If you’re building something new—software, AI, a tool, a product—you might be thinking about protecting it. A patent can help with that. But if you’ve heard about something called a “Section 101 rejection,” you might be confused. Or worse, you might be stuck.
What is a Section 101 Rejection?
The short version
Section 101 is a part of the U.S. patent law. It talks about what kind of things you can get a patent on.
When someone at the patent office gives you a “Section 101 rejection,” they’re saying your invention isn’t the kind of thing that qualifies for a patent.
But here’s the catch—this rule gets used in ways that confuse a lot of smart people.
It’s not that your invention is bad
Let’s be super clear. A Section 101 rejection doesn’t mean your invention isn’t useful. Or new. Or valuable.
It just means the patent office thinks it falls into a category that’s not allowed under their current rules.
This happens a lot with software, AI, and anything that involves data or math. The law says you can’t patent “abstract ideas.” But they never clearly explained what that means.
So over time, it’s been used to reject a lot of inventions that are actually very real, very useful, and very patent-worthy.
How we got here
A few years ago, there were some big court cases—like the Alice case—that changed the game.
The courts said that some types of software couldn’t be patented because they were too “abstract.”
That opened the door for the patent office to start rejecting more applications under Section 101.
Suddenly, if your invention looked like it involved basic math, algorithms, or organizing data—it might get flagged. Even if it was doing something totally new and valuable.
It’s like telling an AI engineer, “Sorry, that’s just math.”
That’s how crazy it can feel. You could be building an AI tool that does something no one’s ever done before.
But if the examiner thinks it looks like just an algorithm or a mental process, you might get hit with a Section 101 rejection.
That’s why understanding this rule matters so much. Because it’s not just about law—it’s about how you describe what you built.
The two-part test that causes all the pain
Here’s how examiners decide if your invention gets rejected under Section 101. They use what’s called the “Alice test.” It’s a two-step test. Let’s break it down in super simple terms:
First, they ask: is your idea abstract?
Second, they ask: even if it is, does it do something more—something real and specific and useful in the world?
If you fail both steps, you get rejected.
But—and this is key—you can often pass the second step. Even if they think your idea is abstract, you can still win if you show how it’s applied in a real, useful way.
That’s where smart patent writing comes in. That’s where strategy matters.
Most rejections happen because the patent wasn’t written right
This part’s important. A lot of 101 rejections don’t happen because the invention was unpatentable.
They happen because the application was written in a way that made it sound abstract.
The way you describe your invention is everything. If it sounds like an idea floating in space, it gets rejected.
If it sounds like a real thing solving a real problem, it’s more likely to get allowed.
This is why it helps to work with people who understand both the tech and the law. Not just lawyers. People who know how to frame your invention in a way that gets it through.
Why Software and AI Get Hit the Hardest
The problem isn’t your tech—it’s how it’s explained
If you’re building in software, data, or AI, you’re probably solving real problems.
You’re automating stuff. You’re improving workflows. You’re using models and code to make things faster, smarter, or more secure.
But to the patent office, your invention can look like it’s just “processing data” or “doing math.” That’s when they throw the Section 101 flag.
They’re not trying to block progress. They’re just working with old rules in a fast-moving world.
And when the language in your patent sounds too high-level—like “an algorithm for analyzing data”—they think it’s abstract. That’s the trap.
Real-world examples
Imagine you’ve built a tool that predicts equipment failure in factories using machine learning. That’s a powerful use case.
But if your patent just says “a system that processes data from sensors to predict failure using a model,” it might get rejected.
Why? Because it sounds like math. It doesn’t explain how it actually improves something in the real world.
It doesn’t get into the details of how the model is trained, how it adapts, or what makes it different from basic data processing.
Now imagine rewriting it like this: “a machine learning system that reduces downtime in industrial plants by dynamically adapting to new sensor inputs, providing failure predictions that allow for preventive maintenance.”
That’s no longer abstract. That’s real. That’s applied. That’s what gets you past Section 101.
You have to show the “how”
This is where founders often get tripped up. You’re so deep in your tech, it feels obvious.
But to someone reading your patent for the first time, it might not be clear how your invention actually works or why it matters.
So you need to make it crystal clear. What’s the real-world outcome? What technical problem does it solve? How does it do it in a way that hasn’t been done before?
Not just “an app that recommends content,” but “a method that uses behavioral patterns and real-time feedback loops to deliver context-aware recommendations that adapt based on user emotion detected through camera input.”
Now you’re talking.
What examiners look for
Patent examiners are trained to look for what’s called “significantly more.” That means your invention needs to do more than just process data or organize information.
If you’re using tech to improve a real system—like speeding up a process, securing data in a new way, or reducing errors—that’s a strong point in your favor.
But you have to spell it out. You can’t just say “it helps users.” You have to say exactly how it helps, what’s technically different, and why it works better than what came before.
This is where strong patent writing makes all the difference. The words matter. A lot.
The good news: 101 rejections can be fixed
If you get hit with a Section 101 rejection, don’t panic. It’s not the end. In fact, it’s often just the beginning of a conversation.
There are proven ways to respond. You can rewrite your claims. You can point to examples in your spec. You can show how your invention solves a technical problem.
We’ll get into those strategies soon. But first, it helps to understand how to avoid the rejection in the first place. Because that’s always better.
And yes, it’s 100% possible.
How to Avoid Section 101 Rejections from the Start
It starts with how you frame your invention
When you first write your patent application, you’re telling a story. That story needs to make your invention feel real, practical, and technical.
If it reads like an idea floating in the cloud, it’s in danger. If it feels like a tool solving a problem in the real world, it has a much better shot.
So how do you make sure it sounds real?
You talk about the “how,” not just the “what.”
Instead of just saying what your invention does, explain how it does it. How does it solve a problem? What’s the step-by-step?
What’s happening under the hood that makes it different from just basic code or a simple algorithm?
Think like an engineer, write like a builder
You’re used to building systems. So explain your invention like you’d explain a real system to another engineer.
If you just say “this invention organizes files by category,” that’s abstract.
But if you say “this invention uses a neural net trained on user interaction data to auto-classify files based on predicted future usage,” now you’re talking real tech.
Even better, if you add that it reduces time spent searching for files by 30%, now you’re showing technical value.
That’s what examiners want to see. Not just what it is—but why it matters and how it works.
Show that it’s more than a mental process
A lot of Section 101 rejections happen because the examiner thinks your invention could just be done in someone’s head—or with pen and paper.
It sounds silly, but that’s how the rules are written.
So your job is to show that it can’t. That your invention relies on a machine, or improves how machines work, or uses data in a way humans can’t.
If your tool analyzes medical images using computer vision to catch patterns invisible to doctors, say that.
Make it clear this isn’t just organizing info—it’s doing something no person could do without the system you built.
That’s what makes it patentable.
Include the tech improvements in the claims
Claims are the most important part of your patent. They define the boundaries of your invention. If they’re too broad or too abstract, you’ll get rejected.
So include technical improvements in your claims. Don’t just claim “a method for analyzing data.” That’s the fast track to a 101 rejection.
Instead, claim “a method that uses a trained convolutional neural network to analyze sequential sensor data for anomaly detection in real-time industrial systems.”
Now you’ve added structure. Now you’ve shown a technical improvement. That’s how you clear the 101 hurdle.
Your spec should back it all up
Your specification (the written part of your patent) needs to support your claims. It’s your chance to explain, in detail, how your invention works and what problems it solves.
Use it to paint a clear picture. Describe technical features. Show what’s new. Point out how it improves performance, accuracy, or efficiency.
And always include examples. Lots of them. Different ways your invention can be used, applied, or built.
The more concrete your examples, the more real your invention feels—and the stronger your patent becomes.
Don’t wait to get it right
Too many founders wait until they get a rejection to fix their patent. But by then, the clock is ticking. Responses take time. Examiners get tougher. Costs add up.
It’s way better to get it right the first time. That means working with people who know how to avoid these rejections before they happen.
People who get your tech—and know how to talk to the patent office in a language they understand.
This is exactly what PowerPatent was built to do. Smart software plus real attorney oversight, so your patents are strong, clear, and fast from day one.
What to Do If You Get a Section 101 Rejection
First, don’t freak out
If you get a 101 rejection, take a breath. This happens to a lot of founders—especially if you’re working on software or anything that touches data or AI. It’s common. And it’s fixable.
A rejection isn’t the end of your patent. It’s just a sign that the examiner didn’t see enough technical detail or real-world application in your original claims.
You still have time to explain it better, tighten your claims, or point out what they missed.
Read the rejection carefully
Every rejection comes with an explanation. The examiner will tell you why they think your invention doesn’t qualify under Section 101.
This is usually broken down into two steps—the same two-part test we talked about earlier.
They might say your invention is directed to an abstract idea. Then they’ll explain why they don’t think it adds “significantly more.”
This is your roadmap. It tells you exactly what you need to address. So read it slowly. Highlight the key points. Figure out what they’re really saying.
Are they misunderstanding your invention? Are they missing the technical problem you solve? Are your claims too broad or too high-level? That’s what you need to fix.
Respond with a clear, confident argument
Now it’s your turn to respond. You can do that in a few ways. You can argue that your invention isn’t abstract.
You can argue that it solves a technical problem. You can change your claims to be more specific and grounded.
The best responses usually combine all three.
You explain what your invention does. You show how it solves a real-world technical problem.
You highlight parts of your spec that back this up. And you rewrite your claims to make the improvement clear.
The tone matters too. Be confident. Be clear. Show the examiner you understand the rules—and that your invention fits the law when explained correctly.
Rewrite your claims to focus on technical solutions
This part is key. If your original claims sound too much like general ideas—“organizing data,” “processing inputs,” “generating results”—you’ll want to narrow them down.
Focus your claims on what your invention actually does that’s different. The steps it takes. The tools it uses. The outcomes it enables.
Maybe you started with:
“A method for managing user feedback data using a computer system.”
That sounds broad. Now try this:
“A method for managing user feedback data by generating sentiment scores using a trained natural language model, ranking results based on contextual time weighting, and updating system outputs in real-time.”
See the difference? The second one is real. Specific. Applied. That’s what helps you overcome the 101 wall.
Use examples from real cases
It also helps to reference real cases where similar inventions were approved.
There’s a growing list of “good” examples—court decisions or approved patents that show the kind of language that works.
These examples give you leverage. You can say, “Hey, our case is just like this one that passed.” That helps shift the examiner’s thinking.
This is where legal expertise really comes in handy. A good patent team knows how to find those examples and use them in your favor.
They know what examiners respond to—and how to build your argument around it.
You usually get more than one shot
Even if your first response doesn’t work, you usually get more chances. You can keep talking to the examiner. You can appeal. You can request another review.
It’s not quick, but it’s doable. The key is persistence—and knowing how to keep refining your claims until they click.
Still, nobody wants to be in this spot. It’s why writing it right the first time matters so much.
How the Right Strategy Can Save You Time, Money, and Headaches
The biggest mistake founders make
Most startup founders don’t think much about patent strategy early on. You’re busy building.
You want protection, but you don’t want to get stuck in legal weeds. That’s totally fair.
But here’s the truth: if you don’t think about Section 101 early—especially if your tech touches software, AI, or data—you can end up wasting time and money on patents that won’t hold up.
The number one mistake? Filing fast with a generic, high-level description. That’s what leads to 101 rejections.
And once that happens, you’re stuck in a loop—responding to the patent office, rewriting claims, and paying legal fees every step of the way.
The smart move? Slow down just enough to write it right from day one.
What good patent writing looks like
It’s not about using fancy words. It’s about clarity. It’s about showing how your invention works and why it matters.
A good application tells the story of your invention like a builder talking to another builder. It shows how you solved a hard problem.
It walks through each step your system takes. It connects the dots from tech to impact.
And it frames everything in a way that’s grounded in the law. That’s how you stay out of Section 101 trouble.
Your invention is probably patentable—you just have to say it the right way
We see this all the time. A founder thinks their invention isn’t patentable because they got a rejection or someone told them software can’t be patented. But that’s not true.
Invention is about more than just the idea. It’s about how it’s done. How it’s built. How it works in the real world.
And if you can explain that clearly, you’ve got a shot.
You don’t have to water it down. You don’t have to make it boring. You just have to make it real. Concrete. Useful. Specific.
Why smart tools and smart people make the difference
That’s why PowerPatent exists. Because founders deserve better than slow, expensive, risky patent processes.
You should be able to move fast and protect your edge—without getting tangled in legal complexity.
PowerPatent gives you a way to write better patents from the start.
You get guided software that speaks your language—plus real patent attorneys who know how to avoid 101 rejections before they happen.
This combo of tech + legal muscle means your patent gets filed with the right strategy, the right language, and a real chance of success.
It’s like having a co-founder who knows patents inside out—and wants to help you win.
Timing Is Everything—And So Is Clarity
File early, but not sloppy
There’s a common push-and-pull for founders: you want to file early to protect your idea, but you also want to keep building and improving it.
That’s totally normal. But if you file too early, with vague claims and weak descriptions, you’re almost guaranteed to get a 101 rejection.
The trick is finding the sweet spot: early enough to protect your edge, but clear enough to survive scrutiny.
You don’t need to have a perfect product. But you do need to explain your system in a way that makes it obvious it’s not just an “idea” or a “concept”—it’s a real invention.
A working thing. A technical solution. A machine that does something useful.
That’s how you avoid 101 problems from the beginning.
Don’t just describe features—describe functions
Many founders write their patents like a pitch deck. They focus on what the product does, not how it works. That’s great for investors. It’s not great for the patent office.
The patent office doesn’t care if your tool helps users “save time.” They want to know how it does that. Is it using a novel algorithm? Is it streamlining a process in a specific way? Is it rethinking how data flows?
You need to walk through each step of the process. Describe what happens, in what order, using what parts. Imagine you’re showing a smart engineer exactly how to rebuild your system from scratch.
That’s the level of detail that shows the examiner: this is not abstract. This is real.
Add tech value where it matters most
A common reason patents get rejected under Section 101 is because they seem like they’re just applying basic tech to a common business problem.
For example, “a system for organizing meetings using an app.” Sounds helpful, but it also sounds generic. Anyone could build that.
Now imagine this: “a system that dynamically reschedules multi-party meetings based on machine learning predictions of calendar disruptions, adjusting time slots using natural language intent from user messages.”
That’s a whole different level. Same general purpose—but now it’s clearly a technical solution. It uses real innovation. It adds value in a way that’s grounded in the tech.
That’s the key.
If it runs on a machine, say how
This part gets overlooked all the time. If your invention works because of the way it uses software, hardware, or data—you need to explain that.
The courts have been clear: if your invention improves how computers or systems work, it’s patentable. But you can’t just say it improves things. You have to show how.
Maybe your system reduces CPU usage. Maybe it improves latency. Maybe it cuts bandwidth. If so, say that. Put those benefits into your patent claims. That’s what gets you past the “abstract” label.
So many 101 rejections happen just because the inventor didn’t explain the connection between the tech and the improvement. Don’t let that be you.
Wrapping It Up
Section 101 rejections might seem like a wall, but they’re really just a filter. They’re meant to keep out vague ideas and protect real innovation. That means if you’re building something that works—something real, something that solves a problem—you’ve already got what it takes.
Leave a Reply