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

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.

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].”