Index
B-ries: Citation of documents
B1: documents cited in the Search Report
B2: documents cited from examiner's knowledge or further arch
B3: documents found in Article 54(3) arch
B4: documents cited in the description
B5: documents not in the state of the art (P documents)
C-ries: Article 54(3) EPC
C1: basic objection under Article 54(3)
C1a: ...where the citation is a published PCT application
C2: position for States designated in both applications
C3: position for the other States
D-ries: Novelty, Article 54 EPC
D1:lack of novelty, opening clau
D2:lack of clarity and novelty, opening clau
D3:subject-matter of claim not new
E-ries: Inventive step, Article 56 EPC
E1a:lack of inventive step, opening clau
E1b:lack of clarity and inventive step, opening clau
E1c:clost prior
E1d:clost prior (for unclear claim)
E1e:claim differs from clost prior art
E1f:difference between claim and prior
去公园的英文E1g:the problem to be solved may be
E1h:solution does not involve an inventive step
E2a:combination of features known from two documents is normal design option E2b:combination of all claimed features is obvious
E2c:mere choice among obvious possibilities
E2d:replacing a feature by an equivalentvbs病毒
E2e:features known from a combination of two documents similar purpo and effect
E2f:alleged commercial advantage
E2g:long felt want
E2h:new u of known material
E2i:obvious lection
E2j:omission of feature is obvious
Directorate Practice and Procedure July 2005
E3a:dependent claims also appear not inventive
E3b:dependent claim relates to a slight constructional change
E3c:feature of a dependent claim is known
F-ries: Non-unity, Article 82 EPC
F1: opening clau
F2:no further arch done
F3:further arch done
F5: list of inventions claimed
F6: invitation to file divisional application
F7: independent claims not linked by general inventive concept
F8: claim1 known; dependent claims not linked by general inventive concept
F9:model communication pursuant to Rule 112 EPC
G-ries: Article 84
G1:lack of clarity, opening clau
G2:functional features in apparatus claim
G3:claimed feature missing from the description
G4:claims unclear becau of the description ("spirit of the invention")
G5:conciness
G6:conciness: warning (to be ud with G5)
G7:result to be achieved
时光荏苒岁月静好
G8:u of vague and indefinite terms
G9:embodiment does not fall within scope of the claim
G10:system claims to be considered as apparatus claims
G11:no support in the description (broad scope)
G12:no support in the description (definition in terms of function)
G13:unclear functional features
G14:u of relative terms
G15:cond medical u claim
G16:esntial feature missing in claim
G17:registered trade mark ud in claims
H-ries: Article 123(2)
H1:subject-matter has been added
H2:take care not to add subject-matter, general
H3:confine any new information to the letter of reply
H4:deletion or modification of a claimed feature
J-ries: The description, Rule 27 EPC
J1: acknowledge prior art
Directorate Practice and Procedure July 2005
J1a: acknowledge prior art; indicate features of independent claim(s) known from this document
J2: prior art described but no document referred to
K-ries: Form and content of the claims, Rule 29 EPC
K1:R.29(1): two-part form should be ud
K2:R.29(1): specific features in the incorrect part of claim
K3: R.29(6): references to drawings in claims
K4: R.29(7): u reference signs in claims
土豆炖肉
K4a: R.29(7): also u reference signs in preamble
鼎湖山听泉K5: independent claim includes all features of another independent claim
L-ries: Consistency of reference signs, Rule 32 EPC
L1:inconsistent u of reference signs
L2:reference sign in the description does not appear in the figures and vice versa M-ries: Terminology and signs, Rule 35 EPC
丰盛的英语M1:incorrect u of units
M2:units/symbols/formula not internationally recognized
M3:terms/signs/symbols not generally accepted in the art
M4:inconsistent terminology
N-ries: Miscellaneous
N1:proposal: dependent claims allowable if independent claim is amended
N2:proposal: a particular combination of claims is new and inventive
N2a:proposal: features of dependent claims not known from cited documents
N3:proposal: annexing copy of suggested amendments
N4:invitation to reply: fair copies of the amendments should be filed
N5a:invitation to reply: request to file new claims
N5b:invitation to reply: indicate location of basis for amendments in original application
N5c:invitation to reply: take care not to add subject-matter when adapting description to claims to be filed
N5d:invitation to reply: take care not to add subject-matter when adapting description to previously filed claims
N6:claimed matter meets Article 52(1),
N7:full examination not possible
N8:not clear if there is any patentable subject-matter
N9:amendment ems impossible秦的统一
N10:reply to EESR with some objections not overcome
Directorate Practice and Procedure July 2005
N11:reply to EESR with new problems
N12:regional pha: IPER already done
N13:regional pha: additional objections (to be ud with N12)
N16:post-Rule 51(4): annexing copy of suggested amendments
N17:post-Rule 51(4): amendments not allowable
N18:post-Rule 51(4): resumption of examination procedure
N19:referral G1/04: stay of proceedings (interpretation of the term "diagnostic method"); for u in EESR
N20:information on deposited biological material is required
Z-ries: Comments on the arch report
Z2:Incomplete arch: many independent claims with clear indication
Z3:No arch; many independent claims with no clear indication
当代大学生的历史使命Z4:Incomplete arch: many dependent claims
Z5:Incomplete arch: many alternatives within one claim; unsupported claim
Z6:Incomplete arch: unclear claim with Markush formula and functional definition
Z7:Incomplete arch: statements of desiderata
Z8:Incomplete arch: reach-through claims with support by examples
Z9:No arch: reach-through claims without support
Z10:Incomplete arch: parametric definitions
Z11:Incomplete arch: novelty overflow
Directorate Practice and Procedure July 2005
B-ries:Citation of documents
B1
Reference is made to the following document/s; the numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure:
D .....
B2
The following document/s (D) is/are cited by the examiner (e the Guidelines, C-VI, 8.7). A copy/Copies of the document/s is/are annexed to the communication and the numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure:
D ....
B3
The following document/s (D) was/were found in a arch of the state of the art in accordance with Article 54(3) EPC. A copy/Copies of the document/s is/are annexed to the communication and the numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure:
D .....
B4
The following document/s (D) has/have been cited by the applicant in the description; the numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure:
D ....
B5
The document ..A.. indicated in the arch report as a P-document is not to be regarded as state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC, as the date of priority claimed can be allowed for the relevant parts of the prent application, cf. Articles 54(2) and 89 EPC.
Directorate Practice and Procedure July 2005
