Art. 35(2) specifies that the report shall not contain any statement on the question of whether the claimed invention is or seems to be patentable or unpatentable according to any national law. Moreover, the purpose of the preliminary examination is merely to give an opinion, but it does not lead to a grant or a refusal of the application. In these circumstances, therefore, the report should not give the impression that any part of the application may or may not be allowable.

For details on third-party observations please refer to GL/PCT‑EPO E-II.

For relevant third-party observations in Chapter II the following applies:[GL/ISPE 17.69; ]

Art. 34(2) gives the applicant the right to communicate orally with the IPEA. Thus, a request for a telephone conversation from the applicant or the agent (including those overseas) will be granted, but only after the subject-matter on which the international preliminary examination is to be based has been clarified, i.e.

Failure to meet the time limit set in the WO‑ISA or the WO-IPEA does not constitute a formal loss of rights; see GL/PCT‑EPO C‑IV, 3.

Requests for extension of the time limit for replying to the WO‑ISA where it is considered as a first opinion of the IPEA are handled by the formalities officers.

The EPO as IPEA will start the international preliminary examination when it is in possession of all of the documents and fees required under Rule 69.1(a).