3.3.1
Minimum requirements for reasoning of lack of unity

When raising a non-unity objection, the division must back it up with a minimum reasoning outlining at least the following elements:

(i)
the common matter, if any, between the groups of inventions. The common matter is based on the same or corresponding technical features. It is not confined to individual features but also includes synergistic effects being the result of a combination of features, see G-VII, 7;
(ii)
the reasons why this common matter cannot provide a single general inventive concept based on the same or corresponding special technical features. This includes prior art or general knowledge or the teaching of the application itself which anticipates or renders obvious the common matter (and the general problem if applicable). If prior art is relied upon, it must be identified, indicating any relevant passages and the reasons why they are considered relevant;
(iii)
the reasons why there is no technical relationship between the remaining technical features of the different groups of claims, including:
(a)
an identification of any remaining technical features of the different groups and the respective claims of each group, with an explicit statement that these technical features are different;
(b)
for each group, an identification, in the light of the description, of the objective technical problem(s) solved by these remaining technical features;
(c)
why the problem(s) solved are either known from the prior art or are different so that the different technical features cannot be considered to be "corresponding special technical features";
(iv)
in all cases, the minimum reasoning comprises a concluding statement that, because neither the same nor corresponding special technical features are present in the claims, there is no single general inventive concept and the requirements for unity of invention are not met;
(v)
in special cases, point iii, parts (a) to (c), which prove that there is no technical relationship involving the same or corresponding special technical features, will be automatically covered if it is explained:
(1)
why grouped alternatives of chemical compounds are not of a similar nature;
(2)
in case of lack of unity between intermediate and final products, why the intermediate and final products do not have the same essential structural elements and are not technically closely interrelated;
(3)
why a process is not specially adapted to the production of a product;
(4)
why a product itself does not provide a single general inventive concept linking different uses as defined in the claims;
(5)
why a use in itself does not provide a single general inventive concept linking the subject-matter of the claims.

Quick Navigation