10.3 The main ISA found that unity of invention is lacking 

If the main ISA has already objected to lack of unity and the examiner agrees with the assessment in the main ISR, this can be reported by simply referring to the ISR.

If the examiner forms a different point of view, or agrees with a revised view on unity of invention in a decision relating to a protest before the ISA, the reasoning will be set out in full so that it is easily understood by both the applicant and third parties. No reasons need be given why the lack-of-unity objection raised in the ISR could not be followed.

If the examiner finds that the application does not lack unity, a complete search is made for all the claims. No reasons need be given why the lack-of-unity objection raised in the ISR could not be followed.

Furthermore, if the main ISA has already objected to lack of unity, the applicant can indicate, on the supplementary search request form (in Box IV), which of the inventions searched by the main ISA the SIS should be based upon.

If the examiner agrees with the assessment of unity of invention made by the main ISA and the relevant claims are not excluded for any reason, the SIS will focus on the invention indicated by the applicant.

If examiners cannot follow the objection raised in the ISR, but raise a different non-unity objection, when deciding on the main invention to be searched, they will take the request by the applicant into account as far as possible. The examiner will provide complete reasoning for the lack-of-unity objection in the SISR and will include an explanation of the extent to which the applicant's request could be taken into account in view of the different non-unity objection raised by the EPO.