e) Need for procedural economy – convergence 

In T 1411/21 the board held that the convergence (or the divergence) of requests is in principle an accepted criterion for deciding on the admissibility of requests under R. 137(3) EPC. It applied not only within a set of claims filed together but also with respect to earlier requests. In T 3097/19, however, the board (applying Art. 12(2) and (4) RPBA 2007) underlined that non-convergence of requests is, on its own, not a sufficient reason for non-admittance. It must be reasoned that and why non-convergent requests affect procedural economy in view of the particular circumstances of the case. See also T 714/20 by the same board, in which it was pointed out that when oral proceedings before the examining division were imminent, it was legitimate to expect the claims of subsequent requests to converge, so that a focused discussion could be had.

In the inter-partes case T 2204/18, the board (applying Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007) held that the opposition division, which had relied on the convergence criterion among others, had exercised its discretion in accordance to the right principles in a reasonable way. See however T 683/19, in which the board (applying Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007) overruled a decision of the opposition division based on lack of convergence as the request at issue constituted a timely bona fide reaction to the admission of a new document by the opposition division.