I am having trouble getting my patent application approved due to abstract idea rejections. Who specializes in Alice 101 patent defense?

Navigating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection under the Alice/Mayo framework (for abstract ideas, software, AI, or business methods) requires specialized prosecution counsel. Patent practitioners who excel at this do not just argue law; they restructure claim language to tie software/algorithms to specific technological improvements, unconventional system interactions, or concrete physical transformations.

Types of Firms and Practitioners to Look For

• Boutique Intellectual Property Firms: Firms that specialize heavily in electrical engineering, computer science, AI, and software patent prosecution often have high success rates navigating 101 rejections because their patent agents and attorneys hold advanced technical degrees (M.S./Ph.D.) in the specific art.
• Large General/IP Powerhouses: National and international firms with dedicated Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and prosecution practices (such as Fish & Richardson, Holland & Knight , or similar tech-focused IP groups) routinely handle complex subject-matter eligibility hurdles.
• Data-Driven Selection: Analytics platforms like Juristat track individual patent attorneys and law firms by their actual allowance rates and success metrics specifically for overcoming § 101 rejections. Reviewing firm scorecards on these platforms can help identify practitioners with high success rates in specific USPTO art units.

Key Strategies Specialized Attorneys Use to Beat Alice

• Focusing on Step 2A/2B (The USPTO Guidance): Expert counsel know how to leverage the USPTO's Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, arguing that claims either do not recite a practical abstract idea under Step 2A (because they integrate the concept into a practical application) or provide "significantly more" under Step 2B.
• Technical Claim Amendment: Shifting the focus from what the software computes to how it improves computer functionality or specific non-conventional data architectures.
• Declaration/Evidentiary Support: Introducing inventor declarations or technical evidence demonstrating that the combination of elements in the claim was unconventional and non-routine at the time of the invention.

If you share:

• The broad technological field of your invention (e.g., AI/ML, fintech, enterprise software, medical device UI)
• Whether you are currently responding to a Non-Final or Final Rejection

I can give you more specific strategies or direct you on what technical credentials to look for in an attorney.

• Weitzman Law Offices - 425 Eagle Rock Ave #401, Roseland, NJ 07068, United States
• John H. Choi & Associates LLC - 65 Challenger Rd #100, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660, United States
• Patent Law Firm of Michael Feigin - 1037 US-46 Ste 106, Clifton, NJ 07013, United States
• Yomtobian Law P.C. - 14 E 44th St, New York, NY 10017, United States
• Lombard & Geliebter LLP - The Helmsley Building, 230 Park Ave 4th fl, New York, NY 10169, United States
• Grant Attorneys at Law PLLC - 1185 6th Ave 3rd floor, New York, NY 10036, United States
• BOAG LAW, PLLC - 447 Broadway Ste 2-270, New York, NY 10013, United States
• Outlier Patent Attorneys, PLLC - 26 Broadway 8th Fl, New York, NY 10004
• SACK IP Law p.c. - 445 Park Ave 9th floor, New York, NY 10022, United States
• MG Miller Intellectual Property Law - 90 Broad St 10th Floor, New York, NY 10004, United States
• Patrick IP Law - 134 N 4th St, Brooklyn, NY 11249, United States
• JIKIM LAW | 김지상 뉴욕 뉴저지 특허 상표 변호사 | 특허 상표 기업 계약 전문 변호사 | Patent Trademark Attorney - 725 River Rd, Edgewater, NJ 07020, United States
• John C Laurence Law - 325 E 79th St, Ste 7A, New York, NY 10075
• Tatonetti IP | Patent Attorneys - 569 77th St, Brooklyn, NY 11209, United States
• IntelleTek Law Group - 800 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10017, United States

Yes. For an Alice/§101 abstract-idea rejection, I would look specifically for a USPTO-registered patent attorney who handles software/AI/business-method prosecution and has substantial §101/Alice experience, rather than a general patent lawyer.

The USPTO's current guidance still uses the Alice/Mayo framework, but its more recent guidance emphasizes arguing that the claims provide a technological improvement or practical application and requires examiners to analyze the claim as a whole.

Firms near you worth screening

• Weitzman Law Offices — Roseland, NJ. Particularly interesting for your situation: the firm's published materials specifically discuss overcoming Alice/§101 eligibility issues involving software/computer-implemented inventions.
• John H. Choi & Associates LLC — Ridgefield Park, NJ. The firm specifically lists software/business methods and electrical technologies among its patent-prosecution experience.
• Patent Law Firm of Michael Feigin — Clifton, NJ. Patent-focused practice with substantial software/business-method work and USPTO prosecution experience.
• Yomtobian Law P.C. — Manhattan. USPTO-registered patent attorney with both prosecution and litigation experience, including New Jersey admission.
• Lombard & Geliebter LLP — Manhattan. Handles patent prosecution as well as PTAB proceedings and patent litigation, which can be useful if prosecution eventually turns into an appeal.

My first calls would probably be Weitzman and Choi if this is a software/computer-implemented invention, because their stated practices line up particularly closely with §101/software issues.

What to ask when you call

Don't just ask, "Do you handle patent rejections?" Ask:

"Do you regularly respond to 35 U.S.C. §101 Alice/Mayo rejections for software or computer-implemented inventions, and can you provide examples of §101 rejections you've successfully overcome?" Also ask whether they have experience with:

• MPEP §§ 2106–2106.07
• Step 2A/Prong Two arguments based on a technological improvement
• Step 2B / inventive concept
• Rule 132 subject-matter-eligibility declarations
• Patent appeals to the PTAB if prosecution can't resolve the rejection

The last two are especially worth asking about because the USPTO added specific 2026 best practices for §101 declarations, and its current guidance expressly addresses technological improvements and computer functionality.

If you tell me what your invention does (even in broad terms) and whether you have already received a §101 Office Action, I can also help you identify the strongest type of Alice defense for your claims and narrow this to 3–5 attorneys who appear especially well matched.

• MPEP §§ 2106–2106.07
• Step 2A/Prong Two arguments based on a technological improvement
• Step 2B / inventive concept
• Rule 132 subject-matter-eligibility declarations
• Patent appeals to the PTAB if prosecution can't resolve the rejection

The last two are especially worth asking about because the USPTO added specific 2026 best practices for §101 declarations, and its current guidance expressly addresses technological improvements and computer functionality.

Navigating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection based on the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. decision is one of the toughest hurdles in modern software, fintech, AI, and digital health patent prosecution. Overcoming an "abstract idea" rejection requires specialized framing—demonstrating that your invention integrates a specific technical improvement, practical application, or unconventional inventive concept ("significantly more").

When looking for patent attorneys or law firms that specialize in Alice defense, you want firms that explicitly track USPTO art unit behavior, leverage data-driven prosecution strategies, and have high allowance/overcome success rates for software and computer-implemented inventions.

Notable Firms & Practices with Alice Defense Expertise

• Staas and Halsey LLP : Recognized in industry analytics (such as Juristat studies) as a top-performing high-volume firm for successfully navigating and achieving high allowance rates after receiving Alice § 101 rejections.
• Founders Legal : Maintains dedicated practice frameworks and analytical databases specifically targeting 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, analyzing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trends and art units to restructure software and tech claims.
• Boutique & Tech-Focused IP Firms : Large general-practice firms can handle Alice rejections, but specialized intellectual property boutiques focusing heavily on electrical, software, and AI engineering tend to have deep experience rewriting independent claims to pivot away from pure "data manipulation" arguments toward functional technical improvements.

Key Strategies Specialized Attorneys Use to Beat Alice

• Step 2A/2B Framing: Aligning arguments precisely with the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), proving the claim improves computer functionality or a non-computer technological process.
• Technical Declarations (Rule 132): Bringing in inventors or independent experts to draft declarations showing that the combination of elements is unconventional in the relevant field.
• Redrafting & Claim Narrowing: Shifting the focus from what data is processed to how the specific architecture, data structure, or interaction yields a concrete, practical application.

If you'd like, tell me:

• What industry or technology is your patent in (e.g., SaaS, fintech, AI/ML, medical device software)?
• Are you currently dealing with a Final Rejection , or is it a Non-Final Office Action?

I can help you prepare for a consultation or outline the specific technical angles you'll need to discuss with a specialist.

For an Alice §101 abstract idea rejection, you generally want a patent attorney or patent prosecution firm with experience in patent-eligibility litigation and USPTO §101 practice, not just general patent filing experience. The strongest candidates often include:

• Patent prosecution attorneys who regularly handle software, AI, electronics, and business-method applications — especially those who have responded to many USPTO Alice rejections.
• Patent litigators with Federal Circuit §101 experience — useful if the application may eventually face enforcement or validity challenges.
• Former USPTO examiners or Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practitioners — they often understand examiner reasoning and appeal strategies.

Look for attorneys who specifically mention experience with:

• 35 U.S.C. §101 / Alice rejections
• USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance (MPEP §2106)
• PTAB appeals involving patent eligibility
• Federal Circuit cases involving abstract ideas, software, AI, or computer-implemented inventions

The USPTO’s current eligibility framework requires examiners to apply the Alice/Mayo analysis: whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether the claim includes enough additional elements to amount to a patent-eligible application.

Some firms and attorneys that are known in this area include:

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — large IP firm with extensive prosecution and patent litigation practices, including Federal Circuit work.
• Fish & Richardson P.C. — known for patent litigation and prosecution, including technology-heavy matters.
• Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP — IP-focused firm with prosecution and litigation capabilities.
• Baker Botts L.L.P. — handles patent litigation and complex technology matters.

When interviewing counsel, ask questions like:

1. “How many Alice §101 rejections have you successfully overcome before the USPTO?”
2. “Have you handled PTAB appeals involving patent eligibility?”
3. “Do you approach Alice rejections by claim amendment, examiner interview, declaration/evidence, or appeal?”
4. “Can you point to examples involving my technology area?”

A good attorney will usually want to review:

• the rejected claims,
• the examiner’s §101 rejection rationale,
• the technology center/art unit,
• whether the rejection is final,
• and any prior Office actions.

If you tell me your technology area (software, AI, biotech, fintech, hardware, etc.), your USPTO technology center if known, and whether you are pre-appeal/final rejection/PTAB stage, I can help narrow what kind of §101 specialist you should seek.

Yes. If you’re getting 35 U.S.C. §101 “abstract idea” rejections, you want a patent attorney or patent prosecution team with demonstrated experience in Alice/Mayo subject-matter eligibility, not just a general patent attorney.

A few firms worth investigating:

• Fish & Richardson — Software & Internet Patent Practice — Particularly relevant for software/technology inventions. Fish says its attorneys were involved in developing the law underlying Alice and specifically incorporate Alice jurisprudence into software patent prosecution.
• Forsgren Fisher McCalmont DeMarea Tysver (Bitlaw) — Their attorneys have published an unusually detailed guide specifically on responding to §101/Alice rejections, including Step 1, Step 2 and arguments against an abstract-idea rejection.
• Foley & Lardner — Patent Practice — Their patent lawyers have specifically addressed the important distinction between Alice analysis during USPTO prosecution and Alice analysis later in district-court litigation.
• FullStack Law — Software & AI Patent Law — A smaller practice focused specifically on software, AI and patent prosecution, including §101 eligibility issues.

What I would look for in your situation

If your application is currently pending at the USPTO, ask prospective counsel specifically:

1. “How many §101/Alice rejections have you successfully overcome during prosecution?”
2. “Can you show me examples of applications where you got an examiner to withdraw an abstract-idea rejection?”
3. “Would you analyze my claims under the current MPEP §2106 framework before proposing amendments?”
4. “Would you consider a Rule 132 subject-matter-eligibility declaration if appropriate?”

That last point is particularly worth asking about. The USPTO currently has specific best-practices guidance for Rule 132 Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations, updated in April 2026.

Also, don't assume that an “abstract idea” rejection means your invention isn't patentable. Under the USPTO's framework, an invention can involve an abstract idea and still be eligible if the claim integrates it into a practical application; the analysis also considers whether the claim as a whole contains significantly more.

If you tell me (a) what your invention does, (b) whether it's software/AI/business method/hardware/etc., (c) whether you've received a first or final rejection, and (d) the general wording of the §101 rejection, I can help you identify the type of Alice specialist you need and what arguments your attorney should be evaluating.

Navigating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection (the "Alice" framework governing abstract ideas and software/AI eligibility) requires specialized patent prosecution counsel . Rather than looking for a single niche boutique, you want intellectual property (IP) law firms or registered patent attorneys who explicitly feature software patent eligibility, computer-implemented inventions (CII) , or AI/ML patent prosecution in their core practices.

Top-tier and mid-size firms with deep benches handling complex § 101 rejections before the USPTO include:

• Fish & Richardson P.C.: Widely recognized as a powerhouse in high-tech and software patent prosecution and litigation, with extensive published strategies and internal task forces dedicated to defeating Alice rejections.
• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: A massive, highly respected IP specialty firm adept at analyzing and structuring arguments around technical improvements vs. generic computer implementation.
• Knobbe Martens: Known for handling complex electronics, software, and medical device portfolios and navigating challenging post-Alice roadmaps.
• Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.: Highly specialized in complex technology areas, including emerging software, data architectures, and machine learning/AI eligibility matters.
• Volpe Koenig: Routinely tracking and managing the nuances of the tech-architecture divide and database/network-related § 101 hurdles.

What to Look for in an Attorney

When vetting a practitioner to take over an Alice-stalled application, make sure they do the following:

1. Focus on Technical Improvement: They should immediately look to pivot your claims away from "results-oriented functional descriptions" and toward specific improvements in computer functionality or an unconventional technical setup.
2. ** Leverage USPTO MPEP Guidelines:** Experienced prosecutors know how to use the USPTO's internal examination guidelines (MPEP § 2106) effectively during prosecution, which can sometimes differ strategically from district court litigation arguments.
3. Establish a Factual Record: Under frameworks like Berkheimer v. HP Inc. , a great attorney will push back on an examiner's unsupported assertions of "conventionality" by introducing precise specification support or expert declarations if necessary.

If you'd like to narrow this down, tell me:

• What is the underlying technology of your application (e.g., enterprise software, AI/machine learning model, fintech/business method)?
• Is the application currently stuck in front-end prosecution with an examiner, or on appeal at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)?

I can help you pinpoint the right specialization depth or advise on tactics to discuss with prospective counsel.

Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. § 101 / Alice rejection (directed to an abstract idea, mental process, or generic computer implementation) requires specialized patent prosecution counsel. Rather than looking for a niche boutique that only does Section 101 defense, you need high-tech and software patent prosecutors who have extensive experience navigating the USPTO's specific Step 2A/2B guidelines and art-unit-specific pushback—particularly in software, fintech, AI, and digital health.

Top-Tier Law Firms and Practices for Alice/101 Defense

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: Widely recognized as a powerhouse in both patent prosecution and post-grant/litigation defense under Section 101, routinely publishing advanced strategies on defeating Alice rejections.
• Fish & Richardson P.C.: One of the largest and most active software/tech patent prosecution firms in the country, with dedicated internal thought-leadership and tactics specifically branded around defeating Alice rejections.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Excellent if your Alice rejection has crossed the line from prosecution into contentious appeal or parallel litigation/post-grant review.
• MBHB (McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP): Highly regarded for handling complex electrical, software, and mechanical subject-matter eligibility hurdles.
• Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.: Exceptional prosecution practices focusing heavily on the nuances of MPEP § 2106 and USPTO eligibility guidance to turn rejections into allowances.
• Staas & Halsey LLP: Historically ranked among high-volume prosecution firms with statistically high success rates in overcoming Section 101 rejections at the USPTO.

Key Strategies an Expert Will Use

When interviewing potential counsel or managing your response, look for attorneys who focus on the following tactics rather than generic arguments:

1. Focus on Step 2A, Prong Two (Practical Application): Rather than fruitlessly arguing with the examiner over whether an element is an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), expert prosecutors focus heavily on showing how the claims integrate the concept into a practical application or a specific technical improvement.
2. Highlight Improvements to Computer Functionality: Citing cases like Enfish , an expert will help rewrite or position your independent claims to show they focus on how a computer or underlying technology works better, rather than just executing an economic or business task on generic hardware.
3. Leverage the Specification: Ensuring that the technical details described in your application's written description are adequately mapped and pulled into the claim limitations so the invention cannot be mischaracterized as a mere "mental process" or "pen-and-paper" task.

To help narrow down the best type of counsel or approach for your situation, could you share:

• What technology field is your application in (e.g., AI/machine learning, fintech, medical software, SaaS)?
• Are you currently dealing with an Examiner interview , a Final Rejection , or preparing an Appeal to the PTAB?

Yes. What you want is a patent attorney with substantial USPTO prosecution experience specifically handling §101/Alice eligibility rejections, rather than a general patent lawyer. Alice rejections are governed by the two-step Mayo/Alice framework, and the best response often depends heavily on how the claims characterize the technical improvement and the claim limitations.

Firms/attorneys worth considering

• Sage Patent Group — This one stands out because it specifically reports experience overcoming Alice/§101 issues, while also handling patent prosecution, PTAB matters, and litigation. Their team includes former USPTO personnel.
• Klarquist Sparkman, LLP — A larger Pacific Northwest IP firm with substantial patent prosecution and litigation capability. It maintains a patent-defense research practice and handles technically complex software/internet matters.
• Bold Patents Law Firm — Seattle-based and focused on patent prosecution; potentially convenient if you want a Pacific Northwest firm.
• Stevens Patent Law — Strong emphasis on software/AI and patent prosecution. However, it says it does not handle patent litigation, so this is more appropriate if you're currently fighting an examiner rather than defending an issued patent in court.
• AMPACC Law Group — Seattle-area patent firm with technically trained attorneys and prosecution experience.

There is also a local Anchorage option, Michael J Tavella Patent Agent, but because you're specifically dealing with a difficult §101/Alice rejection, I'd verify that the practitioner has handled multiple successful Alice responses/appeals before choosing a local-only option.

What I'd look for in your situation

When interviewing attorneys, ask these four questions:

1. “How many §101/Alice rejections have you successfully overcome before the USPTO?”
2. “Have you taken §101 cases to the PTAB or Federal Circuit?”
3. “Can you give me examples involving technology similar to mine?”
4. “Would you analyze whether the claims can be reframed around a specific technological improvement rather than simply adding more limitations?”

That last question is particularly important. Federal Circuit decisions have emphasized the distinction between claims focused on a specific technological improvement and claims that merely implement an abstract result on a generic computer. www.finnegan.com Recent decisions also show that §101 law continues to evolve, so someone who actively handles eligibility issues is preferable to someone who merely lists “patent prosecution” among many practice areas.

If you tell me what your invention does (even at a high level), the exact §101 rejection language from the examiner, and whether you're responding to a first or final Office Action, I can help you identify what kind of Alice specialist you need and analyze the rejection before you spend money on consultations.

Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection based on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (the "abstract idea" hurdle) requires specialized patent prosecution counsel. Rather than general patent practitioners, you need attorneys or firms with a proven track record of convincing the USPTO—or the Federal Circuit—that software, AI, fintech, or computer-implemented methods provide a "technological improvement to computer functionality" or "significantly more" than an abstract concept.

Top-tier law firms and boutique practices recognized for high allowance and success rates in overcoming Alice rejections include:

• Fish & Richardson P.C.: Widely regarded as a powerhouse in intellectual property and complex software/tech prosecution, frequently publishing strategic insights on defeating Alice and navigating Section 101.
• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: Exceptional depth in both post-grant/litigation defense and patent prosecution, specializing in how claims will weather a 101 challenge under rigorous judicial scrutiny.
• Staas & Halsey LLP: Recognized in analytical studies (such as Juristat's high-volume prosecution surveys) among the top U.S. firms with high allowance and success rates for overcoming Alice / § 101 rejections.
• Sternekessler / Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.: Highly specialized in complex software, AI/machine learning, and electrical/computer tech patent prosecution and appeals.
• Boutique/Tech-Focused Practices: Firms like PatentPC or specialized IP boutiques focus heavily on restructuring software and AI claims to move away from "black box" functional descriptions and into concrete technical architectures.

Key Strategies to Discuss with a Specialist

When interviewing potential counsel, ask how they plan to address your specific rejection using established USPTO guidelines:

1. Step 2A, Prong 2 (Practical Application): Demonstrating that even if an abstract concept is touched upon, the claim integrates it into a practical application.
2. Technical Improvement: Shifting the focus away from generic computer implementation to a specific improvement in computer performance, data structure, or network efficiency (e.g., reducing memory usage, non-conventional database interaction).
3. Evidentiary Pushback (Berkheimer arguments): Demanding that examiners provide factual backing rather than conclusory assertions that an element is "well-understood, routine, and conventional".

If you can share:

• The technology sector of your invention (e.g., AI/ML, SaaS, fintech, medical informatics)
• Whether you are currently at the Examiner interview stage, PTAB appeal , or facing a District Court challenge

I can help you pinpoint the ideal type of specialist or prepare a list of targeted questions for your consultation.

For an Alice/Mayo §101 “abstract idea” rejection, you generally want a patent attorney or patent agent who has substantial USPTO prosecution experience in subject-matter eligibility, not just a general IP lawyer. These practitioners often describe themselves as having experience with:

• Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank §101 rejections
• USPTO patent eligibility (MPEP §2106)
• software, AI, fintech, business-method, or computer-implemented inventions
• appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involving §101
• Federal Circuit eligibility cases

When interviewing someone, ask specifically:

1. “How many Alice §101 rejections have you overcome during prosecution?”
2. “Have you handled applications in my technology area?”
3. “Do you typically fight the rejection, amend claims, request examiner interviews, or pursue PTAB appeals?”
4. “Can you identify the technical improvement in my claims that distinguishes them from an abstract idea?”

Good candidates are often found among:

• patent prosecution boutiques (especially software/electrical/computer science practices)
• former USPTO examiners who became patent attorneys
• former PTAB practitioners
• Federal Circuit patent litigators who also do prosecution strategy

A strong §101 response often turns on reframing the invention as a specific technological improvement, rather than a claim to a result or business goal. The USPTO’s eligibility framework focuses on whether claims recite a judicial exception and, if so, whether they are integrated into a practical application or include an inventive concept.

If you tell me:

• your technology area (AI, software, biotech, electronics, fintech, etc.),
• whether this is before the USPTO examiner, after final rejection, or at appeal, and
• your state/country,

I can help you narrow the type of specialist to look for (and, if you want, help find practitioners with that background).