The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has signaled a more welcoming approach to patents for artificial intelligence and high-tech inventions, reversing a trend of hard-line rejections that discouraged many innovators. Over the past several months, the agency under Director John A. Squires has issued new guidance and a precedential decision that broaden the eligibility of machine-learning and software-related claims. This shift is prompting Michigan inventors and businesses to reconsider patent protection for ideas previously deemed too abstract.
The recalibration began with the Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex parte Desjardins (September 2025), which vacated a rejection of machine-learning claims by holding that improvements to the functioning of a machine-learning model can qualify as a patent-eligible technological improvement. The USPTO followed with examiner guidance directing that claims should not be dismissed at too high a level of generality and that AI systems should be treated as tools within an invention. As summarized by intellectual property analysts, these changes aim to reduce the number of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which had been used to exclude many software and AI inventions as "abstract ideas."
Director Squires has emphasized the USPTO's openness to transformative technologies, including AI, quantum computing, cryptocurrency, and medical diagnostics. However, the shift is not a blank check. The new guidance binds patent examiners but not the courts, and the Federal Circuit continues to apply the same eligibility framework. A patent that clears examination can still be challenged in litigation if its claims merely apply generic computing to a familiar idea. Therefore, inventors must ensure their applications clearly describe the specific technical problem being solved and how the invention improves the underlying technology.
For Michigan inventors, particularly those in electronics, automotive systems, and medical devices, the changes are significant. "For a decade, a lot of good engineering never made it into a patent application because everyone assumed it would be rejected as too abstract," said J. Baron Lesperance, founder of The Patent Baron, PLLC. "That calculus has changed, and inventors should take a fresh look." The firm, based in Howell, Michigan, specializes in patents for fast-moving fields and offers consultations for inventors curious about the new landscape.
The key implications include a lower likelihood of outright rejections under Section 101, especially for inventions that improve how a computer or technical system works. Recent guidance narrows the "mental process" rationale often used to reject machine-learning claims, recognizing that models processing large volumes of data operate beyond human cognition. However, novelty, non-obviousness, and disclosure requirements remain unchanged, so careful drafting is still essential. The change reaches beyond pure software to connected devices, electronics, automotive and transportation systems, and diagnostic technologies that rely on data and machine learning. Inventors who previously abandoned patent efforts due to eligibility concerns may now find a more welcoming path, provided they craft applications that meet the updated standards.
