2016年12月USPTO針對Business method的專利適格性整理出三個範例[1]，其中一個是先前報導過的BASCOM案，另外二個是官方提出的假設案例，本文取第一個假設案例「35. Verifying A Bank Customer's Identity To Permit An ATM Transaction」來說明，試著找出USPTO的那把尺。
A method of conducting a secure automated teller transaction with a financial institution by authenticating a customer's identity, comprising the steps of:
obtaining customer‐specific information from a bank card,
comparing, by a processor, the obtained customer‐specific information with customer information from the financial institution to verify the customer's identity, and
determining whether the transaction should proceed when a match from the comparison verifies the authenticity of the customer's identity.
A method of conducting a secure automated teller transaction with a financial institution by authenticating a customer's identity, comprising the steps of:
obtaining customer‐specific information from a bank card,
comparing, by a processor, the obtained customer‐specific information with customer information from the financial institution to verify the customer's identity, by
generating a random code and transmitting it to a mobile communication device that is registered to the customer associated with the bank card,
reading, by the automated teller machine, an image from the customer's mobile communication device that is generated in response to receipt of the random code, wherein the image includes encrypted code data,
decrypting the code data from the read image, and
analyzing the decrypted code data from the read image and the generated code to determine if the decrypted code data from the read image matches the generated code data, and
determining whether the transaction should proceed when a match from the analysis verifies the authenticity of the customer's identity.
資料來源：USPTO；本研究整理
在上表中，左欄與右欄的差異在於紅字的部分，或者可說右欄的紅字部分是如何進行“comparing, by a processor, the obtained customer‐specific information with customer information from the financial institution to verify the customer's identity”的說明。
官方對於Claim 2為何能符合專利適格性的說明是縱使這些元件(a processor and a mobile communication device)都是習知的，但附加的元素之組合足以說明Claim 2是顯著超過抽象概念(abstract idea)，或者以聯邦法院常用的說法是有提供發明概念(inventive concept)。
近期討論熱度很高的物聯網(Internet of Things)、金融科技(FinTech)、區塊鍊(Blockchain)、機器學習(Machine Learning)等新興科技都是偏向非實體物品的創新，而這些流程、服務、管理等發明以專利角度來說容易指向抽象概念，所以這類發明在商業方法專利的申請上就要格外注意技術細節的描述，撰寫claim時盡量避免只有「WHAT」而應該多著重於「HOW」，至於寫出多少技術特徵才算是有提供發明概念但又不會過於限縮範圍，這平衡點可能得由申請人自行拿捏了。
