Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/04/20/uspto-memo-changed-alice-step-2b-examiners/id=96153/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ipwatchdog+%28IPWatchdog.com%29
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:02:29+00:00

Document:
Yesterday the USPTO issued subject matter eligibility guidance to its examining corps in a memorandum that changes how examiners approach their Alice Step 2B analysis. Specifically, the memo recognizes the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and instructs examiners to abide by its holding. Berkheimer itself held that the question of whether certain claim limitations represent well-understood, routine, or conventional activity under Alice Step 2B is a factual issue, with Berkheimer precluding summary judgment that all of the claims at issue were not patent eligible. This principle was then reaffirmed by the Federal Circuit a week later in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) in the context of a judgment on the pleadings and judgment as a matter of law.
The memo then provides four types of “evidence” that examiners can use in a Step 2B analysis, with any one of the following being sufficient.
First, “[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution [may suffice] that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element [emphasis added]”.
Second, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) will suffice if the decision notes the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the additional element(s) of a given claim that is being examined. Providing a few examples, MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the following items are well-understood, routine, or conventional activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, determining the level of a biomarker in blood, detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample, immunizing a patient against a disease, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, and presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Last, the examiner may take official notice of the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the additional element(s). However, the memo notes that the standards for official notice in this capacity are the same as for supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as discussed in MPEP § 2144.03.
My prediction: The PTAB will violate this bit of common sense before summer.
Any takers on this bet?
The (current) Bahr memo is clearly incongruent with the existing memorandum on taking official notice.
I am not certain where Bahr gets the authority to change the ability to take Official Notice on “state of the art” but do notice that a mere rebuttal on that point forces examiners to actually apply facts and proper evidentiary support.
The link above is the latest PTAB decision that cites Berkheimer, and the PTAB Panel admits the need for evidence. However, the 101 rejection was still sustained even DESPITE a total lack of evidence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 § 2106
 § 2106
 § 103
 § 2144