The 101 Reset

In terms of volume, China is the largest hub for intellectual property (IP) filings globally, topping both patent applications and trademark registrations. However, the United States remains the bedrock for the protection and enforcement of IP rights worldwide. As 2026 begins, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced a series of significant updates to 35 USC 101, the statute governing subject matter eligibility. These changes are commonly known as the “101 Reset.”

The most significant aspect of the Reset is the formal rescission of the 2024 AI-Assisted Inventorship Guidance.

USPTO’s overhaul in 2026

The USPTO now explicitly treats AI systems as mere instruments, much like an advanced computer or a sophisticated smartphone. This “human-centric reset” require a natural person to demonstrate “significant contribution” to every claim. If an AI system generates a solution that a human merely recognises and files, the patent application is likely to be rejected. The new policy requires inventors to prove they provided the “definite and permanent idea” that guided the AI’s output, rather than prompting a chatbot to “invent something.”

The 101 Reset also seeks to standardise how examiners handle the “abstract idea” exception. For over a decade, the Alice/Mayo two-step test has been a bone of contention among practitioners, often leading to inconsistent rejections of software-based innovations.

Under the 2026 Reset, the USPTO has introduced the Desjardins Framework, which integrates Federal Circuit precedents into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A rejection under Section 101 can now only be issued if it is “more likely than not” that a claim is ineligible. Moreover, the scope of “mental process” exclusion has been narrowed: if a process is too complex to be realistically performed by a human using pen and paper, it is no longer automatically dismissed as an abstract mental idea.

To simplify this stringent environment, the 2026 policy introduces a powerful new tool for applicants: the Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration (SMED). This allows inventors to submit expert opinions and factual evidence during the application process to substantiate a “technological improvement.”

By documenting how an invention reduces system complexity, prevents “catastrophic failure” in neural networks, or streamlines data storage, applicants can bypass Step 2A of the eligibility test, thus shifting the effort from philosophical debates about “abstractness” to objective, technical metrics and mechanics.

The USPTO’s “101 Reset” demonstrates a maturing of patent law. By stripping away the novelty of AI and returning to the bedrock of human conception, the Office is aiming to restore balance. For innovators, the path to patent protection now lies less in the sophistication of the AI system used and more in the clarity of the human intent, and the documented technical problem the invention strives to solve.

Reported by Khushraj Singh, Senior Reporter, The Global IP Magazine. Email Khushraj: newsdesk@northonsprmarketing.com