Separate or single provisional patent application/s for an algorithm and presentation

Question

I am working on drafting a provisional patent application (PPA) for an algorithm (which is novel, non-obvious and useful) and the presentation of the result of running of the algorithm on some data. The presentation is also novel, non-obvious and useful. I am wondering if I should file separate PPAs for each or if I can file one PPA and later (within 12 months) file for two separate non-provisional patents.

In case I am able to file two separate PPAs, for the PPA for the presentation part, since I need to enable it, do I need to disclose the algorithm or can I make the algorithm part generic saying something like "an algorithm that returns a score based on consideration of, but not limited to, factors X, Y, and Z" ?

Answer 1

As @EricS mentioned, the word algorithm will trigger the word "abstract" which is hard to get around once it is invoked.

It doesn't really matter if it is one or two provisional applications since one or more non-provisionals can get the benefit of one or more provisionals. No one-to-one correspondence needed.

The only reason I can think of would be subject matter you might want to reserve the possibility to keep a trade secret. At the end of the year if no non-provisional is filed that refers back to a provisional, it never publishes and is not viewable by the public. Bear in might that whatever you do file a non=provisional on must be enabled - specifically the best mode you know of must be enabled. No hiding the ball.

Answer 2

As previously mentioned, this is a challenging area for patentability and it is more important that you draft the application in sufficient detail to describe the practical application of the algorithm and the inventive concept of your invention so you can argue against a potential rejection under Section 101. It may not be in your best interest to file a skinny provisional application. You may want to take a look at some of the USPTO materials that address the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. In particular, these examples may be helpful for identifying how the USPTO analyzes patent claims directed to certain computer-implemented inventions.

Answer 3

Regarding the decision of filing one or two provisional applications, George White's answer is very on point. You should be aware though that presentations of information are not patentable in many countries, for example most if not all European countries. At the EPO, this is enshrined in Art. 52(d) of the European Patent Convention. When presentations of information are not claimed "as such", then they may be patentable, but pretty much presentations of information are only inventive (i.e. non-obvious) when the following occurs:

"A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (T 336/14 and T 1802/13). Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the feature. This would not be the case if the alleged effect depends on subjective interests or preferences of the user."

The above excerpt is from the following part of EPO's Guidelines for Examination, which I strongly advise you to read should you want to protect the presentation of information.

As for the algorithm itself, in line with ipesqnyu's answer, I suggest you to read the EPO's Index for Computer-Implemented Inventions of the Guidelines for Examination should you be willing to protect it in Europe.