在全世界，使用電子處理器搭配軟體與其相關的指令可用來達到處理數位資料之應用或是用於控制自動化、安全加密機制、通訊相關協定、人工智能演算法及商業方法等等，其中延伸出的相關專利量也十分可觀。此類專利申請案件在美國USPTO首要挑戰的就是其專利權權利項是否能通過專利法35 U.S.C § 101專利適格性(Patent Subject Matter Eligibility)審查。美國USPTO在2018年1月釋出新修訂之專利審查基準(Manual of Patent Examining Procedure，MPEP)，依據近年來有關專利適格性之判決較常使用之Mayo/Alice判斷流程，對於其中2106節適格性內容做修改且納入新版的審查基準。其中關於判斷流程、論述與分析方式在MPEP專利適格性中皆有明確的文字定義，然美國為一案例法國家，實務申請上若只是照本宣科卻不見得能順利通過審查。本論文將針對在專利申請人於USPTO實務申請軟體專利且有效取得專利權之相關審查過程中如何有效地描述權利項或審查過程中如何引證有關35 U.S.C. § 101法院判決前例來佐證或修改權利項的來避免落入不可專利項目且順利通過專利適格性審查做探討。

In worldwide，instructions using a processor or more processors and software associated with instruction can be used to process digital data or automation control，secure encryption mechanism，communication-related protocols，artificial intelligence algorithms and business methods，etc., the amount of related field patent is more and more。
The first challenge for such patent filed to USPTO in the United States is whether patent can be examined by Patent Subject Matter Eligibility，under the Patent Law of 35 U.S.C § 101 which USPTO released the newly and revised Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in January 2018。
Based on the Mayo/Alice judgment process commonly used in recently years，the section 2106 of the eligibility criteria was revised and incorporated into the new version of the guideline。Among them，there are clear definitions how to process judicial exception，the examples of eligibility/ineligibility claim and method of analysis in the eligibility of MPEP。However，due the United States is a case law country，if applicant just in the light of MPEP guide might not overcome the § 101 during the patent prosecution。
This thesis will do discovery about how to effectively describe the claim，how to recite the precedent to prove the claim are directed to improvements，add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter，amend the claim to persuasive examiner and sufficient to overcome directed to an abstract idea。

中文
李森堙. (2016年3月). 專利訴訟統計與年度議題評析：談後Alice案判決時代美國法院認定抽象概念與判斷專利標的適格性的發展. 財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心.
洪振盛. (2016年7月). Alice 案後美國電腦軟體專利適格性之發展. 智慧財產權月刊, 頁 66-89.
張啟聰. (2011年1月). 美國程序專利法制之探討－以 In re Bilski 案為中心（In re Bilski-A Legal Research on Us Process Patent）. 東吳法律學報, 頁 149-186.
徐偉甄. (2015年6月). 從美國法院判決探討電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之國際調和., (頁 94).國立台灣科技大學專利研究所碩士論文。
葉昭蘭. (2018年6月). 美國後Alice時代電腦軟體專利標的適格性判決之研究., (頁 95). 國立台灣科技大學專利研究所碩士論文。
英文
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (Supreme Court of the United States 2014年6月19日).
Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341（Fed. Cir. 2016) (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2016).
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (Supreme Court of the United States 6 28, 2010).
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350（Fed. Cir. 2014） (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2014).
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2011).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 101 S. Ct. 1048(1981) (Supreme Court of the United States 1981).
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344（Fed. Cir. 2014） (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2014).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S. Ct. 253(1972) (Supreme Court of the United States 1972).
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus labs. inc, 566 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (Supreme Court of the United States 2012).
OfficeStates Patent and TrademarkUnited. (2017). 擷取自 Office of the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 2522(1978) (Supreme Court of the United States 1978).
Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2014).
Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2010).
SIRF Technology, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COM'N, 601 F.3d 1319 (2010) (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2010).
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F3d 709（Fed. Cir. 2014） ( Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2014).