GL C V 4.6.3 Examining division proposes amendments in second Rule 71(3) communication

As with the first communication under Rule 71(3), the examining division may propose amendments to the applicant's latest request on which the second Rule 71(3) communication is based (this request includes amendments or corrections filed in response to the first Rule 71(3) communication).

GL C V 4.6.2 Second Rule 71(3) communication based on higher-ranking request initially rejected in first Rule 71(3) communication

In cases where the first Rule 71(3) communication was based on an auxiliary request (see H‑III, 3, in particular H‑III, 3.1 and 3.3 and sub-sections), the first communication under Rule 71(3) would have been accompanied by an indication of why the higher-ranking requests were not considered to be admissible or

GL C V 4.6.1 Second Rule 71(3) communication reversing the amendments proposed by the examining division in first Rule 71(3) communication

A second communication under Rule 71(3) is also sent if the applicant requests reversal of amendments proposed by the examining division in the first communication under Rule 71(3) and the examining division overturns its previous opinion, finding that the amendments that it had proposed were not necessary, possibly as a consequence of argumentation or evidence provided by the applicant in the reply to the first Rule 71(3) communication

GL C V 4.6 Amendments/corrections admitted and allowable – second Rule 71(3) communication sent

If the amendments and/or corrections filed within the period under Rule 71(3) are admitted under Rule 137(3) and also comply with the EPC, the examining division will send a second communication under Rule 71(3) based thereon.[Rule 71(6); ]]

GL C V 4.5 Adaptation of the description

If the amendments or corrections filed by the applicant in the Rule 71(3) period concern the claims, the applicant should consider whether this necessitates any adaptation of the description.

GL C V 4.4 Admissibility of amendments

The criteria for assessing the admissibility of such amendments are dealt with in detail in H‑II, 2.5 and sub-sections.[Rule 137(3); ]

By way of exception, in cases where the Rule 71(3) communication was also the first communication in examination proceedings, amendments filed in response thereto must be admitted into the proceedings under Rule 137 in cases (i) to (iii) mentioned in

GL C V 4.3 Amendments or corrections should be reasoned

The reasoning accompanying amendments or corrections filed in response to the Rule 71(3) communication should indicate respectively:

– why the applicant considers that the amended application documents comply with the EPC, in particular the requirements of patentability, Art. 123(2) and Art. 84;

GL C V 4.2 Crediting of fees paid voluntarily

Although the payment of fees in response to the Rule 71(3) communication is not required where applicants file amendments or corrections in their response thereto (see C‑V, 4.1), they can still pay these fees voluntarily.

GL C V 4.1 No payment of fees or filing of translations necessary

In the case referred to in C‑V, 4, applicants will not be required to pay the fee for grant and publishing or any claims fees in reply to the first communication under Rule 71(3), nor will they be required to file any translations of the claims within this period.

GL C V 4 Request for amendments or corrections in reply to the Rule 71(3) communication

If the applicant, within the period under Rule 71(3), requests amendments or corrections to the communicated text which are reasoned (with regard to the reasoning required, see C‑V, 4.3), the examining division will issue a new communication under Rule 71(3) if it gives its consent (i.e. if it finds the amendments admissible and allowable; see C‑V, 4.6); otherwise it will resume the examination proceedings (see