If you’re building something new, smart, and technical, a patent can be your best move. It protects your invention. It gives your startup an edge. It shows investors you’re serious. But getting a patent isn’t just about describing what you made. You also need to know what not to say.
Understanding 101 Rejections Without the Legal Jargon
This Isn’t About Whether Your Idea Is Good
Let’s make one thing super clear: a 101 rejection doesn’t mean your invention is bad. It doesn’t mean it’s not clever, useful, or innovative.
What it really means is that the way your invention is presented makes it look like something the law doesn’t allow patents for. That’s a critical distinction.
Many founders and engineering teams mistake a 101 rejection for a value judgment. It’s not. It’s a filter.
A gate. And it’s one you can learn to avoid—not by changing what you invented, but by changing how you explain it.
The Law Isn’t Against You—It’s Just Narrow
Patent law, particularly Section 101, is built around four main categories: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
If your invention doesn’t clearly fit into one of those categories, the examiner hits pause.
And here’s the kicker: even if your invention does fit, if your patent application doesn’t sound like it does, you still get rejected.
That means the burden is on you—or your team—to craft your application in a way that clearly shows you’re within the rules.
So if you’re a founder running a tight ship, this is a strategic moment. The way your application is written determines whether your IP becomes an asset or a delay.
Every day lost to back-and-forth with the patent office is time your competitors are catching up.
Think Like a Patent Examiner—Not Just an Inventor
If you want to avoid 101 rejections, you need to shift your mindset from “what makes my invention smart” to “what makes my invention patentable.”
Examiners are trained to think in legal categories.
So while you’re focused on your algorithm’s efficiency or your system’s performance gains, they’re looking for one key thing: does this look like it belongs in the world of patents?
To answer that, they look for signals. They look at the structure of your claims.
They look at whether your invention solves a technical problem in a concrete way. They check if it’s grounded in tech or floating in the clouds of abstraction.
And most importantly—they look at how you frame what you built. If your application makes it sound like a theory, a rule, or a mental shortcut, you’re going to get stuck.
Strategy: Anchor Everything in a Technical Problem
Here’s the move: anchor your invention in a specific, technical problem—and show exactly how it solves that problem using technology.
If your system improves image recognition, don’t just say that. Say what was wrong with image recognition before.
Was it slow? Was it inaccurate in low light? Did it struggle with edge detection?
Now say what your invention does differently. Does it pre-process pixels in a new way? Does it reorder layers in the model architecture?
Does it apply a novel filtering technique using real-time sensor data?
Suddenly, you’re not talking about an abstract idea. You’re solving a technical issue with a specific tool.
That’s the difference between a 101 rejection and a patent that gets greenlit fast.
Business Tip: Don’t Leave This to Your Engineers Alone
If you’re running a startup or product team, don’t assume your engineers will naturally write a 101-proof patent.
They know how to build the tech, but translating that into patent-ready language is a different skill set entirely.
You need someone—either in-house or through a platform like PowerPatent—who can bridge that gap.
Someone who can take the messy brilliance of your code, system, or model, and wrap it in a package that the patent office understands.
This is where most early-stage teams slip up. They treat patents as an afterthought, or they outsource them to someone who doesn’t understand the tech.
That’s how you end up with vague claims, abstract language, and rejection letters.
A smarter play is to bring strategy into the drafting process from day one.
If you can position your invention right from the start, you can avoid months of delay and thousands in legal fees.
👉 Want to see how PowerPatent helps founders turn their real tech into patent-ready applications that avoid common rejections? Go here: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
The Biggest Mistake: Describing Your Invention Like It’s Just an Idea
Why “Just an Idea” Gets You in Trouble
Let’s say you came up with a brilliant way to sort data faster. Or you built a new kind of algorithm that helps people find better matches on a job site.
If you describe your invention as “a method for matching job seekers with employers using data analysis,” you might think that’s clear.
But to a patent examiner, it can sound like you’re just describing an idea. That’s the problem.
When a patent sounds like it’s about an idea—without showing how it actually works in the real world—it gets flagged.
The law doesn’t allow patents for just ideas. It has to be something more. Something that moves beyond the abstract.
And here’s the twist: even if you did build real tech and solve a real problem, your patent can still get rejected if it doesn’t show that clearly.
Avoid “Mental Process” Language
Patent examiners are on high alert for anything that sounds like it could be done in your head. Words like “analyze,” “determine,” “identify,” and “compare” raise red flags.
These words are not bad on their own. But if your patent relies only on these actions—without showing how the computer or system actually does them—it starts to sound like it’s all just thinking.
That’s where the rejection hits.
You don’t want your invention to look like something that could be done on paper or by a human just using logic.
That’s what the patent office calls a “mental process,” and those aren’t patentable.
You Need to Show Tech Doing the Work
Instead of saying your system “analyzes user behavior to make suggestions,” show how the system does it.
What are the inputs? What is the system actually doing? What’s the output, and how is it used?
When the computer is doing real work—solving a problem that a regular human couldn’t do alone—it becomes a strong candidate for a patent.
But when it looks like you’re just describing an idea or some thinking steps, it gets rejected.
So think of it this way: Don’t just describe what your invention is about. Show what it does, how it works, and how it uses technology in a real, useful way.
“Generic Computer” = Generic Rejection
Here’s another trap: describing your invention as something that happens on a “computer,” without showing why the computer matters.
If you say your invention is “a method carried out by a generic computer system,” that sounds like you’re using a regular computer to do regular tasks.
That’s not enough. That sounds like something anyone could do with basic tools. And the patent office will say, “Nope, not patentable.”
Instead, show what the computer is doing specifically that makes your invention work. How does the tech improve something?
What technical problem does it solve? How does it make something faster, smarter, or more efficient than before?
It’s not just about using a computer. It’s about solving a tech problem in a new way.
👉 Want help showing how your tech actually works—in a way that makes patents easier to get? That’s exactly what PowerPatent helps you do: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
The Hidden Danger of Broad, Vague Descriptions
Why Trying to Cover “Everything” Can Backfire
You might think casting a wide net is smart. If you’re too specific, won’t others find a way around your patent?
That’s a fair thought. But here’s what happens when you try to be too broad: your patent can start sounding like it’s about nothing at all.
If your application is full of vague statements like “a system for managing information” or “a process for improving performance,” without explaining exactly how it works, it’s a red flag.
The patent office starts wondering: Is this just a business idea? Is it just a concept without any technical depth?
The broader you go without clarity, the more likely it is to sound like an abstract idea. And that’s where 101 rejections live.
Vague Terms Make You Sound Like You’re Hiding the Ball
Examiners read hundreds of applications a month. They’re trained to sniff out when someone is being fuzzy.
If your language is full of things like “could be,” “may involve,” or “one or more components,” it can look like you’re dodging the question: what is the invention really doing?
If it seems like you’re hiding the ball, the patent office won’t play along. They’ll say it’s too abstract, too conceptual, too undefined. And your patent gets stuck.
The Cure: Be Clear, Be Concrete
Let’s say you built a way to compress large image files quickly. Don’t just say “a system for improving image quality using compression.”
That’s vague. Instead, describe exactly what kind of image, what steps the system uses, and what outcome it delivers.
Think about what makes your invention actually work—the real, technical stuff.
Even if you don’t go into full source code (and you don’t have to), you should still show how it functions step-by-step in the real world.
You’re not just protecting an idea. You’re protecting a way to make that idea work using technology.
That’s the difference between a rejected application and a strong, defensible patent.
“Field-of-Use” Language Isn’t Enough
Some inventors try to dodge 101 rejections by saying their idea is used “in the field of healthcare” or “in the context of e-commerce.”
That sounds like you’re being specific. But it’s not.
Just sticking an idea inside a field—without showing how it does something new in that field—isn’t enough.
That’s called a “field-of-use limitation.” And it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. The patent office sees right through it.
If you say your algorithm helps recommend products and call it an “e-commerce system,” but don’t show a real technical improvement in how e-commerce works, you’re back in 101 rejection territory.
So instead of leaning on the setting, focus on the technical solution. What does your system actually fix?
What’s hard about the problem, and how did your invention solve it using real steps?
👉 Not sure if your language is too broad or too vague? PowerPatent helps you zero in on what matters—so your application is clear, concrete, and hard to reject: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
The “Math Problem” That Can Kill a Patent
Why Pure Math and Abstract Logic Don’t Count
If your invention involves algorithms—and most tech inventions do—it’s easy to slip into math language without realizing it.
The problem? If it sounds like you’re just doing math, the patent office might say, “That’s not something we give patents for.”
Here’s the thing: math, by itself, is not patentable. That’s straight from the law.
So if your invention looks like a math formula, or just transforms numbers without doing anything real in the world, you’re in trouble.
For example, saying something like “A method for calculating a ranking score using statistical analysis” sounds like math.
That might be what your system does under the hood—but if you describe it that way, you’re risking rejection.
Why? Because it makes it seem like there’s no technical application—just number-crunching.
You Need a Real-World Hook
What saves you from a 101 rejection is showing how the math is used in a real, working system.
Let’s go back to that ranking score example. If you say “a method for calculating a ranking score,” you’re stuck.
But if you say, “a system that improves product search by generating a personalized ranking score using real-time user behavior,” now you’re onto something.
The math didn’t go away—it just got connected to a real problem, with a real solution. You’re not just crunching numbers.
You’re making something work better, faster, smarter in a technical way.
And that’s what the patent office wants to see.
Don’t Let the Math Take Over Your Application
Some inventors get so excited about their algorithm that they fill the application with equations. That’s great for documentation, but risky for a patent.
You want to make sure your application doesn’t read like a math paper. Because if it does, the examiner will treat it like one—and reject it for being too abstract.
Instead of leading with formulas, lead with what the system does. What inputs does it take?
What steps does it perform? What’s the end result, and how does that result improve the way something works?
That’s how you shift your application from “abstract” to “applicable.”
👉 Want help translating your math-heavy invention into a real-world story the patent office can understand? PowerPatent makes that simple. Here’s how: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Watch Out for “Results Without Steps”
Saying What It Does Isn’t the Same as Saying How It Works
One of the fastest ways to get hit with a 101 rejection is to focus your patent application entirely on what your invention does, while skipping how it actually does it.
If you only talk about outcomes, the examiner is left guessing. And guessing isn’t their job—it’s yours to show them the path.
This is a pattern many startups fall into without realizing it. You’re proud of the end result. It’s what your users see. It’s what investors care about. But the patent office isn’t looking for a business case.
They’re looking for technical disclosure. And if you don’t give them a clear roadmap from input to output, you’re not getting through.
Saying “our system improves latency” or “our platform personalizes content” is a good starting point.
But if you stop there, your patent is toast. You have to take the examiner behind the curtain and walk them through what happens in the engine room.
The Missing Link: Transformation
To get a patent, especially in tech, you need to show that your system transforms something in a meaningful, technical way. It’s not just enough to say a result is achieved.
You have to show how raw inputs are processed, changed, or combined using a technical method that’s not obvious.
That transformation can be about data. It can be about system state. It can be about user experience.
But it has to be concrete. And it has to be driven by technology—not just human choices or abstract rules.
For example, if you say your system generates personalized fitness plans, that’s nice.
But if you explain how it takes biometric data, identifies training gaps using a unique combination of historical datasets and real-time motion input, and adapts the plan dynamically based on wearable sensor data—that’s a technical transformation.
That’s something the patent office can work with.
Strategic Move: Break It Down, Then Build It Back Up
When drafting a patent application, a great internal exercise is to ask your tech team to reverse-engineer your invention as if they had no prior knowledge of it.
If all they had were the inputs and the expected result, could they recreate the system? If not, then your patent needs more detail.
Walk through every part of your system. What triggers the process? What happens first? What data is needed?
How is it manipulated? What does the system output—and how is that output used by the rest of the platform?
This isn’t just helpful for the patent office. It forces you to identify where your true technical value lives.
It shows you which parts of your system are obvious and which are original. And it often uncovers hidden pieces of IP you didn’t even know you had.
For Businesses: Strong Patents Start With Strong Narratives
Here’s the part most founders miss—your patent is more than a legal filing.
It’s a technical narrative. It tells the story of your invention. And just like in any good story, you need to show the journey, not just the destination.
If your story starts and ends with “We provide better recommendations,” that’s not a story. That’s a pitch deck slide.
But if you walk through how your system discovers unseen relationships in sparse data, updates user profiles dynamically, and learns in real-time through feedback loops—you’ve got a narrative.
One that’s grounded in code, logic, and engineering—not just ideas.
This kind of clarity also becomes an asset in conversations with investors, acquirers, and partners.
When your patents clearly show what makes your tech work—and why no one else can do it quite like you—you’re not just avoiding 101 rejections. You’re building value.
👉 Want to make sure your patent tells the right story, with all the right steps? PowerPatent helps startups turn their code and models into defensible, detailed patent filings that make it clear how the magic happens: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
The Trap of Saying “It Could Be Anything”
The Danger of Open-Ended Language
It’s tempting to leave your patent flexible.
You might say your system could use “any type of data,” or the process could happen on “any kind of device,” or the components are “not limited to” a certain method.
That might feel safe, like you’re covering your bases.
But that kind of open-ended language can actually sink your application.
Why? Because it makes your invention look vague, undefined, and disconnected from real tech.
When you say “any,” you’re telling the examiner that you haven’t nailed down how your invention actually works.
You’re not sure what it needs, or what it does. You’re just describing a concept that might work, somehow, in some way.
That reads like an abstract idea. And abstract ideas are exactly what Section 101 rejections are about.
Be Specific—Even if You Want Broad Protection
Here’s the trick: you can still get broad protection without being vague. It’s all about showing a specific example that works, even if your claims later include variations.
Let’s say you built a recommendation engine. Instead of saying, “The system recommends content using any possible ranking method,” describe a specific way it works.
For example, “The system collects recent viewing data and applies a weighted scoring function based on recency, frequency, and duration.”
Once you’ve shown that it works in a real, technical way, you can build outward. But if you never get specific, the examiner can reject it outright for being too abstract.
“Any Computer,” “Any Processor,” “Any Network” = Big Problems
Another classic mistake is saying your invention runs on “any computing device.” That might sound harmless, but to the examiner, it says, “This isn’t really a technical invention.”
It sounds like something anyone could do on a generic system, which makes it look obvious, non-technical, or abstract.
You don’t need to name a specific processor model. But you do need to show how your system works in a computing environment that matters to your invention.
If it’s cloud-based, say that. If it needs distributed storage or real-time input from sensors, explain that.
Again, it’s not about naming brands or hardware. It’s about showing that your invention is tied to real technology—and not just floating in the land of ideas.
Specific Doesn’t Mean Narrow
This part can feel tricky. You might worry that getting specific will limit your patent.
But it’s actually the opposite. When you start with something solid—something the examiner can see working—you build credibility.
You get the patent through. And then, later, you can layer in broader claims and variations.
Trying to be broad too early just makes it harder to get through the door.
👉 PowerPatent helps you strike the right balance between being specific and strategic—so you don’t give away too much or say too little: https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Wrapping It Up
Avoiding a 101 rejection isn’t just a legal trick. It’s a strategic move. It’s about showing the value in what you’ve built—so clearly, so technically, and so thoroughly, that the patent office has no reason to say no. When you do that, you don’t just get a patent. You get leverage.
Leave a Reply