[Editor Note: This section discusses the July 2022 version of PCT/ISA/237. For international applications having an international filing date before July 1, 2022, information regarding form PCT/ISA/237 (revised January 2019) may be found in §1845.01 of the 10.2019 revision of the Ninth Edition of the MPEP published June 2020 at: www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/ mpep_E9R10.htm.]

When completing Box No. I, item 1, of Form PCT/ISA/237, the examiner must indicate whether or not the opinion has been established on the basis of the international application in the language in which it was filed. If a translation was furnished for the purpose of the search, this must be indicated.

When completing Box No. I, item 1, of Form PCT/ISA/237, the examiner must indicate whether or not the opinion has been established on the basis of the international application in the language in which it was filed. If a translation was furnished for the purpose of the search, this must be indicated.

Box No. I, item 2 of Form PCT/ISA/237 is to be marked when the opinion is established taking into account the rectification of an obvious mistake under PCT Rule 91.

Box No. II of Form PCT/ISA/237 is to inform applicant of the status of a request for priority. Where one or more citations of the international search report were published after the earliest priority date, the validity of that earliest priority date requires checking. Where the priority document is one which is in the records of the ISA, it should be obtained from those records. If a copy of the priority document is not available before preparation of the written opinion of the ISA because it has not yet been provided by the applicant, and if that earlier application was not filed with that Authority in its capacity as a national Office or the priority document is not available to that Authority from a digital library in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, the written opinion of the ISA may be established as if the priority had been validly claimed.

Box No. II of Form PCT/ISA/237 is to inform applicant of the status of a request for priority. Where one or more citations of the international search report were published after the earliest priority date, the validity of that earliest priority date requires checking. Where the priority document is one which is in the records of the ISA, it should be obtained from those records. If a copy of the priority document is not available before preparation of the written opinion of the ISA because it has not yet been provided by the applicant, and if that earlier application was not filed with that Authority in its capacity as a national Office or the priority document is not available to that Authority from a digital library in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, the written opinion of the ISA may be established as if the priority had been validly claimed.

Box No. II of Form PCT/ISA/237 is to inform applicant of the status of a request for priority. Where one or more citations of the international search report were published after the earliest priority date, the validity of that earliest priority date requires checking. Where the priority document is one which is in the records of the ISA, it should be obtained from those records. If a copy of the priority document is not available before preparation of the written opinion of the ISA because it has not yet been provided by the applicant, and if that earlier application was not filed with that Authority in its capacity as a national Office or the priority document is not available to that Authority from a digital library in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, the written opinion of the ISA may be established as if the priority had been validly claimed.

Box No. II of Form PCT/ISA/237 is to inform applicant of the status of a request for priority. Where one or more citations of the international search report were published after the earliest priority date, the validity of that earliest priority date requires checking. Where the priority document is one which is in the records of the ISA, it should be obtained from those records. If a copy of the priority document is not available before preparation of the written opinion of the ISA because it has not yet been provided by the applicant, and if that earlier application was not filed with that Authority in its capacity as a national Office or the priority document is not available to that Authority from a digital library in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, the written opinion of the ISA may be established as if the priority had been validly claimed.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

Box No. IV of Form PCT/ISA/237 should be used by the examiner to notify applicant that lack of unity has been found by checking item 1, and one of the four boxes under item 1.

If the search report is based on the first mentioned invention (no additional search fees were paid), the examiner should check the fourth box under item 1.

If a lack of unity exists, the examiner would mark the second box under item 3. However, since the reasons for the lack of unity have already been set forth on the simultaneously issued international search report, the examiner can simply state that the reason the requirement of unity of invention is not complied with is set forth in the international search report. The first box under item 3 would never be marked.

In Box No. V of Form PCT/ISA/237, the examiner must list in summary form all claims with regard to the criteria of novelty (N), inventive step (IS), and industrial applicability (IA). For definitions of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability see MPEP §§ 1878.01(a)(1), 1878.01(a)(2), and 1878.01(a)(3), respectively.

The following form paragraphs may be used in Box No. VIII, “Certain observations on the international application,” of Form PCT/ISA/237 for noting objections which are substantive rather than merely technical in nature.

Pursuant to PCT Rules 43bis.1 and 70.14, the written opinion of the International Searching Authority must indicate the name of the officer of the International Searching Authority responsible for the written opinion, i.e., the “authorized officer.” An “authorized officer” is the person who actually performed the search work and prepared the search report and the written opinion, or another person who was responsible for supervising the search and the establishment of the written opinion. See PCT Administrative Instructions Section 514. Thus, an examiner need not have signatory authority in order to be named as an authorized officer on the written opinion. However, the “file copy” of the written opinion must be signed by an examiner having at least partial signatory authority.

Pursuant to PCT Rules 43bis.1 and 70.14, the written opinion of the International Searching Authority must indicate the name of the officer of the International Searching Authority responsible for the written opinion, i.e., the “authorized officer.” An “authorized officer” is the person who actually performed the search work and prepared the search report and the written opinion, or another person who was responsible for supervising the search and the establishment of the written opinion. See PCT Administrative Instructions Section 514. Thus, an examiner need not have signatory authority in order to be named as an authorized officer on the written opinion. However, the “file copy” of the written opinion must be signed by an examiner having at least partial signatory authority.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

When the claim for priority has been found invalid (e.g., the notification under PCT Rule 26bis.2(b) has been provided or all claims are directed to inventions which were not described and enabled by the earlier application), check item 2 in Box II and indicate why the claim for priority has been found invalid following item 3 “Additional observations.”

Box No. III of Form PCT/ISA/237 is intended to cover situations where some or all claims of an application are so unclear or inadequately supported by the description that the question of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness), and industrial applicability cannot be considered, or where the international application or claims thereof relate to subject matter for which it is not required to establish a written opinion concerning novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, or where no international search report has been established for the claims.

If some or all of the claims of an application relate to subject matter for which it is not required to establish a written opinion concerning novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, check the appropriate box, indicate which claims relate to that subject matter and specify the reasons e.g., improper multiple dependent claims that fail to comply with PCT Rule 6.4.

Item 4 is used by the examiner to indicate which parts of the application form the basis of the opinion after the lack of unity of invention has been explained. The first box should be checked when the opinion is established for all parts. Otherwise, the second box is checked and the relevant claims identified.

In Box No. V of Form PCT/ISA/237, the examiner must list in summary form all claims with regard to the criteria of novelty (N), inventive step (IS), and industrial applicability (IA). For definitions of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability see MPEP §§ 1878.01(a)(1), 1878.01(a)(2), and 1878.01(a)(3), respectively.

Examiner statements in Box No. V can be positive or negative. If the claims define over the prior art and meet the test of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) and industrial applicability, a positive statement equivalent to detailed reasons for allowance in a corresponding U.S. national application should be provided, indicating how the claims meet the tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Form paragraphs 18.04 and 18.04.01 may be used for this purpose.

3. If the claims also meet the industrial applicability criteria set out in PCT Article 33(4), this form paragraph should be followed by form paragraph 18.04.01.

4. If the claims do not meet the industrial applicability criteria set out in PCT Article 33(4), this form paragraph should be followed by form paragraph 18.03.

3. If the claims meet all of the requirements of PCT Article 33(2)-(4), use form paragraph 18.04 before this form paragraph to provide positive statements for novelty and inventive step under PCT Article 33(2)-(3).

If the claims, the description, or the drawings are so unclear, or the claims are so inadequately supported by the description, that no meaningful opinion can be formed on the question of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) or industrial applicability, the applicant is so informed in Box No. III. See PCT Article 34(4)(a)(ii). Reasons for the examiner’s opinion that the claims, description and drawings, etc., lack clarity must also be provided.

If the claims, the description, or the drawings are so unclear, or the claims are so inadequately supported by the description, that no meaningful opinion can be formed on the question of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) or industrial applicability, the applicant is so informed in Box No. III. See PCT Article 34(4)(a)(ii). Reasons for the examiner’s opinion that the claims, description and drawings, etc., lack clarity must also be provided.

If the above situation is found to exist in certain claims only, the provisions of PCT Article 34(4)(a)(ii) shall apply to those claims only.

If applicant paid additional fees for additional inventions, the examiner should check the first box under item 1.

If the additional fees were paid under protest, the examiner should check the second box under item 1.

If a lack of unity exists, the examiner would mark the second box under item 3. However, since the reasons for the lack of unity have already been set forth on the simultaneously issued international search report, the examiner can simply state that the reason the requirement of unity of invention is not complied with is set forth in the international search report. The first box under item 3 would never be marked.

Examiner statements in Box No. V can be positive or negative. If the claims define over the prior art and meet the test of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) and industrial applicability, a positive statement equivalent to detailed reasons for allowance in a corresponding U.S. national application should be provided, indicating how the claims meet the tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Form paragraphs 18.04 and 18.04.01 may be used for this purpose.

Examiner statements in Box No. V can be positive or negative. If the claims define over the prior art and meet the test of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) and industrial applicability, a positive statement equivalent to detailed reasons for allowance in a corresponding U.S. national application should be provided, indicating how the claims meet the tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Form paragraphs 18.04 and 18.04.01 may be used for this purpose.

Item 4 is used by the examiner to indicate which parts of the application form the basis of the opinion after the lack of unity of invention has been explained. The first box should be checked when the opinion is established for all parts. Otherwise, the second box is checked and the relevant claims identified.

Item 4 is used by the examiner to indicate which parts of the application form the basis of the opinion after the lack of unity of invention has been explained. The first box should be checked when the opinion is established for all parts. Otherwise, the second box is checked and the relevant claims identified.

Pursuant to PCT Rules 43bis.1 and 70.14, the written opinion of the International Searching Authority must indicate the name of the officer of the International Searching Authority responsible for the written opinion, i.e., the “authorized officer.” An “authorized officer” is the person who actually performed the search work and prepared the search report and the written opinion, or another person who was responsible for supervising the search and the establishment of the written opinion. See PCT Administrative Instructions Section 514. Thus, an examiner need not have signatory authority in order to be named as an authorized officer on the written opinion. However, the “file copy” of the written opinion must be signed by an examiner having at least partial signatory authority.

If the lack of clarity of the claims, the description, or the drawings is of such a nature that it is possible to form a meaningful opinion on the claimed subject matter, then it is required that the examiner consider the claims and render a written opinion on novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability in Box No. V.

[Editor Note: This section discusses the July 2022 version of PCT/ISA/237. For international applications having an international filing date before July 1, 2022, information regarding form PCT/ISA/237 (revised January 2019) may be found in §1845.01 of the 10.2019 revision of the Ninth Edition of the MPEP published June 2020 at: www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/ mpep_E9R10.htm.]

With respect to Box No. I, item 3 of Form PCT/ISA/237, if the opinion has been based on a nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosed and necessary to the claimed invention, the examiner must indicate whether the sequence listing was filed as part of the international application or subsequent to the international filing date for the purpose of international search, and whether it was accompanied by the required statement to the effect that the sequence listing does not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed, if filed subsequent to the international filing date.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

If the claims, the description, or the drawings are so unclear, or the claims are so inadequately supported by the description, that no meaningful opinion can be formed on the question of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) or industrial applicability, the applicant is so informed in Box No. III. See PCT Article 34(4)(a)(ii). Reasons for the examiner’s opinion that the claims, description and drawings, etc., lack clarity must also be provided.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

If the examiner needs a copy of a foreign priority document, the copy will be supplied on request to the International Bureau (IB) unless the IB has not yet received the priority document, in which case the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish such a copy. See PCT Rule 66.7(a). The examiner may consult with the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT Special Program Examiner regarding requesting a copy of the priority document from the IB. If the priority document is not in English, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority document within two months of the invitation. See PCT Rule 66.7(b). Box No. II, item 3, “Additional Observations” may be used to invite applicant to supply a copy of the priority document and/or translation. Preparation of the written opinion by the International Searching Authority should not be delayed to await a response to the invitation. The written opinion of the ISA will ordinarily be established as if the priority claim had been validly claimed even though the copy and/or translation has not been furnished. However, failure to timely furnish a copy of the priority document and/or translation may result in any further written opinion or international preliminary examination report of the International Preliminary Examining Authority being established as if the priority had not been claimed.

If a meaningful opinion could not be formed without the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing because it does not comply with WIPO Standard ST.26, and/or the applicant did not pay the late furnishing fee, if required, the examiner must indicate the reason for the non-compliance.