There are three types of subject matter that are not patent-eligible 35 U.S.C. § 101: ‘Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.'” CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)).

“The abstract ideas category, . . . embodies the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.” CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1367 (cleaned up) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 218). But “an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Applications of abstract concepts to a new and useful end are eligible for patent protection. Id.

The Supreme Court has “articulated a two-step test for examining patent eligibility.” CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1367. At step one, the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. The patent's written description also is considered to inform an understanding of the claims. Id. at 1367–68 (citations omitted). Step one looks to whether the claims “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” Id. at 1368 (quoting McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

“If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept under Alice step [one], ‘the claims satisfy § 101 and we need not proceed to the second step.'” CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1368 (quoting Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “If the claims are directed to a patentineligible concept, however, we next consider Alice step two. In this step, we consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Federal Circuit recently consider patent claims for a particular type of dumbbell: "a selectorized dumbbell with a stack of nested left weight plates, a stack of nested right weight plates, a handle, and a movable selector with different adjustment positions, where moving the selector to different adjustment positions changes the number of left and right weight plates coupled to the dumbbell." PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 24-1177, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025) (discussing U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771). In addition, an electric motor is “operatively connected to the selector” and physically moves the selector into the different adjustment positions corresponding to the desired weight selected by a user. `771 patent, col. 12 ll. 4–5. 

The patent claims were found to be limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement to selectorized dumbbells. This was distinguished from the patent at issue in University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which had involved “a method and system for ‘integrat[ing] physiologic data from at least one bedside machine,'” sought to “automate ‘pen and paper methodologies' to conserve human resources and minimize errors” and was “a quintessential ‘do it on a computer' patent.'” The Court also distinguished Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019) which disclosed a system for wirelessly controlling a moveable barrier, such as a garage door—but whose claims did not recite the moveable barrier—so  the asserted claims were “directed to wirelessly communicating status information about a system.” 

On the other hand, an improved “machine,” namely, “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices” is patent eligible. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, even a “rather simple mechanical invention” for selectorized dumbbells is patent eligible. Rather than merely claiming a broad concept of automating a known technique, it recited a sufficiently “specific manner of performing” automated weight stacking, namely using an electric motor to move weights mechanically. Cf. Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]hen a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how the result is accomplished and the mechanism is not described, . . . then the claim is not patent-eligible.” (cleaned up) (emphasis added)).

The Federal Circuit concluded that the claim limitations provided enough specificity and structure to satisfy § 101; and further “caution[ed] parties and tribunals not to conflate the separate novelty and obviousness inquiries under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, with the step one inquiry under § 101.”  

Professor Crouch on Patently-O noted that the decision "emphasized the physical nature of the invention (electric motor moving mechanical components) as distinguishing it from purely software-based automation patents. In other words physical automation is much more likely eligible."