You’ve built something new. Something that solves a real problem. You’re moving fast, talking to users, shipping updates, maybe even raising a round. Then the USPTO sends back a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Your patent application is getting blocked because they say your invention isn’t “eligible.” You hit a wall.
What is a 101 Rejection, Really?
It’s a signal, not a stop sign
When you get a 101 rejection, the first instinct might be to panic. But here’s what founders need to understand: it’s not a final no.
It’s the patent office asking you to prove that what you built is actually tech—not just a clever idea dressed up in software.
This rejection is their way of saying, “Convince us that this is more than theory.” And that’s a huge opportunity, if you know how to respond.
The line between abstract and actual is thinner than you think
The confusion around 101 rejections is often rooted in the fact that software itself feels intangible. You can’t touch it.
You can’t hold it. So even though it powers your product, runs on servers, and solves real-world problems, it still gets flagged as “abstract.”
That’s why it’s your job to paint a vivid picture for the examiner. You need to show how your invention works in a very real, specific way.
What’s new about the process? What’s technically different from what existed before? How does it actually change what the computer is doing?
This goes beyond what you claim—it goes into how you describe the system in the spec and what real-world impact it has.
Think like an investor, not just an inventor
Here’s a mindset shift that helps: when you respond to a 101 rejection, don’t just think like the person who built the thing.
Think like someone trying to convince a skeptical investor that this tech changes the game.
Because in a way, the examiner is that investor. They’re trying to decide whether this deserves the monopoly that a patent gives.
You need to show them that your invention solves a pain point in a novel way—and that it does so with a technical solution, not just a business strategy.
If your system takes manual steps and turns them into automated magic, that’s great.
But the patent office wants to know how the magic works. Not just the result, but the mechanism.
Stop describing what your invention does. Start explaining how it does it
Many 101 rejections come down to one thing: the claims describe an outcome, but not the process that gets you there.
Saying “a system that predicts user behavior” won’t cut it.
You need to show what makes your system capable of that prediction in a way that wasn’t possible before.
So step back and ask yourself: if you were training a junior engineer to build your invention from scratch, what steps would they need to follow?
What are the inputs, the decision points, the system behaviors? That’s the level of detail examiners want to see.
This mindset doesn’t just help with getting around a 101 rejection—it helps with writing stronger patents from the start.
Use the rejection to tighten your technical narrative
Here’s the strategic upside no one talks about: a 101 rejection can actually help you strengthen your patent.
When you take the time to respond well—to clarify your tech, sharpen your claims, and explain the core innovation in practical terms—you don’t just improve your odds of allowance.
You build a stronger patent that’s more defensible in the real world.
You also force yourself to crystallize your story. That makes it easier to explain to investors, acquirers, and partners down the line.
Because now you’ve got clean language around what your tech really does that no one else can do.
And if you’re using a platform like PowerPatent, you can capture that narrative in one place and build on it as your product evolves.
Make your invention look like a system, not a spreadsheet
Examiners often reject software claims because they sound like things a person could do with pen and paper or in Excel.
So your job is to pull the invention away from that zone.
You do that by anchoring it in the real world—talking about sensors, real-time data, interactions between modules, timing constraints, integrations with APIs, latency reduction, system triggers, anything that proves the solution is tied to how computers actually work.
Even if your invention is software-only, show how it operates in a technical environment.
You’re not solving a business problem—you’re solving a technical problem that may happen to exist in a business context.
That’s what moves you from abstract idea to eligible invention.
How Patent Examiners Think
Understand the playbook they’re working from
Patent examiners don’t have infinite time. They’re under pressure to review dozens of applications each month.
That means they rely on patterns. They’re trained to spot red flags quickly—especially around Section 101.
When an examiner reads your application, they’re not trying to uncover how groundbreaking your product is.
They’re scanning for language that maps to past court cases and PTO guidelines.
If your claims read like ones that have been shut down in the past, even if your invention is totally different, you’ll probably get grouped into the same rejection bucket.
Understanding this changes how you write and respond. Your job isn’t just to describe your invention.
It’s to guide the examiner’s attention—to highlight what’s technical, what’s new, and what’s different before they fall back on their default rejection.
This is less about convincing and more about leading.
Every word you write is a cue they use
Examiners rely on keywords. If your claims or spec sound too general—words like “data,” “information,” “user input,” “processing”—they’re more likely to trigger 101 rejections.
This doesn’t mean you should throw in fancy technical terms to sound smarter. It means you need to be precise.
Show exactly how the system works, what components interact, what steps follow which, and what happens under the hood.
Your language should reflect technical function, not just results. It’s not about saying “the system provides a better experience.”
It’s about showing how the system improves processing, response time, accuracy, or hardware performance.
When you shift to that level of detail, the examiner is more likely to shift their reading from surface-level scan to technical engagement.
Think of it like a sales conversation
Yes, your application is legal. But it’s also persuasive. You’re asking someone to give you a legal right to exclude others.
That means you have to make the value of your invention obvious, not just buried in claim language.
Examiners are not out to block innovation. But they are bound by precedent. So they’ll default to a “no” unless you make the “yes” easy.
The more you show them that your invention fits comfortably inside existing legal boundaries—while still being innovative—the faster they’ll move toward allowance.
This is where it helps to front-load technical value. Make your strongest argument early.
Don’t bury it in the fourth paragraph of your response or halfway through your spec. Lead with the improvement.
Show the examiner where the invention lives. Point out what it replaces, what it solves, and why it couldn’t have been done this way before.
When you give them clarity, they can give you traction.
Timing matters more than most founders realize
How an examiner sees your case can shift over time.
If you file early in a tech cycle—before courts or the USPTO have updated guidance for that type of invention—you may face heavier scrutiny.
But if you file later, when there’s more precedent supporting your space, examiners tend to be more flexible.
That’s why you need to treat your IP like a strategy, not a one-time project.
If you’re too early for allowance, you might still be able to get a placeholder on file.
Then file a continuation later with stronger claims as the legal landscape improves.
This gives you coverage now, but also leaves the door open for broader wins later.
PowerPatent helps make this approach easy to manage.
You can track examiner responses, file continuations when needed, and keep building your IP portfolio without starting from scratch.
So don’t treat a rejection as the end. Treat it as timing—and know that smart IP is a long game.
Your best tool? Anticipation
If you can anticipate how the examiner thinks—what cases they rely on, what language triggers concern, what structure gets approval—you can get ahead of rejections before they happen.
That’s why we built PowerPatent the way we did. It’s not just about filing. It’s about giving startups the edge of foresight.
The platform helps identify which claims might raise red flags and which language patterns are safer, based on thousands of other responses.
And when you know what’s coming, you can lead the conversation, not chase it.
Claim Amendments: The Safer, Slower Route
When narrowing your claims buys you breathing room
If you’re facing a 101 rejection and your top priority is getting a patent granted soon, amending your claims might feel like the obvious path.
You change the language, adjust the structure, and align your invention with what the examiner is more likely to allow.
And in many cases, this works. Especially if you’re in a business situation where timing is key—like a funding round, an acquisition conversation, or a product launch where you want to say “patent pending” with confidence.
Amending gives you momentum. It keeps the process moving. But it also shifts the scope of protection.
You’re tightening the focus of your claims to make them look less abstract and more technical.
That can help you overcome a rejection—but it might also mean giving up broader control of your invention space.
The strategy, then, isn’t just whether to amend—but how to do it in a way that still protects what matters most.
Not all narrowing is created equal
Smart amendments don’t just add more steps or throw in technical jargon.
They dig into what makes your invention work, and they shape the claims around that engine.
For example, if your system uses a new kind of model architecture or a novel way of handling time-based data, highlight that.
Anchor your claims to those mechanics. That way, you’re still getting something meaningful—not just a patent on a method that anyone can sidestep with a minor tweak.
When you amend, you’re setting the foundation for what your competitors can and can’t do.
So focus on the parts of your invention that give you real edge. Those should be the heart of your claims—not the periphery.
This is also why you should think two steps ahead.
If you amend narrowly now, do you have room in your specification to file broader claims later? If not, you might box yourself in.
The key is to make amendments that get you through the current rejection without closing the door on future coverage.
The amendment is not the finish line—it’s a positioning move
Many founders treat amendments like a one-time fix. Change the language, get the allowance, move on.
But smart founders use amendments as a positioning strategy. They think of them as the first chess move—not the last.
You get a narrow claim allowed to establish your patent rights.
Then you use that as a launchpad to file a continuation with broader or alternative claims. That’s where you regain strength and expand coverage.
This approach is especially useful in fast-moving markets.
You might not know exactly how your competitors will react to your product, or how your business model will evolve.
A narrow first claim gives you the legal protection you need now, while leaving space to grow your IP around where your market goes.
PowerPatent makes this much easier. You don’t have to track these layers manually.
The platform helps you manage continuations, revisions, and long-term IP plans with clarity—so your amendment doesn’t become a ceiling.
Claim amendments also tell a story to outsiders
Investors, acquirers, even large customers—they all look at your patents differently than you do.
They’re not reading claims with a legal lens. They’re asking: how hard would it be for someone else to copy this?
So the way you amend your claims shapes how your IP is perceived.
If you make your claims too narrow or too tied to a single implementation, your patent might look easy to work around.
But if your amendment still captures the technical essence of your product—the part that really powers your moat—then you’re sending a signal of strength.
Every amendment is a message. Make sure it reflects your business goals, not just your legal needs.
Arguing: The Riskier, Bolder Move
When you know what you built is real—and want to protect all of it
Filing a response that pushes back against a 101 rejection can feel like stepping into a fight. It takes longer. It’s less predictable.
And yes, it might fail the first time. But for many startups, arguing is the only way to get the patent they actually need—not just the one that’s easy to get.
If your invention truly moves the needle—if it solves a technical bottleneck, changes how systems behave, or introduces something your competitors are likely to copy—then it’s worth standing your ground.
Because once you give up claim scope, it’s hard to get it back. And broad protection is what gives you leverage in the long run.
Think like a litigator, not a filer
When you’re arguing against a 101 rejection, your job isn’t to restate what’s in your claims.
Your job is to make the examiner see your invention through the lens of a future courtroom.
You want them to imagine a judge looking at your patent and saying, “Yes, this is a real, working system that improves technology.”
That means framing your argument in terms of what the invention enables technically—not what it does for the user, not what it automates, and not what business value it creates.
You need to show that your invention changes how computing is done.
That could be through efficiency, speed, error reduction, new processing capabilities, or new data structures.
But whatever it is, you need to tie it directly to the tech—not the outcome.
This is where most arguments fail. They focus on features, not function.
If you want to win, get down to the level of what the system is doing differently, under the hood.
Use your specification like a weapon
One of the most overlooked tools in arguing a 101 rejection is your own spec. If you described how the invention improves system performance, include that.
If you mentioned prior limitations and how your method overcomes them, highlight those.
If you provided examples or implementations that show real technical lift, now is the time to use them.
Examiners don’t read every word of your spec when they first review your application. They scan.
But in your response, you can guide them to what matters. Point directly to the language that shows your invention improves how technology works.
You’re not just arguing in the abstract—you’re building a bridge from your claims to real-world implementation. That’s what gives your response weight.
Know when to double down and when to pivot
Arguing doesn’t have to mean being stubborn. It means being strategic. Sometimes, your first argument won’t land.
The examiner might push back. That doesn’t always mean you were wrong—it might just mean you didn’t frame it the right way.
In that case, your next move matters even more.
You can revise the argument, reframe the claim, or escalate. Sometimes a pre-appeal brief can turn things around.
Other times, a continuation is smarter—you take another swing with fresh language and maybe a different examiner.
But don’t just give up and amend out of frustration. If your claims are strong and your invention is real tech, it’s worth playing the long game.
One allowance on solid, broad claims can be worth more than ten narrow patents no one’s afraid of.
This is why PowerPatent exists—to give you the tools and confidence to push when it counts.
The platform gives you visibility, templates, even expert input when you need it—so you don’t have to guess whether your argument is strong enough.
Arguing isn’t for every case. But when the invention justifies it, and the stakes are high, it’s the move that can change your company’s future.
So… Claim Amend or Argue?
It’s not just a legal decision—it’s a business one
You’re not filing patents just to have a plaque on the wall. You’re doing it to protect something valuable.
Something that gives your startup an edge. That means every response to a 101 rejection has to come from a business lens first.
Amending and arguing are two very different moves. One is about compromise. The other is about conviction.
So the question isn’t just “What will the examiner accept?” The better question is: “What outcome moves my company forward?”
That could mean speed, if you’re trying to close a round. It could mean leverage, if you’re heading into a major partnership.
It could mean future value, if you’re building toward acquisition. Whatever the case, the answer depends on where your company is and where it’s headed.
The law matters, but strategy drives everything.
Match your move to your moment
If you’re pre-revenue and trying to build investor confidence, you might care more about speed.
That doesn’t mean your IP isn’t valuable—it just means your current need is to show traction.
In that moment, amending might get you a fast allowance you can point to in your deck.
If you’re later-stage, with serious competitors circling, you might want stronger, broader claims—even if it takes longer to get them.
That’s when arguing becomes the smarter bet.
Because it’s not just about getting a patent—it’s about getting the right patent. The kind that actually keeps others out.
Timing changes your tactics. There’s no one rule. The key is to revisit the decision each time a new office action comes in.
Ask yourself: “What does my business need from this patent right now?” Then choose the response that aligns.
Look at your portfolio, not just this one application
One of the most powerful ways to make the amend-or-argue decision is to zoom out. You’re probably not filing just one patent.
You’re building a portfolio. That means some patents can be broad, others narrow. Some fast, others strategic.
You might amend one application to get it allowed quickly, then use that granted patent as the base for filing a continuation with stronger claims.
You might argue hard in another application to carve out ground your competitors are starting to move into.
It’s about sequencing. You can’t win everything at once. But over time, with a smart plan, you can build protection that actually mirrors your product’s evolution.
With PowerPatent, this kind of strategy is built into the platform. You can track where each filing fits in your broader portfolio.
You can time responses based on business milestones. And you can decide when to be aggressive, when to be pragmatic, and when to simply hold your ground.
Treat each decision like a boardroom conversation
Your patent strategy deserves the same level of attention as your product roadmap or your go-to-market plan.
Because it is a strategic asset. A good patent can block competitors, boost valuation, and shift the balance of power in your space.
So don’t make the amend-or-argue decision in a vacuum. Loop in your leadership team. Talk about what the patent will enable.
Consider what risk looks like. Define success for this filing, in this quarter, for this company.
Then act accordingly.
Wrapping It Up
Claim amendments can get you across the finish line faster. Arguments can preserve the ground you need to win bigger later. Both are tools. And the right tool depends on your timing, your goals, and what your invention truly unlocks.
Leave a Reply