You are here:  Ed9 08.2017 Guidebook  » Chapter 1800

1875 PCT Article 34 Procedure Before the International Preliminary Examining Authority

MPEP SECTION SUMMARY

The examiner will usually begin the preliminary examination by checking the international application for unity of invention.
If the examiner determines that unity of invention is lacking, there are two options:

  • (A) The examiner may conduct an international preliminary examination covering all the claimed and previously searched inventions and indicate that unity of invention is lacking and specify the reasons therefor without extending an invitation to restrict or pay additional fees, or
  • (B) The examiner may invite the applicant to restrict the claims, so as to comply with the requirement, or pay additional fees, pointing out the categories of invention found.  The invitation to restrict or pay additional fees shall state the reasons for which the international application is considered as not complying with the requirement of unity of invention. Inventions not previously searched will not be considered or included in the invitation.

 

*****
(3)

(a) If the International Preliminary Examining Authority considers that the international application does not comply with the requirement of unity of invention as set forth in the Regulations, it may invite the applicant, at his option, to restrict the claims so as to comply with the requirement or to pay additional fees.
*****
(c) If the applicant does not comply with the invitation referred to in subparagraph (a) within the prescribed time limit, the International Preliminary Examining Authority shall establish an international preliminary examination report on those parts of the international application which relate to what appears to be the main invention and shall indicate the relevant facts in the said report. The national law of any elected State may provide that, where its national Office finds the invitation of the International Preliminary Examining Authority justified, those parts of the international application which do not relate to the main invention shall, as far as effects in that State are concerned, be considered withdrawn unless a special fee is paid by the applicant to that Office.

*****

(a) Before establishing any written opinion or the international preliminary examination report, the International Preliminary Examining Authority will determine whether the international application complies with the requirement of unity of invention as set forth in § 1.475.
(b) If the International Preliminary Examining Authority considers that the international application does not comply with the requirement of unity of invention, it may:

(1) Issue a written opinion and/or an international preliminary examination report, in respect of the entire international application and indicate that unity of invention is lacking and specify the reasons therefor without extending an invitation to restrict or pay additional fees. No international preliminary examination will be conducted on inventions not previously searched by an International Searching Authority.
(2) Invite the applicant to restrict the claims or pay additional fees, pointing out the categories of invention found, within a set time limit which will not be extended. No international preliminary examination will be conducted on inventions not previously searched by an International Searching Authority, or
(3) If applicant fails to restrict the claims or pay additional fees within the time limit set for reply, the International Preliminary Examining Authority will issue a written opinion and/or establish an international preliminary examination report on the main invention and shall indicate the relevant facts in the said report. In case of any doubt as to which invention is the main invention, the invention first mentioned in the claims and previously searched by an International Searching Authority shall be considered the main invention.

(c) Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or after taking the prior art into consideration, as where a document discovered during the search shows the invention claimed in a generic or linking claim lacks novelty or is clearly obvious, leaving two or more claims joined thereby without a common inventive concept. In such a case the International Preliminary Examining Authority may raise the objection of lack of unity of invention.

The international preliminary examination will only be directed to inventions which have been searched by the International Searching Authority. All claims directed to inventions which have not been searched by the International Searching Authority will not be considered by the International Preliminary Examining Authority.

If the applicant fails to reply to the invitation to restrict the claims or pay additional examination fees due to lack of unity of invention (by not paying the additional fees or by not restricting the claims either sufficiently or at all), the written opinion, if any, and international preliminary examination report must be established on the claims directed to what appears to be the main invention.

If the applicant timely complies with the invitation to pay additional fees even under protest, or to restrict the claims, the examiner carries out international preliminary examination on those claimed inventions for which additional fees have been paid or to which the claims have been restricted.


1875.01   Preparation of Invitation Concerning Unity

MPEP SECTION SUMMARY

The “Invitation to restrict or pay additional fees,” is used to invite the applicant, at his/her option, to restrict the claims to comply with the requirements of unity of invention or to pay additional examination fees. This section also covers telephone practice allowing applicants to elect an invention to be examined.


TELEPHONIC RESTRICTION PRACTICE

Telephone practice may be used to allow applicants to elect an invention to be examined or to pay additional fees if:

  • (A) Applicant or applicant’s legal representative has a USPTO deposit account,
  • (B) Applicant or the legal representative or agent orally agrees to charge the additional fees to the account, and
  • (C) A complete record of the telephone conversation is included with the written opinion, if any, or the international preliminary examination report, including:
    • (1) Examiner’s name;
    • (2) Authorizing attorney’s name;
    • (3) Date of conversation;
    • (4) Invention elected and/or inventions for which additional fees paid; and
    • (5) Deposit account number and amount to be charged.

 

1875.02   Reply to Invitation Concerning Lack of Unity of Invention

MPEP SECTION SUMMARY

Applicant may reply directly to the International Preliminary Examining Authority issuing the invitation by paying some or all additional fees or by restricting the claims to one invention. If applicant makes no reply within the set time limit, the international preliminary examination will proceed on the basis of the main invention only.

If applicant has paid an additional fee or fees, a protest to the holding of lack of unity of invention may be filed with the International Preliminary Examining Authority.

 

The International Preliminary Examining Authority shall transmit to the applicant, preferably at the latest together with the international preliminary examination report, any decision which it has taken under Rule 68.3(c) on the protest of the applicant against payment of additional fees where the international application is considered to lack unity of invention. At the same time, it shall transmit to the International Bureau a copy of both the protest and the decision thereon, as well as any request by the applicant to forward the texts of both the protest and the decision thereon to the elected Offices.

(a) If the applicant disagrees with the holding of lack of unity of invention by the International Preliminary Examining Authority, additional fees may be paid under protest, accompanied by a request for refund and a statement setting forth reasons for disagreement or why the required additional fees are considered excessive, or both.
(b) Protest under paragraph (a) of this section will be examined by the Director or the Director’s designee. In the event that the applicant’s protest is determined to be justified, the additional fees or a portion thereof will be refunded.
(c) An applicant who desires that a copy of the protest and the decision thereon accompany the international preliminary examination report when forwarded to the Elected Offices, may notify the International Preliminary Examining Authority to that effect any time prior to the issuance of the international preliminary examination report. Thereafter, such notification should be directed to the International Bureau.



» 1876 Notation of Errors and Informalities by the Examiner