1.1 General considerations

1.2 Special circumstances

If it appears that the previous communications were insufficiently reasoned or incomplete, or if the applicant has filed amendments and/or arguments since the previous communication, the examiner should carefully consider Art. 113(1) and Rule 111(2) before issuing a refusal (see E‑X, 1).

The examiner may be in a position to refuse the application using a standard form referring to the previous communication. In order to comply with the requirement that such a decision be reasoned (Rule 111(2)), this is only possible where the previous communication properly identifies the application documents on file, is well-reasoned and complete with respect to the grounds and the reasons for the refusal of the current request and addresses all the arguments raised by the applicant.

A special case is where the applicant does not file comments or amendments in reply to the examiner's communication but requests a decision "according to the state of the file" or "on the file as it stands", meaning that the applicant wishes to close the debate and a decision is taken on the basis of the current status of the application and any supporting arguments.

If no notice of opposition is recorded in the dossier of the European patent within nine months of publication of the mention of grant, the patent proprietor is informed and an appropriate entry is published in the European Patent Bulletin (point 1, Art. 1, Decision of the President of the EPO dated 14 October 2009, OJ EPO 2009, 598). If, subsequently, it emerges that an opposition was filed in time, the proprietor is again informed and a correction is published in the Bulletin.[Art. 129(a); ]