Determination of unity of invention before the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
37 C.F.R. § 1.488
in effectEffective: 2024-07-01(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.
Source: eCFRURL: https://www.ecfr.gov/api/versioner/v1/full/2024-07-01/title-37.xmlFetched: 7/26/2026