GL F V 3.3.1 Minimum requirements for reasoning of lack of unity

When raising a non-unity objection, the division must back it up with a minimum reasoning outlining at least the following elements:

(i)the common matter, if any, between the groups of inventions. The common matter is based on the same or corresponding technical features.

GL F V 3.3 Reasoning for a lack of unity objection

An objection of lack of unity must consist of logically presented, technical reasoning containing the basic considerations behind the finding of lack of unity. If necessary, it must comprise considerations relating to the number and grouping of the claimed separate inventions.

3.3.1 Minimum requirements for reasoning of lack of unity

GL F V 3.2.7 Intermediate and final products

In the present context of intermediate and final products, the term "intermediate" is intended to mean intermediate or starting products.

GL F V 3.2.6 Claims for a known substance for a number of distinct medical uses

For the particular case of claims for a known substance for a number of distinct medical uses, see G‑VI, 7.1.

GL F V 3.2.5 Markush grouping (alternatives in a single claim)

Where a single claim defines several (chemical or non-chemical) alternatives, e.g.

GL F V 3.2.4 Common dependent claims

While an independent claim is always part of the common matter among its dependent claims, the opposite is not true: a claim dependent on several independent claims is never part of the common matter between these independent claims.

For example, an application contains three independent claims, A, B and C, and several claims combining the content of the independent claims, i.e.

GL F V 3.2.3 Dependent claims

A dependent claim and the higher-ranking claim on which it depends cannot be grouped into two different groups of inventions (see F‑V, 2.1).

If, however, the higher-ranking claim appears not to be patentable, then the question of whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that higher-ranking claim needs to be carefully considered.

In

GL F V 3.2.2 Plurality of independent claims in different categories

A plurality of independent claims in different categories (see F-IV, 3.1) may constitute a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept as defined in Rule 44(2).

However, it is essential that a single general inventive concept link the claims in the various categories.

GL F V 3.2.1 Plurality of independent claims in the same category

Rule 43(2) defines in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) the situations where, without prejudice to the requirements of Art. 82, an application is allowed to comprise a plurality of independent claims in the same category (see F‑IV, 3.2 and 3.3

GL F V 3.2 Grouping of inventions

As a general rule, after the initial identification of subject-matter lacking unity, the claims and alternatives contained in claims are assigned to the identified groups of inventions. This step comprises the assessment of which of the remaining claims or alternatives in claims could potentially relate to the same technical problem. By doing so, groups of inventions are identified wherein each group of inventions relates to unitary subject-matter in view of the prior art at hand.