1.1 Text for approval 

Once the examining division decides that a patent can be granted, it must inform the applicant of the text it intends to use for the grant. This text may include amendments and corrections that the examining division made on its own initiative and can reasonably expect the applicant to accept. If in doubt as to whether the applicant will agree to the proposed amendments, the examining division should contact them by telephone or via an official communication. The applicant's agreement to such amendments during a consultation will usually be recorded in the communication under Rule 71(3) (see C‑VII, 2.4).

Examples of amendments not requiring consultation with the applicant:

(a)amendment of a statement of invention in the description to bring it into conformity with the claims 

(b)deletion of vague general statements in the description (see F‑IV, 4.4) or of obviously irrelevant matter (see F‑II, 7.4)

(c)insertion of values in SI units (see F‑II, 4.13)

(d)insertion of reference numerals in claims unless the applicant is known to object to this or has previously objected to this 

(e)introduction of a summary of background art that clearly represents the prior art closest to the invention (see F‑II, 4.3)

(f)amendments that, despite changing the meaning or scope of an independent claim, are very clearly necessary and so assumed acceptable to the applicant (see for example G‑VI, 6.1.2, G‑VI, 6.1.3 and G‑VI, 6.1.4 G‑VI, 7.1.2, G‑VI, 7.1.3 and G‑VI, 7.1.4)

(g)correction of linguistic and other minor errors 

(h)reformulation of method-of-treatment claims into an allowable format (see G‑II, 4.2).

(i)deletion of redundant claims (e.g. omnibus claims and claims that the applicant has not deleted despite having incorporated their features into other claims). 

Examples of amendments that may not be proposed without consulting the applicant:

(i) amendments that significantly change the meaning or scope of a claim when there are several different ways to amend it and the examiner cannot predict which amendment the applicant will agree to 

(ii) deletion of entire claims, with the exception of so-called "omnibus claims" (i.e. claims reading "An apparatus substantially as described herein", or the like) 

(iii) combining of claims to overcome a novelty or inventive step objection. 

The above list is designed to avoid changes likely to be rejected by the applicant and thus to help avoid delays in the conclusion of examination proceedings. For the standard marks used by the division to indicate amendments and corrections using the in-house electronic tool, see C‑V, Annex.

The text is communicated to the applicant via a Rule 71(3) communication, which includes an invitation to pay the fee for grant and publishing (see C‑V, 1.2) and to file a translation of the claims in the two official EPO languages other than the language of the proceedings (see C‑V, 1.3) within a non-extendable period of four months. If the applicant pays the fees and files the translations in time (and files or requests no corrections or amendments to the text proposed in the Rule 71(3) communication, see C‑V, 4.1), they will be deemed to have approved the text intended for grant (Rule 71(5)).

If, during examination proceedings, a main request and auxiliary requests have been filed (see C‑IV, 1 and E‑X, 2.9) and one of the requests is allowable, the communication pursuant to Rule 71(3) is to be issued on the basis of the (first) allowable request unless there is a higher ranking request for oral proceedings (see E‑X, 2.2). and The communication pursuant to Rule 71(3) must briefly indicate the essential reasons for the non-allowability of the subject-matter of the higher-ranking requests or their inadmissibility (see also H‑III, 3). The examining division should provide sufficient information about the objections raised to enable the applicant to comment on them.

Handwritten amendments by the applicant to the description, claims and abstract, unless they involve graphic symbols and characters and chemical or mathematical formulae, are no longer accepted in strict compliance with Rule 50(1) in conjunction with Rule 49(2) (Art. 2(7) of the decision of the President of the EPO dated 25 November 2022, OJ EPO 2022, A113) (see OJ EPO 2013, 603, and A‑III, 3.2). For the procedure to follow in oral proceedings, see E‑III, 8.7.