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

The correct answer highlights that for a method involving an abstract idea to be patent eligible, it must integrally involve a machine that serves a purpose beyond merely linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. This aligns with the standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit regarding the patent eligibility of claims involving abstract ideas.

When a method incorporates a machine in a significant way, rather than just as a contextual tool, it demonstrates that the invention has been applied in a way that adds practical application to the abstract concept. This "integration" shows that the method is more than a mere mental process or a general idea and can lead to transformative results, which is a key consideration in determining patentable subject matter.

In contrast, a method that merely involves a non-conventional machine in a trivial manner does not establish the necessary connection between the abstract idea and the machine's practical application. Similarly, a process that does not involve any transformation of an article may not demonstrate the required element of contributing to a field in a tangible way. Lastly, the idea that abstract ideas can be patented simply by presenting them in any form overlooks the necessity for significant integration with a machine or transformation that advances the understanding or utility of the abstract concept.