Patent Bar Authority Guide ✓ Verified for MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024) Updated for 2026 Exam Window

35 U.S.C. 101 Patent Eligibility Explained

Under 35 U.S.C. 101 and MPEP § 2106, an invention is patent-eligible if it (1) falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and (2) is either not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A Prongs One and Two) or recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).

Key 2026 Takeaways at a Glance

✓ Step 1: Claims to human organisms (AIA § 33) or transitory propagating signals (In re Nuijten) fail Step 1 immediately.
✓ Step 2A Prong One (§ 2106.04): Identifies laws of nature, natural phenomena, and three strict abstract idea groupings (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes).
✓ Step 2A Prong Two (§ 2106.04(d)): Evaluates whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (ignoring whether the additional elements are conventional).
✓ Step 2B (§ 2106.05): Evaluates whether additional elements provide an inventive concept ("significantly more") under Berkheimer evidentiary standards.

Test Yourself Right Now • Zero Login Required

Practice 35 U.S.C. 101 Practice Questions (Patent Eligibility) (MPEP Rev. 01.2024 Cited)

Practice 35 U.S.C. 101 Practice Questions (Patent Eligibility) → 50 Free Questions

The Complete USPTO 35 U.S.C. 101 Eligibility Flowchart (MPEP § 2106)

The Patent Bar tests the exact analytical steps examiners must follow in MPEP § 2106:

Step	Core Inquiry	Key Exam Rule (MPEP Citation)
Step 1	Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?	If "No" (e.g., pure software per se, signal per se, human organism) → Reject under 101 (MPEP § 2106.03)
Step 2A Prong One	Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?	For products of nature, compare to naturally occurring counterpart for "markedly different characteristics" (§ 2106.04(c))
Step 2A Prong Two	Do additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application?	Considerations include improving computer/technology function or specific disease treatment; do NOT evaluate conventionality in Prong Two (§ 2106.04(d))
Step 2B	Do additional elements provide "significantly more" (inventive concept)?	Examiner cannot assert an element is "well-understood, routine, conventional" without Berkheimer factual evidence (§ 2106.05(d))

Utility Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. 101 & MPEP § 2107

In addition to subject matter eligibility, 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that an invention be "useful." Under MPEP § 2107.01, utility must be (1) specific (particular to the subject matter claimed, not general to a broad class), (2) substantial ("real world" use, not throw-away or basic research curiosity), and (3) credible (believable to a person of ordinary skill in the art unless the logic/facts are wholly incredible, like perpetual motion machines). A lack of utility under § 101 also triggers a rejection for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).

How This Topic Fits Into the 2026 USPTO Registration Examination Blueprint

Every question on the USPTO Patent Bar Exam traces directly back to three primary legal authorities loaded onto Prometric testing workstations: Title 35 of the United States Code (35 U.S.C. 101 Subject Matter Eligibility, 35 U.S.C. 102 Novelty & Prior Art, 35 U.S.C. 103 Obviousness, and 35 U.S.C. 112 Specification & Claims), Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR Parts 1, 11, 41, and 42), and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024).

Prometric Exam Day Execution Checklist

During each 3-hour, 50-question Prometric session, you have exactly 3.6 minutes (216 seconds) per question. High-scoring candidates answer 35 to 40 questions on their first pass using memorized rules from MPEP 700, MPEP 200, MPEP 600, and MPEP 1800, and reserve the final 50–60 minutes to look up marked edge-case exceptions in the on-screen MPEP PDF viewer.

AIA vs. Pre-AIA & Deadline Verification Protocol

Before selecting an option on any Patent Bar question, run a three-point check: (1) check the effective filing date against the March 16, 2013 AIA transition date, (2) verify whether the deadline is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a) or non-extendable by statute (such as the 12-month provisional period, 6-month maximum reply cap, or 2-year broadening reissue rule in MPEP 1400), and (3) check whether the proceeding is before the examiner, the PTAB (MPEP 1200), or Ex Parte Reexamination (MPEP 2200).

To turn passive reading into a passing 70%+ score (63 out of 90 scored questions), pair this guide with active question drills in our Free 50-Question Practice Hub, review worked hypotheticals on our Example Questions page, and benchmark your lookup speed in the Timed Patent Bar Mock Exam Simulator.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is required if an examiner wants to reject a claim as an abstract idea outside the three MPEP groupings?

Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3), in the rare circumstance where an examiner believes a claim limitation is a "tentative abstract idea" that does not fall within mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes, the rejection requires approval from the Technology Center Director.

Does evaluating Step 2A Prong Two consider whether additional elements are routine and conventional?

No. MPEP § 2106.04(d) explicitly states that the Step 2A Prong Two integration analysis excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (which is evaluated only in Step 2B).