What role do “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play in Step 2B analysis?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

“Well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play a crucial role in Step 2B analysis of patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(d):

“Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.”

Key points about well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B:

• They do not contribute to making a claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
• Examiners must provide evidence to support a conclusion that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional
• This evidence can include court decisions, publications, or official notice based on personal knowledge
• Applicants can challenge this determination by providing their own evidence

If all additional elements in a claim are well-understood, routine, and conventional, the claim is likely to be found ineligible under Step 2B unless it also recites an inventive concept.