Surviving the “Alice” Nightmare: Why Software Patents Fail and How to Fix Them

At A Glance

Most software patents fail under Alice because they claim abstract ideas without tying them to a concrete technical improvement.
To survive Section 101 rejections in 2025, software and AI patents must clearly show how the invention improves computer functionality, not just what it does. This requires specific architectures, data flows, and technical effects grounded in real computing problems.

Introduction: Why Alice Still Haunts Software Patents

If you work with software, AI, or SaaS, you have likely heard this sentence:

“Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to an abstract idea.”

That sentence is the modern death sentence for weak software patents.

The root cause is the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) decision, but the enforcement landscape has shifted. Following the USPTO’s July 2024 AI Guidance, examiners are now strictly distinguishing between “generic” AI implementation and true technical improvement. Consequently, failing to navigate these evolving standards remains the #1 reason software and AI patent applications fail in the US today.

But here is the part many founders and developers misunderstand: Alice did not ban software patents. It punished vague ones.

This article explains, in plain language:

• Why software patents fail under Alice
• What examiners now look for in 2025
• How to fix claims using AI-generated code examples
• Practical strategies to overcome Section 101 rejections

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Summary

What the Case Was About

Alice claimed a system for reducing settlement risk using a computer as a middleman.

The Supreme Court said:

• The idea itself was fundamental and abstract
• Using a generic computer did not make it patentable

The Two-Step Alice Test

Every software patent faces this test:

Step 1: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea?

Examples of abstract ideas include:

• Mathematical calculations
• Organizing human activity
• Fundamental economic practices
• Mental processes

Step 2: If yes, does it include an “inventive concept”?

This means:

• Something significantly more than the abstract idea
• A real technical improvement, not generic computer use

Fail either step, and the patent fails.

Examples of Abstract Ideas in Patent Law (2025 Reality)

Key takeaway:
What the software does matters less than how it does it.

Why Software Patents Fail Under Alice

1. Claims Focus on Results, Not Mechanisms

Bad claim:

“A system for detecting anomalies using AI.”

Good claim:

“A system that modifies feature vector dimensionality using adaptive hashing to reduce inference latency.”

Examiners want mechanics, not marketing.

2. “AI” Is Treated as a Black Box

USPTO examiners increasingly assume:

• AI models are conventional
• Training and inference are routine unless proven otherwise

If you say:

“Using a neural network to classify data”

You lose.

If you say:

“Using a sparsity-constrained neural architecture that reduces memory access cycles by 42%”

Now you are speaking their language.

3. No Technical Problem, No Technical Solution

Many applications describe business problems:

• Faster approvals
• Better targeting
• Improved accuracy

But Alice requires:

• A computer problem
• A computer solution

Example of a valid technical problem:

• GPU memory thrashing during batch inference
• Packet loss in distributed systems
• Model drift due to non-stationary data

Software Patent Eligibility 2025: What Changed

Critical Update: July 2024 AI Guidance A major shift occurred with the USPTO’s July 2024 Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility for AI Inventions. This guidance explicitly clarifies that simply applying AI to a conventional task is not enough. To survive scrutiny, claims must recite a specific technical improvement to the computer’s functionality—such as enhancing processing speed, reducing memory usage, or improving security—rather than just using AI as a “black box” tool.

USPTO Examiner Trends (Observed)

Based on post-2019 guidance and 2024–2025 office actions:

• Examiners rely heavily on Prong 2 of Step 1
• “Practical application” language matters more than ever
• Technical effects must be explicit in claims, not just the spec

What Helps in 2025

• Explicit hardware interaction
• Resource optimization
• Improved data structures
• Reduced computational complexity
• System-level architecture claims

AI Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: Real Example

While AI tools can accelerate the drafting process (see our PowerPatent Review 2026 for a detailed analysis), simply relying on their raw output often leads to Section 101 rejections.

Example: AI-Generated Code (Bad Version)

“An AI system that generates code based on user prompts.”

Abstract. Rejected.

Fixed Version (Alice-Safe)

“A code generation system that dynamically constrains token prediction using a syntax-state machine, reducing invalid compilation paths during inference.”

Why this works:

• Solves a technical problem
• Improves computer operation
• Describes how, not just what

Overcoming Section 101 Rejection: Step-by-Step

Step 1: Identify the Abstract Idea Yourself

Ask:

• Could a human do this mentally?
• Is this just data processing?

If yes, assume Step 1 failure.

Step 2: Reframe Around Technical Improvement

Use this sentence structure:

“The invention improves computer performance by…”

Examples:

• reducing memory access
• minimizing network calls
• improving parallelization
• lowering computational cost

Step 3: Amend Claims, Not Just Arguments

Examiner reality:

• Arguments alone rarely win
• Claim amendments matter more

Add:

• System components
• Data flow steps
• Technical constraints

Comparison Table: Weak vs Strong Software Claims

Real-World Implications for Founders and Developers

• Weak patents scare investors
• Strong patents increase valuation
• Alice-compliant patents survive due diligence
• Patent drafting affects enforcement leverage

Ignoring Alice is expensive.

However, patents are not the only shield. If your invention struggles with Alice eligibility, you might need to pivot to a trade secret strategy. Learn more in our guide: Is Your SaaS Code Safe? Copyright vs. Patent & Trade Secret Strategies.

Future Outlook: Where Software Patents Are Heading

Expected trends:

• Higher bar for AI claims
• More focus on system-level improvements
• Increased examiner skepticism of “black box AI”
• Greater importance of technical metrics in specs

Alice is not going away. But it is predictable now.

Final Takeaway

Alice is not anti-software. It is anti-handwaving.

If your patent:

• Explains the technical problem
• Shows a concrete computer solution
• Claims the mechanics, not the idea

You can survive the Alice nightmare.

Podcast

Disclaimer

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Patent eligibility depends on specific claim language, technical details, and jurisdiction. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for case-specific guidance.

FAQs