If the applicant does not reply in time to the invitation under Rule 63(1), the search division will determine what to search. In this case a partial search report will be drawn up accordingly, or in exceptional cases a declaration replacing the search report. This limitation of the search has consequences in examination (see H‑II, 5 and H-II, 6.1).

If the EPO considers that the application does not comply with the EPC to such an extent that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search into the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed (see B‑VIII, 1, B-VIII, 2 and B-VIII, 3), it will invite the applicant to file, within a period of two months,

For claims directed to computer-implemented business methods, if the features contributing to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter are so well-known that their existence at the relevant date cannot reasonably be disputed (T 1411/08, Reasons 4.1 and 4.2, and T 690/06, Reasons 13), no documentary evidence as to the relevant state of the art is required in the search report.

Even if a claim is drafted as a method of medical treatment (see G‑II, 4.2) and is for this reason not directed to patentable subject-matter, a meaningful search may be possible if the determining technical feature is the effect of the substance, which can be searched, and as such the procedure under Rule 63 (see B‑VIII, 3.1 to B-VIII, 3.4) would not

In relation to searches carried out for European patent applications, the subject-matter listed in Rule 39.1 PCT may be considered under the EPC either not to be susceptible of industrial application (Art. 57) or, to the extent to which the European patent application relates to that subject-matter as such, to be excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) and Art. 52(3), or to constitute