Single Access Portal

1. Unity of invention

iBack to dashboard

Implemented

Information not available

Not implemented

Survey questions and answers
AL - Albania
AT - Austria

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
BE - Belgium
BA - Bosnia and Herzegovina

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
BG - Bulgaria

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
HR - Croatia

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
CY - Cyprus
CZ - Czech Republic

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
DK - Denmark

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
EE - Estonia

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
FI - Finland

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
FR - France

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

Our notification template has been modified and the guidelines have been changed to include the common practice 
See p66 : https://www.inpi.fr/sites/default/files/DIRECTIVES_BREVETS_LIVRE1_INSTR…

DE - Germany

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
GR - Greece

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
HU - Hungary

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

Our guidelines for substantive examination is fully in line with the above recommendations.

IS - Iceland

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

No
Additional information

Whereas examination of Icelandic patent applications is performed based on an agreement with DKPTO this procedure is not specifically prescribed in our Offices administrative practice. However, when this project was implemented in our Office it was our understanding that this procedure would be the one followed in case of non-unity objection.

IE - Ireland

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

While the Irish Office will identify the groups of inventions and the claims belonging to each of these groups, we shall only provide a statement of the lack of unity identifying why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions. We do not identify the common matter between the different groups and do not provide analysis on the remaining technical features which are not part of the common matter. We do include a statement explaining the procedural implications and consequences of non-response.

IT - Italy

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

No
Additional information

Non-unity of invention is mainly - not exclusively - evaluated during the novelty search (NS for italian patent applications is carried out by EPO examiners, according to a 2008 specific Working Agreement)

LV - Latvia

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

We assess unity partially in so called a priori manner since we do not have substantive examination. However we implement the first three bullet points.

LI - Liechtenstein

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
LT - Lithuania

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

Yes (as far as our practice allows, given that we do not perform substantive examination and novelty searches), these recommendations are included in our internal examination guidelines.

LU - Luxembourg

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

No
Additional information

The LU office does not examine the unity of invention.
If a lack of unity of invention is raised in the search report made by the EPO for a LU application, this does not create any obligations for the applicant to modify his application.

MT - Malta
MC - Monaco
ME - Montenegro

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
NL - Netherlands
MK - Republic of North Macedonia
NO - Norway

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
PL - Poland

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

The aforementioned approach aligns with Polish practice, although it is not formally enshrined in legislation. This particular procdure is administered by the Polish Patent Office (PPO), and is comprehensively outlined in the PPO's 2023 publication entitled "Poradnik wynalazcy" ("Inventor's Guide"), specifically within Chapter 10.1.

The PPO disseminated information about this practice among its users through well-informed regarding its implementation and compliance.

PT - Portugal

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

Following our participation in the Convergence of Practice program regarding examination of unity of invention, examination guidelines about unity of invention were created, which included the minimum requirements to be provided in a comunication due to lack of unity of invention. It was also created new examination standard clauses to include the minimum reasoning (defined in the working group) to be provided to applicants when a non-unity objection is raised. Moreover, patent examiners received internal training about the minimum requirements to be provided in a comunication due to lack of unity of invention.
Our stakeholders were informed about this convergence of practice project regarding examination of unity of invention through a notice published in our website.
 

RO - Romania
SM - San Marino

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

No
Additional information

USBM do not exam on the patent, USBM does only formalities checks.

RS - Serbia

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
SK - Slovakia

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
SI - Slovenia

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

No
Additional information

Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) performs formal examination, not substantive one. 
If it is obvious that application includes more inventions, SIPO invites the applicant to devide the application to have just one invention per application.
Industrial Property Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 51/06 – official consolidated text, 100/13 , 23/20 and 76/23 ) Article 86 (2): Not later than by the issue of a decision on the publication of the application, the applicant may file a patent application whose subject is excluded from the initial patent application (hereinafter: divisional application) and does not extend beyond the subject matter of the initial application. It shall be deemed that the divisional application was filed on the same date as the initial application. The same priority right may be claimed for the divisional application as for the initial application.
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV4047# , Rule 6

ES - Spain

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
SE - Sweden

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
CH - Switzerland

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
TR - Türkiye

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

No
Additional information

TÜRKPATENT Intellectual Property law article 91 defines divisional applications. However, there is no detail in the law on how to assess unity. Some examiners follow single general inventive concept of EPO practice.

GB - United Kingdom

1.1.

1.1. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice prescribe the following as regards the information to be provided as minimum reasoning when raising a non-unity objection?

Introduction to the objection:

  • Where appropriate, statement of the legal basis for the objection, invoking a specific legal provision
  • Identification of the different groups of inventions, including, where possible, the numbering of the groups and an indication of the claims belonging to each of these groups
  • Grounds for the objection
  • Identification of the common matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof
  • If common matter has been identified, a comparison with the "prior art at hand" which:
  • If applicable, explains why the features identified as part of the common matter do not constitute a contribution over the "prior art at hand"
  • If prior art is relied upon, identifies that prior art
  • Analysis of the remaining technical features which are not part of the identified common matter
  • Explanation of why there is no unifying technical relationship among the groups of inventions, if applicable by identifying the differences between the remaining technical features considering the technical effects achieved or the technical problems solved by these remaining features.

Conclusion

The concluding statement explaining that lack of unity has been found may be supplemented, where appropriate, with information on any procedural consequences of this result at the procedural stage in question

Yes
Additional information

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) does not conduct a separate analysis of the remaining technical features as under UK practice this analysis is carried out as part of the identification and discussion of the common subject matter.