The first major Patent Office decision following the Full Federal Court’s Aristocrat decision raises an obvious question: has examination practice actually changed?
A test case arrives
The recent Patent Office decision in CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19 (18 August 2026) [1] is interesting not just for the curious result of finding that the method claims were directed to patentable subject matter while the system claims were not, but also because it gives an indication of how the Patent Office intends to approach computer-implemented inventions going forward.
The invention concerned predictive replacement of mining machine components. Claim 1 was directed to a system that determined wear rates, replacement costs and replacement recommendations for mining equipment components.
The Delegate concluded that the claim was not directed to patentable subject matter. However, claims directed to wear detection hardware were found to be patentable. The distinction was essentially between obtaining wear information and using wear information.
Aristocrat was supposed to change the conversation
The significance of the decision becomes clearer when viewed against the Full Federal Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131. [2].
In that case, the Full Court rejected the earlier “advance in computer technology” approach adopted in the previous Aristocrat appeal. The Court held that it was “too rigid and narrow” to conclude that implementation of an idea using conventional computer technology could never constitute a manner of manufacture. Instead, the Court preferred the question:
- Is this merely an abstract idea manipulated on a computer, or
- an abstract idea implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result?
That statement was important because it appeared to move the law back towards the broader principles articulated in NRDC [3], IBM [4], CCOM [5] and the High Court’s allowing reasons in the earlier split (and non-binding) Aristocrat 2022 decision [6].
The Patent Office still seems attracted to old habits
The interesting aspect of CQMS is that the reasoning still appears heavily influenced by concepts such as:
- the presence of physical elements;
- does the computer operate in an improved manner; and
- technical problems and technical effects inside or outside of the computer.
Those concepts can undoubtedly be useful. However, they are not the legal test.
One gets the impression that the Patent Office is still trying to preserve parts of the Research Affiliates [7], RPL Central [8] and Encompass [9] analytical framework. Whilst those decisions were not overturned by the Full Court in Aristocrat 2025, the Full Court only said the decisions were correct, whilst effectively discrediting analytical framework used in those decisions (and attempting to be applied by the Commissioner in Aristocrat) as being too rigid and narrow an approach to assessing computer-implemented inventions.
What is also interesting is that the Hearing officer invited submissions on the wording in the revised “Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure” (the Examiner’s manual) and seemed to base their decision heavily on the updated manual.
That raises an uncomfortable question.
If the Examiner’s manual continues to frame examination around concepts such as physical components, improved computer technology, and technical contribution and technical effect, are we really seeing a change in examination practice, or is the office merely repackaging earlier discredited approaches?
A reminder that the Examiner’s manual is not law
This is not a criticism of the Examiner’s manual itself. It’s useful to assist in identifying key cases and concepts to guiding examiners on how to apply the law. However, the Examiner’s manual is not legislation, and it is not a binding authority.
Rather, the binding authority is the Full Court’s 2025 Aristocrat decision, which itself draws heavily on the allowing reasons of the High Court’s 2022 decision, and earlier decisions like NRDC, IBM, and CCOM. Care must be taken in using decisions such as Research Affiliates, RPL Central, and Encompass as whilst Aristocrat 2025 said these were correctly decided, it did not endorse the now discredited reasoning used in those cases.
Applicants should therefore be cautious when objections rely primarily on Examiner’s manual formulations which rely heavily on decisions such as Research Affiliates and RPL Central. Responses should focus on arguments based on actual judicial reasoning, rather than the approach taken in the Examiner’s manual.
Practical takeaways
Despite the applicant-friendly language in Aristocrat, practitioners should not assume examination practice has fundamentally shifted.
For the foreseeable future Examiners are likely to continue:
- looking for technical effects and physical consequences.
- asking whether a technical problem is solved; and
- relying heavily on the Examiner’s manual framework.
Applicants should therefore continue to emphasise physical consequences and practical results while simultaneously reminding Examiners that the ultimate authority remains the Courts, and cite appropriate case law.
Looking ahead
The real value of CQMS may not lie in the result – its real significance is that it provides the first meaningful indication of how the Patent Office intends to apply Aristocrat. At least at this stage, the answer appears to be – cautiously.
In Part 2 we will consider the more interesting issue raised by the decision. Why is information being obtained in the first place, and is wear information really “mere information”?
[1] CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19 (18 August 2026) (‘CQMS’).
[2] Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131, [126]–[132] (‘Aristocrat 2025’).
[3] National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252, 269–77 (‘NRDC’).
[4] International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218, 225–6 (‘IBM’).
[5] CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260, 291–5 (‘CCOM’).
[6] Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (‘Aristocrat 2022’).
[7] Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (‘Research Affiliates’).
[8] RPL Central v Commissioner of Patents [2015] FCAFC 177 (‘RPL’).
[9] Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161; (‘Encompass’).
