USPTO Director Squires Signals Future Update to AI Patent Eligibility Guidance at 2025 AIPLA Annual Meeting
At the 2025 American Intellectual Property Law Associate (AIPLA) Annual Meeting, John Squires, Director of the United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), delivered a keynote speech that may prove pivotal for future examination of subject matter eligibility. While Director Squires touched on a range of goals for managing the patent office, the core of the address centered on his view of subject matter eligibility for artifical intelligence (AI)-related inventions.
Director Squires opened his remarks on subject matter eligibility by emphasizing the fundamental importance of the language in 35 U.S.C. § 101. He highlighted Congress’s deliberate use of broad terms (process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter) to ensure the patent system could adapt to successive technological revolutions, including the internet, distributed ledger technologies, and now AI. Squires further noted that the judicially created exceptions to eligibility rightly exist but are intentionally narrow in scope.
Setting this patent-friendly tone, Squires then introduced his “Three Pillars of Patent Eligibility,” which he suggested may serve as the framework for future USPTO examination guidance:
- Process and New Uses: Drawing on 35 U.S.C. § 100(b), Squires highlighted that the definition of “process” includes new uses of known technologies, a principle dating back to the Patent Act of 1793. This pillar recognizes the importance of innovation in applying existing technologies to new problems, a hallmark of AI development.
- Technological Improvements: The second pillar referenced the Enfish decision, which affirmed that improvements to computer data structures are patent eligible. Squires cited AI and distributed ledger technologies as prime examples of new uses that merit eligibility consideration.
- “Something More”: The third pillar is rooted in the Alice and Mayo decisions, interpreting the “something more” standard as encompassing inventions centered on changes to system architecture—especially those that modify the flow of information rather than simply targeting an end result. To illustrate his view of this pillar, Squires referenced his recent approval of US Patent Nos. 12,419,201 and 12,419,202, which he considers clear examples of inventions that provide “something more” beyond a judicial exception.
For historical context, Squires also cited Samuel Morse’s telegraph patent, describing it as “still good law.” He used Morse’s patent to illustrate the difference between patent-eligible inventions (i.e., Claim 5, directed to a system for transmitting the alphabet over a wire) and claims that merely recite laws of nature (i.e., Claim 8, directed to electromagnetism). Squires emphasized that, much like Morse’s patent, which was eligible for its inventive application rather than abstract principles, today’s AI and distributed ledger inventions should be seen as advances in technological architecture.
Director Squires stressed the USPTO will soon issue new examination guidance: “The guidance simply hasn’t been there. But believe me it will be shortly. Eligibility simply can’t be relegated to the eyes of the beholder. And it will not be on my watch.” With updated guidance approaching, patent practitioners should pay close attention. Squires’s “Three Pillars” may hint at the framework for future examination of AI-related inventions under Section 101.