In reply to an objection of lack of unity, the applicant must restrict the claims to a single invention which has been searched, unless the applicant can convince the examining division that the objection was not justified.

If the claims have been restricted to a single searched invention, the examination can be continued as for a unitary application but limited to that invention (see C‑III, 3).

Within the framework of Art. 123(2) and Art. 82, Rule 137(5), first sentence, should be construed as permitting any limitation of searched subject-matter which is unitary with the originally claimed subject-matter, irrespective of whether the technical feature(s) used for the limitation has/have been searched.[Rule 137(5); ]

Thus, the addition to a claim of a technical feature which further defi

Rule 137(5) sets out two further conditions for amendments to claims, namely that amended claims may not relate to (i) unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept and (ii) subject-matter not searched in accordance with Rule 62a and Rule 63 (see, however, H‑II, 5).

For admissibility of amendments in the limitation procedure, reference is made to D‑X, 4, and D‑X, 10.

If the patent proprietors request amendments going beyond those permissible under Rule 80 (see H‑II, 3.1 and H‑II, 3.2), they are invited to withdraw them.