The USPTO has issued a request for comments on its Interim Guidelines for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [Link] that were issued in the wake of Ex parte Lundgren [Link Link]. Specific comment is requested on the following topics:
- Whether transforming data from one value to another value constitutes “physicial transformation.”
- Is the PTO’s interpretation of State Street correct— that in the absence of physical transformation there must be a useful, concrete, and tangible result (rather than simply a capability of such a result).
- How should useful, concrete, and tangible be defined?
- What role should preemption play in determining subject matter eligibility?
- Is the PTO’s exclusion of signals per se consistent with case law? Are there policy implications?