Which of the following indicates that a method involving an abstract idea is patent eligible?

A method that involves an abstract idea can be considered patent eligible when it integrates a machine in a meaningful way rather than in a trivial or non-significant manner. This means that the machine must serve a specific role in the method, contributing to the overall functionality or effectiveness of the process being claimed.

In this context, when a method "integrally involves a machine," it indicates that the machine plays a critical role in carrying out the steps of the method, thus transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. This integration helps to ensure that the method is not merely an abstract concept but rather a concrete embodiment of the idea that utilizes the machine in a novel way.

The other options suggest conditions that would not provide sufficient grounds for patent eligibility. For instance, merely involving a machine in a trivial manner does not demonstrate the necessary integration that advances the utility of the abstract idea. Similarly, a method that does not involve any transformation of an article does not fulfill the requirements to be considered patentable, as transformation of a substance or an article is often necessary to qualify. Lastly, the idea that abstract ideas can be patented simply by being presented in any form fails to acknowledge the limitations set forth by patent law regarding the eligibility of abstract ideas, particularly under Section 101