>In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court found that Congress intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man." .

>In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court found that Congress intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man." ... However, the Court also stated that this broad definition has limits and does not embrace every discovery. According to the Court, the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. >"something that makes light from electricity" So yeah probably too abstract to be patentable. However something like "something that makes light from electricity by passing it through a filament" might be enough to make it not abstract. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent