4.1.2 Subject-matter taken from the description 

Within the framework of Art. 123(2) and Art. 82, Rule 137(5), first sentence, should be construed as permitting any limitation of searched subject-matter which is unitary with the originally claimed subject-matter, irrespective of whether the technical feature(s) used for the limitation has/have been searched.

If amended claims are directed to subject-matter which has not been searched because it only appeared in the description (and the search division did not find it appropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter; see B‑III, 3.5) and which does not combine with the originally claimed and searched invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept (see F‑V, 3), such amendments are not allowable.

In other words, in order to assess whether or not amended claims fulfil the requirements of Rule 137(5), first sentence, the examining division needs to establish first whether or not the subject-matter to which they relate has or should have been searched (see B‑III, 3) and second whether or not an objection of lack of unity would have been raised if the amended claims had been present in the set of claims on file at the time of the search.

As a consequence, an objection under Rule 137(5), first sentence, will normally arise if the applicant attempts to replace a technical feature contained in a claim with a technical feature taken from the description and having an effect unrelated to the effect(s) of the features of the originally claimed invention(s).

If an objection under Rule 137(5), first sentence, is raised, the examining division provides a reasoning why the subject-matter has not been searched (see B‑III, 3) and why the subject-matter does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept (see F‑V, 3). Applicants are informed that they may continue to pursue such subject-matter only in the form of a divisional application under Art. 76.

The situation described above is different from amendments corresponding to an invention originally claimed but not searched under Rule 64, or Rule 164(1) or Rule 164(2), which are dealt with in H‑II, 6.2.

Applicants should bear in mind that the examination procedure should be brought to a conclusion in as few actions as possible. Therefore, the examining division may exercise its right not to admit further amendments under Rule 137(3) (see H‑II, 2.3).