3.2.1 No additional search fees paid 

If applicants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to have the search results on the other inventions included in the search report because they have paid no additional search fees in response to the invitation under Rule 64(1) (see B‑VII, 1.2) or Rule 164(1) (see B‑VII, 2.3), they will be assumed to have elected to proceed with the application on the basis of the searched invention (see G 2/92). and will be requested to delete any unsearched inventions or group of inventions within the meaning of Art. 82 from the claims (see F‑V, 5.1 and H‑II, 6.1). In cases where a communication under Rule 164(2) has been sent (see C‑III, 3.1), Rule 164(2)(c) also requires the applicant to delete all unsearched inventions from the claims.

Final responsibility for establishing whether the application meets the requirement of unity of invention ultimately rests with the examining division (see T 631/97). When considering the issue of unity, the examining division will consider both the reasons given in the search opinion and the applicant's response (see B‑XI, 8 for details of when a response to the search opinion is required); for Euro-PCT applications where no supplementary European search report is prepared, the examining division will consider the reasons given in the WO‑ISA, IPER or supplementary international search report prepared by the EPO and the applicant's response as required by Rule 161(1) (see E‑IX, 3.2). In the absence of any convincing response from the applicant to the issue of unity as raised earlier, the examining division will normally initially uphold the position taken earlier (see B‑XI, 1.2) and will then require deletion of all the inventions other than that which has been searched. If the examining division is convinced, e.g. by arguments from the applicant, that the opinion on unity at the search stage was incorrect, then an additional search is performed for that part of the subject-matter that is judged to be unitary with an invention that was searched (see B‑II, 4.2(iii) and C‑IV, 7.3) and the examination is carried out on those claims that comply with the requirement of unity of invention. The applicant may file a divisional application for any excised subject-matter (see C‑III, 3.3).