[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-316956-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-316956-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","ai-sme-update-examples-47-49","AI SME Update - Examples 47-49","","The document provides hypothetical USPTO issue-spotting examples for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, aligned with USPTO guidance incorporated in MPEP 2106 and a 2024 guidance update on artificial intelligence. It explains that analyses follow the broadest reasonable interpretation and focus only on eligibility, not other patentability requirements. It covers three numbered examples (47-49), mapping claim types to eligibility outcomes using concepts such as abstract ideas, judicial exceptions, and the Step 2A/2B prong framework, including practical application and inventive concept considerations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ai-sme-update-examples-47-49/316956/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ai-sme-update-examples-47-49/316956.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Anda","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How should the examples be interpreted when analyzing eligibility under Section 101?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The examples are hypothetical and meant to illustrate claim analysis under USPTO guidance. They should be interpreted based on the provided fact patterns, and other fact patterns may lead to different eligibility outcomes.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What is the eligibility framework referenced in the document?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Eligibility analysis follows the broadest reasonable interpretation and applies the Step 2A (prongs one and two) and Step 2B considerations to determine whether claims are directed to abstract ideas and whether any judicial exception is integrated into a practical application or supported by an inventive concept.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why is Example 47 treated as eligible or ineligible for different claims?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Example 47 shows different outcomes based on whether the claims recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) and whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. The analysis also considers whether the claim provides significantly more than the exception, i.e., an inventive concept.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},316956,1790061695,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},962075006959,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e0002397efbe92a78e?_k=1776741047341049297","The following examples should be used in conjunction with USPTO guidance on subject matter eligibility, which is incorporated into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)2106 and discussed in the  2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence. The examples below are hypothetical and only intended tobe illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted below in the Issue Spotting Chart. These examples should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth below, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. That is, it isnot necessary for a claim under examination to mirror an example claim tobe subject matter eligible. All claims are analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation.  \nNote that the examples provided hereare numbered consecutivelybeginning with number 47, because 46 examples were previously issued. Appendix 1 to these examples contains a comprehensive index of all 49 of the USPTO’s eligibility examples.  \nThe examples are only illustrative of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis. All claims must be ultimately analyzed for compliance with every requirement for patentability. The analyses provided below do not address considerations other than subject matter eligibility under Section 101.  \n\n| Issue Spotting Chart | Anomaly Detection | Speech Separation | Fibrosis Treatment |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Example Number | 47 | 48 | 49 |\n| Claim Type |  |  |  |\n| Process | • | • | • |\n| Product (Composition of Matter, Manufacture, and/or Machine) | • | • |  |\n| Judicial Exception |  |  |  |\n| Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concept | • | • | • |\n| Abstract Idea: Mental Process | • | • | • |\n| Abstract Idea: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity |  |  |  |\n| Law of Nature |  |  | • |\n| Product of Nature |  |  |  |\n| Multiple exceptions in same claim | • | • | • |\n| No recited exception | • |  |  |\n| Detailed Analysis |  |  |  |\n| Step 2A Prong One: Generally | • | • | • |\n| Step 2A Prong One: Markedly Different Characteristics analysis |  |  |  |\n| Step 2A Prong Two: Exception Integrated into a Practical Application | • | • | • |\n| Step 2B: Generally | • | • | • |\n| Step 2B: Claim is eligible because it providesan Inventive Concept |  |  |  |\n| Considerations Discussed inStep 2A Prong Two and/or Step 2B |  |  |  |\n| Improvements to Functioning of a Computer or Other Technology | • | • | • |\n| Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis (Prong Two only) |  |  | • |\n| Particular Machine |  |  |  |\n| Particular Transformation |  |  |  |\n| Other Meaningful Limitations |  |  |  |\n| Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception | • | • | • |\n| Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity | • | • | • |\n| Field of Use and Technological Environment | • | • | • |\n| Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity (Step 2B only) | • | • | • |\n\nExample 47. Anomaly Detection  \nThis example illustrates the application of the eligibility analysis to claims that recite limitations specific to artificial intelligence, particularly the use of an artificial neural network to identify or detect anomalies. Claim 1 is eligible because itfalls within a statutory category and does notrecite any judicial exceptions. Claim 2 is ineligible because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea), and the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (and is thus directed to an abstract idea), and the claim does not provide significantly more than the exception (does not provide an inventive concept). Claim 3 is eligible because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea), but the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by improving network security.  \nBACKGROUND  \nThe present invention seeks to use an artificial neural network (ANN) to identify or detect anomalies. The use of specially trained ANNs to detect ano","cbCaieOBmVIPQthJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieOBmVIPQthJ","pdf",616353,35,"English","# Issue Spotting Chart\n## Example Number and Claim Type Mapping\n## Eligibility Analysis Framework (Step 2A/2B)\n# Example 47: Anomaly Detection\n## Eligible vs Ineligible Claim Outcomes\n## Background on Artificial Neural Networks\n## Training and Deployment Context","[{\"question\":\"How should the examples be interpreted when analyzing eligibility under Section 101?\",\"answer\":\"The examples are hypothetical and meant to illustrate claim analysis under USPTO guidance. They should be interpreted based on the provided fact patterns, and other fact patterns may lead to different eligibility outcomes.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the eligibility framework referenced in the document?\",\"answer\":\"Eligibility analysis follows the broadest reasonable interpretation and applies the Step 2A (prongs one and two) and Step 2B considerations to determine whether claims are directed to abstract ideas and whether any judicial exception is integrated into a practical application or supported by an inventive concept.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is Example 47 treated as eligible or ineligible for different claims?\",\"answer\":\"Example 47 shows different outcomes based on whether the claims recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) and whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. The analysis also considers whether the claim provides significantly more than the exception, i.e., an inventive concept.\"}]","AI SME Update - Examples 47-49 | PDF",1789926729,88]