2.1 Applications containing missing parts of description and/or drawings Application documents filed under Rule 56 EPC, Rule 56a EPC or Rule 20 PCT, Rule 20.5 PCT or Rule 20.5bis PCT

If the Receiving Section decided not to redate the application under Rule 56(2) or Rule 56(5), but the search division is of the opinion that the subsequently filed missing parts or correct application documents or parts are not "completely contained" in the priority document and/or the requirements of Rule 56(3) or Rule 56a(4) are not fulfilled, it carries out the search also taking into account prior art which might become relevant for assessing novelty and inventive step of the subject-matter claimed if the application were redated pursuant to Rule 56(2) or Rule 56(5) or pursuant to Rule 56a(3) or Rule 56a(6). The search opinion must include a warning that the application seems not to fulfil the requirements laid down in Rule 56 or Rule 56a for maintaining the accorded date of filing, a statement of reasons as to why this is the case and an indication that a formal decision as to whether to redate the application will be taken at a later stage by the examining division. If appropriate, the search opinion may also include comments about the effect of redating on the priority claim and/or the status of the prior-art documents cited in the search report.

The procedure for a Euro-PCT application is similar to that set out above. If when carrying out a supplementary European search the search division finds that the subsequently filed missing parts under Rule 20.5(d) PCT or, for international applications filed on or after 1 November 2022, correct application documents or parts filed under Rule 20.5bis(d) PCT are not "completely contained" in the priority document, despite the fact that the receiving Office did not redate the application under Rule 20.5(d) PCT, the search opinion must include a warning that the application seems not to comply with the requirements of Rule 20.6 PCT (Rule 82ter.1(c) PCT), a statement of reasons as to why this is the case and an indication that a formal decision as to whether to redate the application will be taken at a later stage by the examining division.

However, if the application has been redated by the Receiving Section or receiving Office, but the search division has reasons to believe that the application meets the requirements of Rule 56(3) or Rule 56a(4) (or Rule 20.6 PCT), it must indicate in the search opinion that decisions given by the Receiving Section (or the receiving Office) may be reconsidered at a later stage by the examining division, except where the latter is bound by a decision of the board of appeal.