What evidence is required to support a finding that claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional?

To support a finding that additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, examiners must provide one of the following:

• A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
• A citation to one or more court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)
• A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the elements
• A statement of official notice (only when the examiner is certain based on personal knowledge)

MPEP 2106.07(a) states: “Examiners should not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports the rejection in writing with one or more of the following: [the four options listed above].”

To learn more:

• well-understood routine conventional
• subject matter eligibility
• 101 rejection
• evidence
• Berkheimer memo