What amendments are allowed after a notice of final rejection in Korea?

Sangwook Je, Partner · Published 10 November 2026

Last verified 9 October 2026

Permitted scope at a glance

As of October 2026.

“Permitted” in this table means that the amendment meets the requirements of Art. 47(3). An amendment of a permitted type is still dismissed if it creates a new ground for rejection (Patent Act, Art. 51(1)). [1]

A notice of final rejection is a notice of grounds caused by an amendment

The term “notice of final rejection” does not appear in the text of the Patent Act. [1] Article 51(1) of the Patent Act refers to “amendments under Art. 47(1), subparagraphs 2 and 3”. [1] The Examination Guidelines describe the same amendments as an amendment in the period for submission of a written argument in response to a notice of final rejection or an amendment made when requesting re-examination. [3]

The notice under Art. 47(1), subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act is a notice of grounds for rejection that arose from an amendment made in response to a notice of grounds for rejection. [1] The Examination Guidelines define a notice of final rejection as a notice of grounds for rejection that notifies only the grounds that arose from that amendment. [3]

Grounds for rejection that existed before the amendment are not the subject of a notice of final rejection. The Examination Guidelines provide that a ground for rejection that was already in the description of the invention or the claims at the time of the notice of non-final rejection is to be notified as a first ground for rejection. [3]

After a notice of grounds for rejection, the times at which an amendment can be made are fixed. For a notice of final rejection, the time is the period for submission of a written argument under that notice (Patent Act, Art. 47(1), subparagraph 2). [1] Where re-examination is requested, the time is when the request is made (subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph). [1]

The examiner sets the period for submission of a written argument. The Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act (특허법 시행규칙), Art. 16(1), subparagraph 2, set its range at up to 4 months. [2] This range took effect on 11 July 2025. The range before that was up to 2 months. [2]

The period set by the examiner can be extended. Article 15(2) of the Patent Act provides that the examiner can extend the period upon request. [1] The Examination Guidelines state that an extension beyond 4 months is decided according to whether the examiner approves it. [3]

If several amendments are filed in the same period for submission of a written argument, only the last amendment remains. All amendments made before the last amendment are deemed withdrawn (Patent Act, Art. 47(4)). [1]

The claims can be amended only in four cases

A claim amendment after a notice of final rejection must fall under one of the subparagraphs of Art. 47(3) of the Patent Act. [1]

Article 47(3) restricts amendments to the claims. [1] Amendments to the description of the invention and the drawings are subject to the scope of Art. 47(2). [1]

The scope of Art. 47(2) continues to apply after a notice of final rejection. An amendment must be within the scope of the matters described in the original specification or drawings. [1] The Examination Guidelines state that an amendment in response to a notice of final rejection must meet the requirements of paragraph (3) in addition to those of Art. 47(2). [3]

A patent application in a foreign language has one more limit. An amendment to a patent application in a foreign language must also be within the scope of the matters described in the final Korean translation or the original drawings (Patent Act, latter part of Art. 47(2)). [1]

The requirements of Art. 47(3) apply only to the claims that were amended. If an independent claim is amended, the dependent claims that refer to it are also treated as amended. [3]

The examiner compares each claim with the claim of the same number that was examined at the time of the notice of final rejection. Even if the number differs, the examiner can compare it with a claim of another number when it is evident that the amendment was made to that claim. [3]

Narrowing is limited to three forms: limiting, deleting and adding

The Examination Guidelines restrict narrowing under Art. 47(3), subparagraph 1 to three forms: limiting a claim, deleting a claim, and adding a technical feature to a claim. [3]

Limiting a claim is an amendment that restricts internally the scope of the invention stated in the claim. The Examination Guidelines give the narrowing of a numerical range and the change from a generic concept to a specific concept as examples. [3] Deleting some of the alternative elements and reducing the number of claims referred to are also regarded as limiting. [3]

An amendment that narrows one side of a numerical range and widens the other side is not a narrowing. The Examination Guidelines give the change from 10~20℃ to 15~30℃ as an example that is not a narrowing of a numerical range. [3]

Adding to a claim is an amendment that adds in series a technical matter that was in the description of the invention or the claims. The example in the Examination Guidelines is adding “with C further attached to B” to “a bottle opener in which B is attached to A”. [3]

An amendment that adds an invention to the claims by adding a new claim is treated as an amendment that does not fall under subparagraph 1. The same applies to an amendment that adds an invention by adding an alternative element or a claim referred to. [3]

There is one exception for a new claim. It is a new claim that is unavoidable in rearranging the claims, where the applicant has clearly stated this in the written argument or a similar document. [3]

An amendment by which the claims go beyond their initial scope also does not fall under subparagraph 1. The Examination Guidelines give the following types. [3]

Correction, clarification and returning each have different requirements

Correction of clerical errors is the case where the content before and after the correction is objectively recognized as the same. The Examination Guidelines state that this is the case where the clerical error is evident from the statements in the specification, or is clear from well-known matters or empirical rules. [3]

One kind of amendment changes the claim reference number in another claim after the claim that it referred to has been deleted. The Examination Guidelines regard this amendment as an amendment that corrects a clerical error. [3]

An ambiguous description is a description whose meaning, on its wording, is itself not clear. [3] One kind of amendment rewrites a claim as a whole without changing its substance. Unless there are other circumstances, the Examination Guidelines treat this amendment as an amendment under subparagraph 3. [3]

Subparagraph 4 is a provision for the case where an earlier amendment added new matter. An amendment that returns to the claims as they were before the new matter was added is permitted. [1][3] Amending the claims under subparagraphs 1 to 3 while returning is also permitted. [1]

For an amendment under subparagraph 4, the examiner compares the claims as they were before the new matter was added with the amended claims. [3]

An amendment that creates a new ground for rejection is dismissed

An amendment that meets the requirements of Art. 47(3) can still be dismissed. Article 51(1) of the Patent Act provides that an amendment is also dismissed where it is recognized that a new ground for rejection has arisen from the amendment. [1] An amendment that violates Art. 47(2) or (3) is also dismissed. [1]

The Examination Guidelines explain a new ground for rejection as the case where a ground for rejection that did not exist before arises from the filing of that amendment. Examples are the case where the amendment newly creates a deficiency in the description and the case where it newly creates a ground for rejection for lack of novelty or inventive step. [3]

The Examination Guidelines also state what is not a new ground for rejection. A ground for rejection that was notified before the amendment is not a new ground for rejection. A ground for rejection that was in the pre-amendment specification but was not notified is also not a new ground for rejection. [3]

An amendment that deletes a claim is the exception. Article 51(1) of the Patent Act excludes, among amendments under Art. 47(3), subparagraphs 1 and 4, an amendment that deletes a claim. [1] If a new ground for rejection arises because of the deletion, the examiner admits the amendment and then issues a notice of final rejection. This applies where there is no other ground for dismissal. [3]

The case is handled differently where the reference relationship after the deletion is no more than an obvious error. A claim may refer to both a deleted claim and a claim that was not deleted. If the invention can be clearly understood without the reference to the deleted claim, the Examination Guidelines treat this as a matter for ex officio amendment or a similar measure. [3]

If the new ground for rejection is a matter that can be corrected by ex officio amendment, the examiner can approve the amendment and continue the procedure. [3]

A written amendment is judged as a whole. The Examination Guidelines regard a written amendment that contains several amended matters as one indivisible amendment. If even one of the amended matters falls under a ground for dismissal, the whole amendment made by that written amendment is dismissed. [3]

The provision on the notice of grounds for rejection does not apply where the examiner intends to dismiss an amendment. The proviso to Art. 63(1) of the Patent Act excludes from that paragraph the case where the examiner intends to dismiss an amendment under Art. 51(1). [1]

The proviso to Art. 51(1) of the Patent Act sets out three kinds of amendment that are not dismissed. The first is an amendment made before an ex officio amendment, where an ex officio amendment is made. The second is an amendment made before the cancelled decision to grant, where ex officio re-examination is carried out. The third is an amendment made before a request for re-examination, where such a request is made. [1]

Example: the same narrowing amendment admitted in one case and dismissed in another

The examples are taken from the Examination Guidelines, Part 5, Chapter 3, 11.2. [3] A, B and C are elements.

The second row is the case that needs care. Adding element C overcame the notified ground for rejection. However, a ground for rejection arose for which the examiner must add a new cited invention, and the amendment was dismissed. Examination returns to the pre-amendment claim. [3]

When the notice of final rejection appears improper

The applicant can argue in the written argument that the notice is not proper as a notice of final rejection. Where this argument is made, the examiner first decides whether the notice was lawful, before the final disposition. [3]

If it was unlawful to issue the notice as a notice of final rejection, the examiner must not dismiss the amendment. The Examination Guidelines provide that in this case the amendment is approved in principle. [3]

Where the notice was unlawful and the notified ground for rejection has also not been overcome, the handling depends on the form of the amendment. [3]

Procedure after the amendment is dismissed

If the amendment is dismissed, the examiner continues examination on the pre-amendment specification. If the ground for rejection notified in the notice of final rejection has not been overcome, the examiner issues a decision of rejection. [3]

The decision to dismiss the amendment (decision to reject an amendment) is made in writing and states the reasons (Patent Act, Art. 51(2)). [1] The Examination Guidelines provide that the decision to dismiss is made in a document separate from the decision of rejection. [3]

The decision to dismiss cannot be appealed on its own. It can be contested in the appeal against the examiner’s decision to reject a patent application (trial on rulings rejecting patent applications) (Patent Act, Art. 51(3)). [1] This appeal can be filed within 3 months from the date on which the certified copy of the decision of rejection is served (Patent Act, Art. 132-17). [1]

A request for re-examination is another route. The applicant can amend the specification or drawings and request re-examination within 3 months from the date on which the certified copy of the decision of rejection is served (Patent Act, Art. 67-2(1)). [1] If the period for filing a petition for trial has been extended, the request can be made until the end of the extended period. [1]

Re-examination cannot be requested in some cases. These are the case where a decision to grant or reject following re-examination has already been made, the case where an appeal against the decision to reject has been filed, and the case where the application is a separational application (splitting-off) (proviso to the same paragraph). [1] The case where the decision of rejection was revoked in the appeal is excluded from the second case. [1] A request for re-examination cannot be withdrawn (Patent Act, Art. 67-2(4)). [1]

Article 47(3) also applies to a claim amendment made when requesting re-examination. [1] The Examination Guidelines state that the scope of that amendment is the same as the scope of an amendment in response to a notice of final rejection. [3]

A request for re-examination has one cost. A decision to dismiss that was received before the request can no longer be contested in the appeal. Article 51(3) of the Patent Act excludes that decision to dismiss from what can be contested. [1]

An invention that needs a new claim can be moved to a divisional application. Article 52(1), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act allows a divisional application to be filed in the period in which an amendment can be made under Art. 47(1). [1]

The period for submission of a written argument in response to a notice of final rejection falls within that period. Article 47(1), subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act makes that period for submission of a written argument a period in which an amendment can be made. [1] The Examination Guidelines also list the period for submission of a written argument in response to a notice of grounds for rejection as a time when a divisional application can be filed. [3]

A divisional application also has a limit on its scope. A divisional application must be within the scope of the matters described in the original specification or drawings of the original application (parent application) (Patent Act, Art. 52(1)). [1] A patent application in a foreign language can be divided only if the Korean translation has been filed (proviso to the same paragraph). [1]

A divisional application can also be filed after a decision of rejection. The period is 3 months from the date on which the certified copy of the decision of rejection is served (Patent Act, Art. 52(1), subparagraph 2). [1] If the period for filing a petition for trial has been extended, the divisional application can be filed until the end of the extended period. [1]

When the rules changed and what they apply to

The four cases of the current Art. 47(3) took effect on 1 July 2009 (Act No. 9381). Dismissal for a new ground for rejection and the exception for deletion of a claim were introduced by the same amendment of the Act. [1]

The previous periods apply to patent applications for which the certified copy of the decision of rejection was served before 20 April 2022. The previous period for requesting re-examination and for filing a petition for trial was 30 days. Articles 67-2(1) and 132-17 of the Patent Act in force from 18 November 2021 so provided. [1]

The amendment of the Patent Act promulgated on 15 September 2026 does not change the provisions discussed in this article. It is Act No. 21955 and takes effect on 16 March 2027. [1]

How Korea differs

In the United States, 37 CFR 1.116(b) divides amendments after a final rejection into three categories. It is a provision on amendments made before or on the date of filing an appeal. [4]

The two countries differ first in when an action becomes final. In the United States, 37 CFR 1.113(a) provides that the rejection can be made final on the second or any subsequent examination. [4] In Korea, a notice of final rejection is issued where the notice concerns grounds for rejection that arose from an amendment (Patent Act, Art. 47(1), subparagraph 2). [1]

The wording of 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3) is “may be admitted”. [4] The Korean Examination Guidelines provide that, where an amendment is lawful, the examiner admits it and examines the application as amended. [3]

The United States also has a separate request for continued examination (RCE). If the applicant files a submission and the fee in time, the USPTO withdraws the finality of the action. The submission is entered and considered (37 CFR 1.114(d)). [4] In a Korean request for re-examination, claim amendments are restricted to the four cases of Art. 47(3). [1]

An amendment that replaces or removes an element of a claim can be a ground for dismissal in Korea. The Korean Examination Guidelines treat the replacement of an element and the deletion of an element stated in series as amendments that do not fall under Art. 47(3), subparagraph 1. [3]

What applicants should do

• In general, we suggest writing down, for each claim in the proposed amendment, which subparagraph of Art. 47(3) it falls under. If one amended matter fails, the whole written amendment is dismissed.
• We suggest first considering elements of dependent claims that have already been examined as the elements to add. An addition that requires a new cited invention can lead to dismissal of the amendment.
• When deleting a claim, we suggest also correcting the claim reference numbers in the claims that referred to it.
• If a new claim or a replacement of an element is needed, we suggest considering a divisional application at the same time.
• Even where the notice appears improper as a notice of final rejection, we consider it safer to keep the amendment within the scope of a response to a notice of final rejection. If the notice is found to have been unlawful, an application with only an amendment of that scope receives a new notice of grounds for rejection instead of a decision of rejection.
• The response in an individual case should be confirmed with a Korean agent.

FAQ

Can a new claim be added after a notice of final rejection?

In principle, this is difficult. The Examination Guidelines treat an amendment that adds an invention by adding a new claim as an amendment that does not fall under Art. 47(3), subparagraph 1. [3] The exception is a new claim that is unavoidable in rearranging the claims, where this is clearly stated in the written argument or a similar document. [3]

Can an element that was only in the description of the invention be added to an independent claim?

It can qualify as adding to a claim under Art. 47(3), subparagraph 1. The Examination Guidelines regard the addition in series of a technical matter that was in the description of the invention or the claims as narrowing. [3] However, if the addition creates a new ground for rejection, the amendment is dismissed (Patent Act, Art. 51(1)). [1]

Is the whole amendment dismissed if only part of it fails the requirements?

Yes. The Examination Guidelines provide that, if even one of the amended matters falls under a ground for dismissal, the whole amendment made by that written amendment is dismissed. [3]

Can the decision to dismiss the amendment be appealed separately?

No. It can be contested in the appeal against the decision to reject (Patent Act, Art. 51(3)). [1] If re-examination is requested, a decision to dismiss made before that request cannot be contested. [1]

Is there no opportunity to amend after a decision of rejection?

The applicant can amend when requesting re-examination. The period is 3 months from the date on which the certified copy of the decision of rejection is served, and Art. 47(3) applies to claim amendments. [1]

How DEFINE IP Law Firm handles this

When a Notice of Preliminary Rejection (의견제출통지서) is received, DEFINE IP Law Firm first confirms the scope of amendment that is permitted in response to that notice. Subject matter of claims that are removed is recorded separately as a candidate for a divisional application. For questions about responding to a Korean notice of grounds for rejection, please write to contact@defineip.kr.

Sources

1. Patent Act (특허법), Act No. 21134, in force from 11 November 2025. Articles 15, 47, 51, 52, 63, 67-2 and 132-17; Addenda to Act No. 9381 (30 January 2009), Art. 1; Addenda to Act No. 18505 (19 October 2021), Arts. 1, 3, 7 and 11. Earlier versions: Act No. 9381 (in force from 1 July 2009), Articles 47 and 51; Act No. 18409 (in force from 18 November 2021), Articles 67-2 and 132-17. Version scheduled to enter into force: Act No. 21955 (in force from 16 March 2027). https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법 (verified 9 October 2026)
2. Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act (특허법 시행규칙), Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2115, in force from 14 May 2026. Article 16(1). Earlier versions: Article 16(1) of Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 609 (in force from 11 July 2025) and No. 579 (in force from 1 November 2024). https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법시행규칙 (verified 9 October 2026)
3. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Patent Examination Guidelines (특허·실용신안 심사기준), MOIP Established Rule No. 7, in force from 13 March 2026. Part 4, Chapter 1, 4.2; Part 4, Chapter 2, 2.; Part 4, Chapter 3; Part 5, Chapter 3, 5.3 and 11.; Part 5, Chapter 4, 3.3; Part 6, Chapter 1, 3.2. https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/특허·실용신안심사기준 (verified 9 October 2026)
4. US Code of Federal Regulations, 37 CFR 1.113, 1.114 and 1.116, eCFR version as of 6 October 2026. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/section-1.116 (verified 9 October 2026)