The USPTO announced yesterday, at its first Bicoastal Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting, that it had reviewed the 120 plus public comments on the Myriad-Mayo Guidance and will be issuing a new iteration of the Guidance in a month or so, to incorporate its views on the comments as well as court precedent created since the Guidance's issuance, e.g. the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296, 82 USLW 4508 (2014) and the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Roslin Institute, 750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Changes foreseen include a simplification of the factor based test, which the USPTO agreed is too complicated, clarification that purified natural products are not per se ineligible for patent protection, and further elucidation on what claims are subject to the Guidance (the USPTO recognized that the proper focus should be on the subject matter to which the claims are directed, rather than the elements recited). The USPTO stated that it considers the patentable subject matter eligibility threshold to be low, and that the comments received indicated that the Guidance was not clear enough. We do not know whether the new iteration will alleviate the confusion and concern surrounding patent eligibility of life science inventions, or create more. However, we recommend that, where appropriate, applicants whose patent applications have been rejected based on the Myriad Mayo Guidance wait to see the new iteration before responding.