Le 15 mai dernier, le USPTO a émis des directives aux Examinateurs lors du dernier “Business Method Partnership Meeting” concernant les méthodes d’affaires. Ces directives suivantes ont pour but de guider les Examinateurs lorsqu’ils déterminent la brevetabilité des revendications portant sur une méthode d’affaire (en anglais):
“a Section 101 process must (1) be tied to another statutory class (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to adifferent thing. If neither of these requirements is met by the claim, the method is not a patent eligible process under Section 101 and should be rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
An example of a method claim that would not qualify as a statutory process would be a claim that recited purely mental steps. Thus, to qualify as a Section 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the other statutory class (the thing or product) to which it is tied, for example, by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.”