2.1 Application documents filed under Rule 56 EPC, Rule 56a EPC, 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) or under Rule 56a(3) or Rule 56a(6), but the search division considers 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 met, its search will also take into account prior art which would potentially become relevant for assessing novelty and inventive step of the subject-matter claimed if the application were redated under Rule 56(2) or Rule 56(5) or under Rule 56a(3) or Rule 56a(6). The search opinion must include a warning that the application seems not to meet the requirements in Rule 56 or Rule 56a for keeping the accorded filing date, a statement of reasons as to why this is the case and an indication that a formal decision on whether to redate the application will be taken by the examining division at a later stage. If appropriate, the search opinion can also comment on the effect redating would have on the priority claim and/or the status of the prior-art documents cited in the search report.

A similar procedure is followed for a Euro-PCT application. If the search division finds when carrying out a supplementary European search 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 under Rule 20.5bis(d) PCT are not "completely contained" in the priority document, even though the receiving Office did not redate the application, the search opinion must include a warning that the application does not seem to meet 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 on whether to redate the application will be taken by the examining division at a later stage.

Conversely, if the application has been redated by the Receiving Section or the receiving Office, but the search division has reason to believe that it does meet the requirements of Rule 56(3) or Rule 56a(4) (or Rule 20.6 PCT), it must indicate in the search opinion that the examining division may reconsider the decisions of the Receiving Section (or the receiving Office) at a later stage unless it is bound by a decision of the board of appeal.