All Posts
101 AnalysisFeb 25, 20269 min read

Best Patent AI for 101 Eligibility Rejections: Alice/Mayo Analysis Guide

101 rejections require nuanced analysis that goes beyond pattern matching. Here is how AI tools handle the Alice/Mayo framework and which ones provide the deepest 101 analysis.

The Alice/Mayo Two-Step Framework

1Step 1: Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?

The examiner determines whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Abstract idea categories include: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and methods of organizing human activity.

AI role: Identify which abstract idea category the examiner cited and map it to recent case law precedent.

2Step 2: Does the claim recite something significantly more?

If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, the examiner determines whether the additional claim elements add something that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. This is where most 101 arguments are made.

AI role: Analyze additional elements, identify technical improvements, and map to eligibility-confirming precedent (e.g., Enfish, McRO, Vanda).

How Abigail Handles 101 Rejections

Abigail's 10-expert pipeline includes dedicated 101 analysis in the substantive tier. Unlike chat-based AI tools that provide generic 101 arguments, Abigail analyzes the specific examiner's rejection basis:

  • Identifies the exact abstract idea category the examiner cited
  • Maps the rejection to Alice/Mayo framework step (Step 1, Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B)
  • Analyzes claim elements for practical application arguments
  • Identifies technical improvements over prior art that support eligibility
  • References relevant post-Alice case law (Enfish, McRO, Vanda, Core Wireless, etc.)
  • Examiner intelligence reveals how often this examiner uses 101 rejections and whether they are responsive to specific argument types
  • Generates response language tailored to the examiner's specific rejection basis

101 Strategy: When to Argue vs. Amend

ScenarioStrategyAI Assistance
Claim has clear technical improvementArgue under Enfish/McRO precedentAI identifies technical elements and maps to case law
Dual 101 + 103 rejectionAmend for 103, use amendments to strengthen 101 argumentsAI coordinates amendment strategy across rejection types
Examiner high 101 rejection rateConsider interview before written responseExaminer intelligence reveals 101 patterns and interview success rate
Pure method claim with generic hardwareAdd specific technical implementation details from specAI identifies specification support for technical details
Business method rejectionEmphasize technical integration, not business outcomeAI separates technical elements from business logic

Analyze Your 101 Rejection

Upload an Office Action with a 101 rejection and see Abigail's Alice/Mayo analysis with examiner-specific strategy recommendations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Guides