Article 34 allows an applicant in Chapter II to communicate with the International Preliminary Examining Authority, present substantive arguments, and amend the claims, description and drawings before the international preliminary examination report is established, subject to the original-disclosure limit.
For each adverse finding, identify the affected claims, cited reference, examiner reasoning, applicant position, proposed amendment if any, basis in the application as filed and the remaining risk after the change. This table makes it easier to verify that every material issue has been addressed and that arguments do not contradict the amended claim language.
Article 34 permits broader categories of amendment than Article 19, but the original-disclosure boundary still matters. Cite the support for each substantive change and review the amended description and drawings for consistency. A technically useful amendment can create a new problem if terminology or embodiments no longer align with the claims.
A feature missing from one reference may answer a novelty finding without necessarily establishing inventive step. Structure the argument so that novelty, combinations of references, technical effects and the reason a skilled person would or would not make the proposed modification are addressed separately where the Written Opinion raises them.
The response should be complete enough to stand as the applicant’s international-phase position even if no further Written Opinion is issued. Preserve the clean claim set, marked changes, basis notes and argument record for later national-phase teams, which may still need to adapt the position to local law and examination practice.
Article 34 is the central amendment and argument mechanism within Chapter II. A well-constructed response should not merely restate disagreement with the Written Opinion. It should address each relevant finding, explain why the cited evidence does or does not support that finding, identify any proposed amendment, and show where the amendment is supported in the international application as filed.
| Examiner finding | Novelty / inventive step / other finding |
| Evidence | Cited document and relevant passage |
| Applicant analysis | Why the finding is accepted, disputed or qualified |
| Amendment | Exact proposed change where needed |
| Original basis | Paragraph, claim, figure or other disclosure |
| Residual risk | Clarity, support, unity, consistency, national-phase impact |
Article 34 allows amendments to the claims, description and drawings, whereas Article 19 concerns claims. The broader scope makes internal consistency checks essential.
The Treaty expressly limits Article 34 amendments to the original disclosure. Each change should therefore have documented support before filing.
Where the Written Opinion alleges lack of novelty, identify the exact claim limitation said to be disclosed and the cited passage. If a required feature is absent from the single reference under the applicable analysis, explain the gap precisely.
Where the examiner relies on combined teachings, address the rationale for combination, the actual technical teaching of the references, the claimed technical effect, and why the proposed modification would or would not have been evident to the skilled person.
WIPO examination guidance instructs examiners to consider whether amendments introduce issues such as added subject matter, lack of clarity, lack of support, inconsistency or lack of unity.
If claims are narrowed or reframed, the description and drawings should be reviewed to determine whether inconsistent embodiments, statements or terminology need attention under the applicable PCT procedure.
A further Written Opinion can be issued in some circumstances, but applicants should not assume that multiple rounds will always be available. The first Article 34 response should therefore be complete.
WIPO guidance allows an IPEA to disregard arguments or amendments received after it has begun preparing the IPRP Chapter II. Operational timing should therefore be planned earlier than the absolute deadline where possible.
If Article 19 amendments were previously filed, the Chapter II basis can later be changed through Article 34 amendments. The response should clearly identify the claim set on which examination is requested.
The best outcome is a technically coherent, well-supported prosecution record that helps later national-phase decision making. Even where some adverse findings remain, narrowing the disputed issues can have practical value.
PCT rules, forms, fees, competent Authorities and national-phase requirements can change. Verify the current WIPO materials and the requirements of the relevant ISA, IPEA and designated Offices before acting on a specific application.
PCT response strategy is strongest when the Written Opinion, cited prior art, amendment basis, target markets and expected national-phase prosecution are considered together.
rd (at) patentbusinesslawyer (dot) com
