The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has signaled a more welcoming approach to patents for artificial intelligence, software, and other high-tech inventions, a shift that could benefit Michigan inventors and businesses that had previously abandoned patent filings due to stringent rejections. According to a press release from The Patent Baron, PLLC, the USPTO has recalibrated its evaluation process over the past several months under Director John A. Squires, who took office in September 2025.
Key to the change is a precedential Appeals Review Panel decision, Ex parte Desjardins, issued in late September 2025, which vacated a rejection of machine-learning claims. The decision held that improvements to the functioning of a machine-learning model can qualify as a patent-eligible technological improvement, rather than being dismissed as an unpatentable “abstract idea.” The USPTO followed with examiner guidance directing that claims should not be rejected at too high a level of generality and that artificial-intelligence systems should be treated as tools within an invention.
Director Squires has described the USPTO as open to transformative technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cryptocurrency, and medical diagnostics. However, the shift is not a blank check. The new guidance binds patent examiners but 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 where 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.
However, novelty, non-obviousness, and disclosure requirements remain unchanged, so strong applications still depend on careful drafting. Because courts have not changed course, a specification should clearly describe the specific technical problem being solved and how the invention improves the underlying technology. The change reaches beyond pure software to connected devices, electronics, automotive and transportation systems, and diagnostic technologies reliant 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.” The firm, based in Howell, Michigan, offers consultations for inventors curious about the evolving patent landscape. More details are available at thepatentbaron.com.
