By Robert Curylo (May 1, 2018, 11:52 AM EDT) -- Rejections of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are often criticized when examiners take an "I know when I see it" approach rather than applying any objective standards for assessing patent eligibility. However, in an April 19, 2018, memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office imposes new limitations on rejecting patent claims as ineligible for being directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The memorandum provides guidance for complying with the Federal Circuit's evidentiary requirements for the "significantly more" step of the eligibility analysis, which the court articulated in its recent Berkheimer v. HP Inc.[1] decision. According to the USPTO's interpretation of the Berkheimer decision, examiners are now required to support a finding that a claim feature is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" with statements from the specification, court decisions involving conventional claim features, publications, or official notice. But given recent history, practitioners should view this new eligibility guidance with an "I'll believe it when I see it" approach rather than expecting a dramatic shift in their clients' favor....