latitude in stressing the eligibility of their claims.

Third, the Office also overhauled MPEP Step 2B to make it easier for applicants to avoid eligibility rejections in the wake of the Federal Circuit's decision in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Berkheimer explained how Alice's "inventive concept" inquiry is a factual question rather than a legal one. Id. at 1369. Because examiners must support factual assertions with evidence, Berkheimer arguably made it more difficult for examiners to summarily reject claims as routine and uninventive. The USPTO appreciated the significance of Berkheimer, issuing an April 2018 memorandum requiring examiners to fully substantiate their MPEP Step 2B analyses on the record. Under the new guidelines, examiners may find a claim unpatentably "routine" only with express support from (1) the application's intrinsic record, (2) a court decision, (3) a publication, or (4) official notice. These additional hurdles make it easier for applicants and patent owners to avoid eligibility rejections.

In Exceleron's case, the claims in the '475 patent might have survived Supplemental Examination under these new procedures. The claims arguably did not describe mathematical concepts, methods of organizing activity, or mental processes. Rather, the amended claims related to systems for calculating and billing utility usage through a "meter interface" collecting data from power meters.

And even if the examiner found the claims abstract, Exceleron may have prevailed by explaining how they formed a "practical application." Exceleron could have argued, for instance, that the claims provided real-time display and monitoring of utility usage via direct interfaces with usage meters.

Of course, USPTO regulations cannot overrule Supreme Court or Federal Circuit precedent. While practitioners may carry the day at the USPTO, granted claims remain susceptible to a court challenge. Indeed, in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, Judge Lourie expressly rebuked the idea that the Federal Circuit would consider the USPTO's procedures authoritative on this score:

While we greatly respect the PTO's expertise on all matters relating to patentability, including patent eligibility, we are not bound by its guidance. And, especially regarding the issue of patent eligibility and the efforts of the courts to determine the distinction between claims directed to [abstract ideas] and those directed to patent-eligible applications of those [ideas], we are mindful of the need for consistent application of our case law.

760 F. App'x 1013, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential). If this sentiment were to take root—and we suspect it will—Supplemental Examination would prove a poor vehicle for revisiting a patent's eligibility. Success at the USPTO does not guarantee success before an Article III court.

But Congress has the unique power to legislate a solution, and legislators are currently working to revise the language of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, 101, and 112 to bring more stability to patent law in the computer age. As of the writing of this article, a draft revision to § 101 eliminates the requirement for novelty (though novelty would remain a prerequisite under § 102). And more importantly, a revised § 100 defines "useful" as "provid[ing] specific and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention." Sens. Tillis and Coons and Reps. Collins, Johnson, and Stivers Release Draft Bill Text to Reform Section 101 of the Patent Act, Thom Tillis (May 22, 2019), https://www.tillis.senate.gov/2019/5/sens-tillis-and-coons-and-reps-collins-johnson-and-stivers-release-draft-bill-text-to-reform-section-101-of-the-patent-act. The proposed changes also prevent historically-recognized judicial exceptions—such as abstractness—from governing what constitutes eligible subject matter. Id. See also, https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first/draft-bill-released-to-reform-section-101-of-the-patent-act.html.

The evolving administrative, legal, and legislative frameworks cannot resurrect Exceleron's '475 patent. But Exceleron's experience can act as a cautionary tale for practitioners. Those feeling impelled to have their patents reexamined through Supplemental Examination should do so with very clear strategies in mind. And for others, sometimes it is best not to poke a sleeping bear.

Co-authored by Marie Weisfeiler, Stacy Lewis

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions