[ARTICLE]Patents
Innovators worldwide filed a record 3.7 million patent applications in 2024, with U.S. patent activity surging in the fields of artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. Many of these applications involve new processes, not just products. Yet many inventors still question whether their innovative methods qualify for patent protection and leave potential licensing revenue on the table.
The answer is yes: you can patent a method. Whether you’ve developed a breakthrough manufacturing process, a novel medical technique, or an innovative business workflow, method patents offer robust legal protection. A brief description of the invention is a crucial part of the patent application process, helping to clarify the core features of the method and distinguish it from prior art. This guide covers everything from eligibility requirements and how to patent a process step by step to the latest USPTO eligibility guidance for software methods.
Method patents (a subset of utility patents) protect specific processes, provided the invention is applicable, novel, and non-obvious. They must also fall into a patent-eligible category—meaning a process with practical application, not an abstract idea. Only methods that meet these requirements are eligible for a patent.
Patent application process: Securing a method patent involves careful preparation, USPTO filing, and rigorous examination. On average, this process takes about 2–3 years from filing to approval, though expedited programs exist for a fee.
Pros vs. cons: Method patents grant exclusive rights and potential financial rewards (licensing royalties, competitive edge), but they also entail a lengthy, costly process and require public disclosure of the method.
Trends: Method patenting is expanding rapidly in fintech, edtech, SaaS, AI, automation, and manufacturing. In March 2024, Bank of America reported nearly 6,600 granted patents and pending applications, up nearly 70% since 2019. The USPTO issued guidance in 2025 aimed at easing patenting of AI-driven software methods.
Method patents (also known as process patents) grant the owner the exclusive right to prevent others from using or selling the patented method without permission. These patents are a subset of utility patents and play a crucial role in safeguarding innovative processes across industries—from manufacturing techniques to medical procedures. A patented invention can refer to either a product or a process, depending on what is being protected by the patent.
One crucial nuance: medical method patents can be obtained in the U.S., but by law, they are not enforceable against medical practitioners or hospitals performing the procedure. This policy protects patient care while still allowing patent protection for the underlying innovation.
A method patent protects a specific way of doing something—it covers methods that transform materials or information to achieve a result. While some patents protect a physical invention, method patents often cover intangible processes or transformations. This can include anything from a new manufacturing technique to a medical procedure, showcasing the broad applicability of method patents. The primary distinction between a process patent and a product patent lies in what they protect: a product patent safeguards the end product, whereas a process patent protects the method itself.
Process patents are utility patents. Design patents protect only how a product looks, and plant patents cover new plant varieties, so neither can protect a process. A utility patent covers the functional steps themselves, whether they are production techniques, medical procedures, or algorithms.
Method patents typically last for 20 years from the filing date (if maintenance fees are paid), providing substantial exclusive rights to the inventor. However, the patent application must include a complete and enabling disclosure of the method, such that individuals with general knowledge in the field can comprehend and replicate it.
Method patents are prevalent across industries, reflecting their diverse applicability:
Biotechnology: New methods for producing drugs or gene therapies can be patented to protect cutting-edge medical innovations.
Healthcare: Surgical techniques or diagnostic processes are often patented (though enforcement is limited as noted above). Methods of administering gene therapy or novel imaging techniques can be patented.
Manufacturing & Automation: Industrial processes frequently rely on process patents for production improvements. Method patents in this sector can also cover processes involving mechanical devices, not just software or chemical processes. Between 2013 and 2020, patent filings in additive manufacturing (3D printing) grew at a robust average annual rate of approximately 26%, nearly eight times the growth rate of other technology sectors, indicating a race to patent innovations in additive manufacturing and robotics.
Software & SaaS: Tech companies often patent algorithms and data-processing methods. Cloud computing providers have secured patents on unique data management workflows and security processes to support their SaaS platforms.
Fintech: Business method patents play a key role in financial technology. One example is an anti-fraud ATM transaction verification method that sends a secure one-time code to the user’s phone. Bank of America was granted 644 patents in 2023, nearly 20% related to AI and machine learning innovations for financial services.
“Nearly half were in Information Security (28%) and AI/Machine Learning (18%), with significant shares in online/mobile banking (12%), payment technology (12%), and blockchain (6%).”
Source: Bank of America, “BofA Patents Increase Nearly 70% in 5 Years” (Press Release, March 6, 2024).
EdTech: Education companies patent methods for online learning and instructional technology, including AI-driven tutoring systems and adaptive learning platforms that personalize coursework based on real-time student performance.
For a method to be eligible for patent protection, it must satisfy several legal standards and fall within a patentable subject matter category. Patent law imposes strict limitations to ensure that only methods meeting specific criteria—excluding abstract ideas, laws of nature, and certain types of subject matter—are granted patent protection. A method must meet the following criteria to qualify for a patent:
The invention must be new and not previously known. The method cannot have been publicly disclosed, used, or published anywhere in the world before the patent application’s filing date. During examination, the USPTO conducts rigorous prior art searches to ensure this requirement is met. Examiners interpret the novelty of a method based on the ordinary meaning of the terms used in the claims. The novelty requirement is fundamental—it ensures patents are granted only for truly new innovations, encouraging continuous innovation and preventing “re-patenting” of existing techniques.
The method must not be an obvious development to someone skilled in the art (an expert in the relevant field). The method should represent a significant step forward or a surprising solution, rather than an incremental improvement any skilled practitioner could easily deduce. The non-obviousness standard, codified in 35 U.S.C. § 103, is often the most challenging hurdle. Examiners judge it from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill at the time of filing, and obviousness rejections often rest on combining steps or components that were already known in the field.
The method must have specific and practical utility (usefulness). It should provide a tangible benefit, produce a desirable outcome, or be capable of use in real-world scenarios. A purely theoretical or academic idea is insufficient—the invention must work and serve a purpose. In the context of method patents, utility also implies that the process can be implemented to achieve the claimed result. A method must be more than just an idea; it must be a concrete, implementable process to qualify for patent protection.
To patent a process, confirm it is new and non-obvious with a prior art search, write an application that describes every step in enough detail for others to repeat it, and file it with the USPTO, often starting with a provisional application to lock in your filing date. An examiner then reviews it, and most applications go through at least one round of objections before they are allowed.
The patent application process for methods involves several critical stages, from preparation through USPTO examination and approval. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the federal agency responsible for examining and granting patents. Understanding each step helps ensure successful navigation of this complex journey.
[RLG]Free strategy call
Talk it through with a registered patent attorney.
Free 15 to 45 minute IP strategy call, no obligation.
Start with a thorough prior art search. It shows whether your process has already been patented, published, or used, so you can avoid a rejection you could have predicted and focus the application on what is actually new. It can save time and money. A patent attorney with experience in your field can run the search and tell you how the results affect your claims.
Preparing a patent application for a method requires careful attention to detail in describing each step and how they interrelate. This includes:
If the application doesn’t meet all requirements, you’ll receive feedback from the patent examiner (an Office Action). This interactive process often involves multiple rounds of review and amendment before approval.
Filing involves submitting a written application with all required parts (specification, claims, drawings if needed, abstract) along with required fees. Almost all U.S. patent applications are now filed electronically through the USPTO’s Patent Center portal. Your filing date matters: the United States awards patents on a first-inventor-to-file basis, so an earlier filing date gives you priority over others who file later for the same invention.
For urgent applications, the USPTO offers Track One prioritized examination, which aims for final disposition within 12 months for an additional fee—significantly faster than regular examination.
Once filed, a patent examiner with relevant technology expertise reviews your application for formal requirements and evaluates claims for patentability by conducting prior art searches. Most first Office Actions include rejections or objections—this is normal and expected.
As of FY 2023, the average total pendency for business method patent applications was approximately 26.7 months, a decrease from over 36 months in 2018.
“First action” pendency reflects the time until the examiner’s initial review, while “total pendency” reflects the time to final disposition (allowance or abandonment). After peaking above 36 months in 2018, pendency has improved significantly, dropping to ~25 months by mid-2024.”
Source: USPTO, Business Methods Pendency Statistics (Mid-Year 2024).
By mid-2024, pendency further dropped to ~25.2 months on average, reflecting efficiency improvements.
Once a method patent is granted, any party using the patented method without authorization may be considered infringing and subject to legal remedies.
An Office Action is the examiner’s written explanation of why claims are rejected or what must be fixed. You usually get three months to respond, and you can extend that up to six months in total by paying extension fees. If you don’t respond in time, the application is abandoned. A good response amends the claims or argues why the examiner is wrong, and an attorney who anticipates likely objections when drafting can shorten this stage.
Patenting software-implemented methods presents unique challenges. Software and algorithm-based inventions often fall into a gray area because they can be characterized as abstract mathematical ideas, which aren’t patentable on their own. However, computer software, when combined with hardware or other technology, can make a method eligible for patent protection.
A critical requirement for software methods is that they be rooted in computer technology and provide a concrete technical improvement. Simply implementing a known business procedure on a general computer isn’t patentable. However, software methods may be eligible if they:
Long before Alice, the Supreme Court held in Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) that a formula for converting numbers, claimed on its own, could not be patented. That is why software process claims should focus on what the software does and how it improves the technology, not on the code or the bare algorithm.
The Supreme Court case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) established a two-step test for patent eligibility: (1) determine if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and if so, (2) check if it includes an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the idea into a patent-eligible application. The Patent Act, particularly Section 101, provides the statutory framework for determining patent eligibility in such cases. Following Alice, the USPTO’s allowance rate for business method applications fell to 10.4% in fiscal 2015 and 6.2% in fiscal 2016.
The rate then recovered as examination guidance became clearer, reaching 34.2% in fiscal 2022, the latest year the USPTO has published.
On August 4, 2025, the USPTO issued a memo to its software and business method examiners that could significantly reduce abstract idea rejections for AI and software-related applications. Key points include:
The USPTO has built on that memo since. In Ex parte Desjardins (decided in September 2025 and later designated precedential), its Appeals Review Panel treated claims that improve how a machine learning model is trained as eligible, and in December 2025 the USPTO added that decision to its examining manual. In 2026 it also issued guidance on using evidence declarations to answer eligibility rejections. As of November 2026, the USPTO lists all of this guidance as current on its subject matter eligibility page.
These updates are part of ongoing efforts to improve the patent system and ensure it continues to incentivize innovation while maintaining high standards.
Business method patents cover methods of conducting business, often implemented via technology. These patents were first clearly permitted in the United States in 1998, in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, marking a significant shift in patentable subject matter.
Following Supreme Court decisions, particularly Bilski v. Kappos (2010), business method patents generally must incorporate a technological element. Examples of potentially patentable business methods include:
It is important to note that not all business practices are eligible for patents—only those practices that involve a technological element or innovation may qualify.
A pure business concept without technological implementation typically isn’t patentable—involvement of technology, hardware, or specialized software implementation is usually required.
Obtaining business method patents remains challenging due to:
However, the 34.2% allowance rate in fiscal 2022 shows improvement as applicants adapt to post-Alice requirements by emphasizing technological aspects.
Method patents offer significant benefits but come with substantial costs and commitments that inventors must carefully consider.
In addition to monetization opportunities, patented methods can help businesses generate revenue through licensing and commercialization, especially when applied to automated technologies and innovative business models.
Exclusive rights: A method patent provides 20 years of exclusive rights to the patented process, preventing competitors from using the same method without permission. This exclusivity can protect competitive advantage and secure higher profit margins.
Monetization opportunities: Patents are valuable assets that can be licensed or sold. Investors view patents as innovation indicators and competitive barriers.
Strategic protection: Patent portfolios provide leverage in negotiations, deter lawsuits through cross-licensing opportunities, and can secure financing or government incentives for IP-rich companies.
Lengthy and costly process: Patent prosecution often takes years and involves significant legal fees. Individual inventors may face costs of $10,000–$20,000+ from start to finish.
Disclosure requirements: Patents require detailed public disclosure of your method, potentially revealing “secret sauce” to competitors. By contrast, OpenAI’s GPT-4 technical report withheld the model’s architecture and training details, citing the competitive landscape and safety, the kind of know-how companies often keep as trade secrets instead.
Enforcement challenges: Over 3,800 patent infringement lawsuits were filed in 2022, with litigation costs often reaching hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. For small inventors, enforcement can be prohibitively expensive. Patent holders may need to take legal action to enforce their rights if infringement occurs.
Obtaining a patent is only the beginning—inventors must actively maintain and potentially enforce their rights to realize full value. The patent holder is responsible for ensuring ongoing protection and enforcement of the patented method.
USPTO maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after grant. Under the current fee schedule, they are $2,150, $4,040, and $8,280 for large entities, $860, $1,616, and $3,312 for small entities, and $430, $808, and $1,656 for micro entities. You can pay each fee in the six months before its due date, or in a six-month grace period after it with a surcharge. Failure to pay results in early patent expiration, although the USPTO can accept a late payment on petition if the delay was unintentional. Method patents are maintained for the same period as other utility patents, typically 20 years from the filing date.
Patent owners must monitor the market for potential infringement, which can be particularly challenging for method patents, as infringement may not be immediately apparent from products. Typical enforcement steps include:
Patents are territorial—a U.S. method patent only protects within the United States. Companies often file internationally through the Patent Cooperation Treaty to cover essential processes in significant markets. Businesses pursue international patents to protect their innovations and maintain a competitive edge in global markets.
Not every innovative method is best protected by a patent. Certain types of innovations, such as printed matter, are generally not eligible for patent protection and are instead protected by copyright law. Alternative protection strategies may be more suitable depending on circumstances.
Trade secrets can provide indefinite protection for methods that aren’t easily reverse-engineered or independently discovered. Famous examples include Coca-Cola’s formula and KFC’s seasoning recipe, both of which were kept secret for decades rather than patented.
To maintain trade secrets, companies must implement robust confidentiality measures, including NDAs, security protocols, and compartmentalized access.
Copyright: Protects specific expression of methods (software code, documentation) but not the underlying functional concepts. Prevents literal copying but allows others to implement the same function differently.
Trademark: Protects brand identifiers associated with methods or services. Amazon’s “One-Click®” was trademarked as a service name, protecting brand recognition while the underlying patent provided functional protection.
These forms of protection can complement patents or trade secrets in a comprehensive IP strategy, with each covering different aspects of an innovation.
Method patenting is experiencing significant growth across multiple sectors, driven by technological advancement and more straightforward USPTO guidelines. Method patents are a type of utility patent that covers a broad range of technological innovations, including processes, business methods, and software-related inventions.
Manufacturing patents are growing fast. Smart manufacturing patent filings rose 579% in China and 212% in the U.S. over the decade to 2024, and the EPO found that additive manufacturing patent families grew about eight times faster than all technologies combined from 2013 to 2020. Financial institutions, such as Bank of America, have expanded their patent portfolios by about 70% since 2019, with a focus on innovations in AI, cybersecurity, and mobile banking.
The 2025 USPTO guidance on AI and software patents represents a significant shift toward more consistent, predictable examination. By establishing more precise boundaries between abstract ideas and practical applications, the USPTO aims to reduce frivolous rejections while maintaining quality standards.
If you’ve developed an innovative method, here’s your roadmap:
The landscape for method patents is more favorable than it’s been in years, particularly for technology-based innovations. With proper strategy and execution, method patents can provide robust protection for your most valuable innovations while opening doors to licensing revenue and strategic partnerships.
Whether you’re developing the next breakthrough in AI, manufacturing, or business processes, understanding method patent protection is essential for maximizing the value of your innovations in today’s competitive marketplace.
Confirm the idea is patentable with a patentability search, then file a provisional patent application to secure an early filing date. A provisional gives you 12 months to file the full application while you refine the process or look for funding.
A search tells you whether your process is new and non-obvious before you spend money on an application. It helps you avoid predictable rejections and costly disputes, and it shows where to focus your claims.
Like any process, it must be new, non-obvious, and useful. It must also pass the Alice test: claims that only describe an abstract idea, such as a business practice run on a generic computer, are rejected, while claims to a specific improvement in how a computer or system works can qualify.
Under the USPTO fee schedule in effect since January 19, 2025, the 3.5-year maintenance fee is $860 for a small entity ($2,150 for large entities and $430 for micro entities). The 7.5- and 11.5-year fees are $1,616 and $3,312 for small entities.
Costs depend on how complex the process is and how many rounds of examination it takes. USPTO fees are the smaller part: the provisional filing fee, for example, is $325 for large entities, $130 for small entities, and $65 for micro entities. Attorney fees for drafting and prosecution are the larger part. See our guide to software patent costs for typical ranges.
Yes. The patent must name the individual people who invented the process, but a company that owns the invention, usually through an assignment in an employment or contractor agreement, can file the application in its own name and own the patent. Put assignment terms in writing before work begins so ownership is clear.
Know It’s Patentable Before You File, or Get Your Money Back.
At Rapacke Law Group, every AI invention starts with a patentability search, and if it finds your invention is not novel, you get a full refund or another search.
The RLG Advantage for AI Patents:
*Terms and conditions apply. Guarantee covers rejections based on subject matter eligibility when following our strategic recommendations.
About the Author: Andrew Rapacke, Managing Partner, Registered Patent Attorney. Andrew specializes in AI and software patent strategy for tech startups and SaaS companies, helping entrepreneurs navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence intellectual property protection.
To Your Success,
Andrew Rapacke
Rapacke Law Group
Connect with me on:
[RLG]Free strategy call
Talk it through with a registered patent attorney.
[01]Keep reading
Amazon’s 1-Click patent (U.S. Patent 5,960,411) didn’t protect “online shopping.” It protected a specific server-side method for processing purchase orders using a single…
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received 598,085 patent applications in 2023, yet a minimal number of U.S. small and mid-sized firms have formal IP protections. This…
The large majority of patent applications receive at least one rejection on their first office action. Yet most inventors, especially tech founders developing AI algorithms…
The #1 top reviewed IP law firm.* Talk to a registered patent attorney, free.
*#1 top reviewed means the most public client reviews on Google, Trustpilot and Avvo of any US patent or trademark firm.
