As with much of Director's public pronouncements the tone of the post is mostly upbeat, extoling the Office's efforts in accommodating sometimes confusing if not contradictory instructions from the courts (particularly the Federal Circuit, which is somewhat understandable in view of the occasionally Delphic language on the issue by the High Court).  Director Vidal references the Office's 2022 report to Congress on "Patent eligible subject matter: Public views on the current jurisprudence in the United States" and the message therein that "across the spectrum, stakeholders generally agreed that the law on patent eligibility—like other areas of patent law—needs to be clear, predictable, and consistently applied."  The Director also recites innovation canon in saying that "[t]his clarity and consistency will allow innovators to attract the investment and collaborations that bring more innovation to impact, in turn creating more jobs and solving world problems."

While the sentiments voiced by the Director are admirable (and it would be hard for her to be credible if she didn't subscribe to them) the devil in this instance is not just in the details but in the process of effectuating eligibility determinations within the strictures of recent case law.  To this end, the post mentions the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) pilot program (crediting the impetus for this initiative to Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Tom Cotton (R-AK)) and describing the program as being "designed to evaluate whether examination efficiency and patent quality can be improved by delaying the complete evaluation of subject matter eligibility until other patentability criteria are evaluated as opposed to addressing all requirements for patentability at the same time" and reminding stakeholders that it will expire on July 30, 2022 although patent applications involved in the program will persist during the course of their prosecution.  Regarding its adoption, the Director's statistics state that about one-third of the 600 invitations the Office has sent have been accepted, the Director drawing no conclusions nor making any statements regarding whether this frequency was expected or consistent with the Office being able to draw any conclusions regarding its effectiveness.

Next the Director notes the series of Guidances, including the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, and the Berkheimer Memo, all of which can be found in Section 2106 of the latest version of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.  In association with these assertions, the Director provides the encouraging statistic that "the corps-wide eligibility rejection rate [has dropped] from about 25% in 2018 to about 8% today," although it is certainly likely that at least a portion of this improvement is due to applicants adapting to PTO and Federal Circuit standards that have evolved since the Supreme Court began its subject matter eligibility crusade in 2012 with its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories.  The Director also references the Office's October 2020 Report on "Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy" and its "Adjusting to Alice" report on patent examination outcomes released in April 2020.  These Reports support the conclusions of the Chief Economist that the 2019 revisions to the Office's eligibility guidance produced a 25% decrease in the frequency of Alice-affected technologies to receive a first Office Action asserting a Section 101 rejection, and that "uncertainty about determinations of patent subject matter eligibility for the relevant technologies decreased by a remarkable 44% as compared to the previous year."

This is all well and good as far as it goes, the Director giving credit to prior Directors, administrators, and the examining corps in reducing somewhat the uncertainties caused by judicially created changes in subject matter eligibility law.  But the next sentences undo much of the good feelings produced by these achievements, the Director stating "[d]espite this progress to achieve a more consistent examination under Section 101, there is more work to be done.  Accordingly, we are revisiting our subject matter eligibility guidance."  To this end, the Director asks the public to provide comments on subject matter eligibility by September 15, 2022 to 101@uspto.gov and by participating in stakeholder listening sessions.  While it is certainly the case that subject matter eligibility law remains unsettled, to once again poll stakeholders seems a fool's errand (besides being completely redundant).  It is well-established that there are two generic species of applicant:  those who believe that the status quo is optimal for them and their business goals and are thus completely satisfied, and those who have been negatively affected by frank preclusion of certain innovative technologies (medical diagnostics being a principal example) and thus are completely dissatisfied (and have been forced to use trade secret and other means to protect their technologies, albeit imperfectly).  It is hard to see how another round of these efforts will be more successful than the ones that inauguration of this latest iteration indicates have been inadequate.

Some rays of hope may be found in the concluding statements in the blog post, regarding efforts to consult with counterpart offices in foreign countries, with regard to how those countries have largely avoided the confusion that has arisen in the U.S. (although it is likely that the simple reason for the clarity existing abroad on subject matter eligibility is due entirely to the absence of a Supreme Court in those countries that is involved in making patent policy).  To the extent that foreign counterparts can raise any issues current U.S. law or the interpretation thereof on subject matter eligibility that runs afoul of international obligations under the TRIPS agreement such discussions may be helpful.  The blog also notes cooperation between the PTO and the DOJ Solicitor General regarding efforts towards identifying "good vehicles" to achieve the goal of "creating more certain and predictable rights that foster innovation."

The simple fact is that the Supreme Court has shown no recognition that its subject matter eligibility jurisprudence needs to be revisited (even when encouraged to do so by the Solicitor General as in the American Axle case), the Federal Circuit has been unwilling to provide a useful counterbalance to the Court's dicta regarding eligibility, and the PTO does not have the authority under the law to bind judicial decision-making.  Congress is the answer, as frightening as that reality may be in the current political climate, and despite some efforts has not been able to enact legislation that would improve matters.  For the moment, only by taking up Justice Breyer's challenge to the clever draftsman (see "Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories -- What Should We Do? (or Can These Claims Be Saved?)") to craft claims sufficient to provide the maximum possible protection with the least risk of invalidation can the situation be ameliorated if not entirely remedied.