The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has shifted its approach to evaluating patents for emerging technologies, potentially opening the door for Michigan inventors who previously faced rejections. Over the past several months, the agency has softened its stance on what qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter, particularly for artificial intelligence, software, and high-tech innovations. This change, driven by new precedential decisions and examiner guidance, could have significant implications for local businesses and the broader tech industry.
Under Director John A. Squires, who took office in September 2025, the USPTO issued a key Appeals Review Panel decision, Ex parte Desjardins, in late September 2025. The ruling vacated a rejection of machine-learning claims, holding that improvements to the functioning of a machine-learning model can qualify as a patent-eligible technological improvement rather than an unpatentable abstract idea. As summarized by intellectual property analysts, the decision signals a more welcoming path for AI-related patents.
Following this, the USPTO issued examiner guidance directing that claims should not be dismissed at too high a level of generality, and that artificial-intelligence systems should be treated as tools used within an invention. Director Squires has emphasized that the agency is open 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, not the courts, meaning patents that clear examination can still be challenged in litigation if claims merely apply generic computing to a familiar idea.
For inventors, the recalibration means the USPTO is less likely to reject AI, software, and computer-related claims outright under Section 101 as abstract, particularly when the invention improves 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. Inventors previously told an idea was too abstract may want to revisit that decision under the current framework.
Despite the eligibility shift, novelty, non-obviousness, and disclosure requirements remain unchanged. A strong application still depends on careful drafting, and because courts have not changed course, specifications should clearly describe the specific technical problem being solved and how the invention improves the underlying technology. The change reaches beyond pure software, touching connected devices, electronics, automotive systems, and diagnostic technologies that rely on data and machine learning.
"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 in electronics, automotive tech, and medical devices should take a fresh look." Based in Michigan, the firm helps local businesses navigate intellectual property, and its founder, a patent attorney with graduate degrees in electrical and computer engineering, brings technical insight to patent prosecution. Inventors curious about the USPTO's evolving stance can schedule a consultation with the firm.
The implications of this shift are significant for Michigan's innovation economy, particularly in automotive tech and medical devices. By easing patent eligibility, the USPTO may encourage more filings, potentially boosting investment and development in these sectors. However, the ultimate impact depends on how courts interpret the new guidance and whether inventors can craft claims that withstand future challenges.
