slightly after that.

The thing is, "the patent law" had not changed with regard to obviousness (103). CLS Bank v. Alice which I think you're alluding to was about 101.

No I just meant how much could it have changed since 2014 if it was also 2014 or soon after it, seems like a weird thing for a reviewer to say without further qualification

I'd have to go ask my dad about how all this works specifically lol

OK. CLS Bank was in 2014.

103 is about obviousness. 101 is about patentable subject matter. I actually had an application rejected on 101 grounds after CLS Bank.

That makes sense to me, since large classes of abstract ideas are not patentable anymore.