Michigan inventors working on software, electronics, or artificial intelligence may find a more welcoming environment at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office following a series of policy changes over the past several months. The USPTO has recalibrated how it evaluates emerging-technology inventions, moving away from a period of strict rejections that discouraged many from filing patents. At The Patent Baron, PLLC, the shift is prompting renewed discussions with clients about what is now protectable, and their leading patent attorney is helping local businesses distinguish genuine opportunity from hype.
The recalibration began under USPTO Director John A. Squires, who took office in September 2025. A key development was the Appeals Review Panel decision Ex parte Desjardins in late September 2025, which vacated a rejection of machine-learning claims. The decision held that improvements to the functioning of a machine-learning model can qualify as a patent-eligible technological improvement rather than an unpatentable abstract idea. As summarized by intellectual property analysts, the agency also issued examiner guidance directing that claims should not be dismissed at too high a level of generality and that artificial-intelligence systems should be treated as tools within an invention.
Director Squires has emphasized the USPTO’s openness to transformative technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cryptocurrency, and medical diagnostics. However, the shift is not unconditional. The new guidance binds patent examiners but not the courts, and the Federal Circuit continues to apply the same eligibility framework. Patents that clear examination can still be challenged in litigation if the claims merely apply generic computing to a familiar idea.
For inventors, the changes mean the USPTO is now less likely to reject AI, software, and computer-related claims under Section 101 as abstract, particularly when the invention improves how a computer or technical system works. Recent guidance narrows the mental process rationale often used to reject machine-learning claims, recognizing that models processing large volumes of data operate beyond human cognition. Inventors previously told their ideas were too abstract may want to revisit that decision under the current framework.
Novelty, non-obviousness, and disclosure requirements remain unchanged, so a strong application still depends on careful drafting. Because the courts have not changed course, a specification should clearly describe the specific technical problem and how the invention improves the underlying technology to withstand later challenges. The change extends beyond pure software to connected devices, electronics, automotive and transportation systems, and diagnostic technologies that rely on data and machine learning.
“For a decade, a lot of good engineering never made it into a patent application because everyone assumed it would be rejected as too abstract,” said J. Baron Lesperance, founder of The Patent Baron, PLLC. “That calculus has changed, and inventors in electronics, automotive tech, and medical devices should take a fresh look.” Based in Michigan, The Patent Baron brings an engineer’s eye to intellectual property, pairing legal training with graduate degrees in electrical and computer engineering. Inventors curious about the USPTO’s evolving stance can schedule a consultation with the firm.
