For the situation where the applicant submits new claims directed to subject-matter which has not been searched e.g. because it was only contained in the description and at the search stage it was not found to be appropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter, see H‑II, 6.2, and B‑III, 3.5.[Rule 137(5); ]

GL F V 5.3 Review of non-unity findings

The reviewing of non-unity findings and the refund of additional search fees are dealt with in C‑III, 3.3.

In so far as the examining division finds that unity of invention is given, if the applicant has paid the further search fee(s) and requested a full or partial refund thereof, the examining division will order refund of the relevant further search fee(s).

GL F V 5.2 Objections to unsearched inventions

See H‑II, 7.2 and 7.3.

GL F V 5.1 General principles

The final responsibility for establishing whether the application meets the requirement of unity of invention ultimately rests with the examining division (see T 631/97; see also C‑III, 3.1).

GL F V 5 Procedure in the case of lack of unity during substantive examination

5.1 General principles

5.2 Objections to unsearched inventions

5.3 Review of non-unity findings

GL F V 4.2 Consequences for the applicant

There is no obligation for applicants to pay any additional fee.

However, subject-matter that has not been searched will not be examined by the examining division (G 2/92).

GL F V 4.1 Provisional opinion accompanying the partial search results

As from 1 April 2017, the EPO provides applicants with a provisional opinion on the patentability of the invention (or unitary group of inventions) first mentioned in the claims (see OJ EPO 2017, A20). This provisional opinion is sent together with the invitation to pay further/additional search fees and the partial search results. It also includes the reasons for the non-unity findings.

The provisional opinion is sent for information only.

GL F V 4 Procedure in the case of lack of unity during search

The search division may neither refuse the application for lack of unity nor require limitation of the claims, but must inform the applicant that, if the search report is to be drawn up to cover those inventions present other than the first mentioned, then further search fees must be paid within two months.

GL F V 3.4 Determination of the invention first mentioned in the claims

When lack of unity is established, the sequence of the claimed (groups of) inventions will normally start with the invention first mentioned in the claims ("first invention"); see also B‑VII, 1.1 and 2.3. In other words, as a general rule the division of subject-matter follows the order of appearance of the different inventions in the claims.

GL F V 7 Euro-PCT applications

GL F V 6 Amended claims