What description and claim defects do Korean examiners find in semiconductor applications?

Sangwook Je, Partner · Published 2 November 2026

Last verified 10 October 2026

The 13 types at a glance

As of October 2026. The names of the types are the headings of the Practice Guidelines as they stand.

Chapter XII of the Practice Guidelines does not state article numbers of the Patent Act. The provisions in the table are the provisions that the Patent Examination Guidelines state as the basis of the same requirements. Part 2, Chapter 3, 2. of the Examination Guidelines states Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 as the basis of the enablement requirement. In Chapter 4 of the same Part, 3. states Art. 42(4), subparagraph 1 as the basis of the support requirement, and 4. states Art. 42(4), subparagraph 2 as the basis of the clarity requirement. Two provisions are given for 2.2.2.3 because the Practice Guidelines stated the assessments of both support and enablement for that case. [1][2][3]

The 10 cases on the assessment of inventive step (Practice Guidelines 3.1) and product-by-process claims (3.2) are not covered in this article. The two parts are covered in “Semiconductor inventions in Korea: which examination guidelines, accelerated examination and examining units apply?”.

The description requirements part of Chapter XII is made up of 14 cases

Section 1 of Chapter XII of the Practice Guidelines states that this Chapter is the examination practice guidelines that apply to applications for inventions in the semiconductor field. The Practice Guidelines call these inventions “semiconductor-related inventions” (반도체 관련 발명). Section 2 is “명세서 기재요건” (description requirements for the specification) and is divided into two parts. Section 2.1 is the requirements for the description of the invention, and 2.2 is the requirements for the claims. [1]

Section 2.1 consists of one item of basic principle (2.1.1) and seven cases (2.1.2 to 2.1.8). Section 2.2 consists of one item of basic principle (2.2.1) and two groups. Section 2.2.2 is the case where the invention stated in the claim is not supported by the description of the invention, and has three types. Section 2.2.3 is the case where the claimed invention is not stated clearly and concisely, and has three types. Section 2.2.3.2 contains two cases, so 2.2 has seven cases. [1]

The Practice Guidelines describe these cases as cases of violation that are “발생하기 쉬운” (likely to occur) in applications for semiconductor-related inventions (2.1.1, 2.2.1). The cases are made up of a claim and an “assessment” (판단), and, depending on the case, the description of the invention is included as well. [1]

There are four things that the Practice Guidelines do not state. [1]

• Article numbers of the Patent Act. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 have no article numbers.
• The source of the cases. There are no application numbers or case numbers. There is also no statement on whether the cases come from actual applications.
• The cause of the defect. The Practice Guidelines do not state how the numerical value or the word in a case came to be in the claim. The word “번역” (translation) does not appear in the full text of Chapter XII.
• The time of application. There is no Addenda or transitional measure that sets from which applications it applies.

Chapter XII carries three date markings. The opening note of the Chapter and the history at the end of the book give March 2026 as the time of establishment. The marking at the foot of the pages is “2026년 1월 추록” (supplement of January 2026) on the table of contents pages and “2026년 2월 추록” (supplement of February 2026) on the body pages. The MOIP website posts these Practice Guidelines as the March 2026 edition. The division in charge of revision and management is the Semiconductor Fabrication Process Examination Division (반도체제조공정심사과). [1]

The foreword of the Practice Guidelines was written in December 2020 in the name of the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (특허청장). The foreword states two roles that it hopes the Practice Guidelines will play. Internally, the role is accurate and consistent examination work. Externally, it is a guide that helps start-up and venture business applicants who file patent applications in new technology fields. [1]

For the description requirements, the Practice Guidelines do not state the relationship with the general Examination Guidelines. What Section 3.1 of the Practice Guidelines states as following the Patent Examination Guidelines is the assessment standard for subject matter eligibility (발명의 성립성), first-to-file (선원), the enlarged concept of novelty (확대된 선원) and novelty. [1]

Art. 42 of the Patent Act has no provision that distinguishes technology fields. In the main text of the Patent Act, the only provision in which the word “반도체” (semiconductor) appears is Art. 107(6), on adjudication. [3]

Description of the invention: the assessment standard is whether the claimed invention can be easily practiced

Section 2.1.1 of the Practice Guidelines states the assessment standard in one sentence. It is whether the description is stated clearly and in detail to the extent that a person skilled in the art can easily practice the claimed invention without adding special knowledge, in view of the state of the art at the time of filing. [1]

Section 2.1.1 has a sentence that begins with “다만” (however). The invention to be practiced is construed as the invention stated in the claim. An invention that is not in a claim and is only in the description of the invention therefore does not violate this requirement even if it is not stated so that it can be practiced. [1] Part 2, Chapter 3, 2.2 (2) of the Examination Guidelines also states the same content. [2]

The Examination Guidelines spell out the meaning of “쉽게 실시” (easily practice). It means that an average technician, from the statements in the specification, accurately understands and reproduces the invention without adding special knowledge, in view of the state of the art at the time of filing. This must be without excessive trial and error, repeated experiments or the like (Part 2, Chapter 3, 2.2 (3)). [2]

The seven subsections below set out the cases in the Practice Guidelines one by one. The claims and the descriptions of the invention are shortened from those in the Practice Guidelines.

2.1.2 No configuration that covers all the uses given in the description of the invention

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “The description of the invention related to the claimed invention states the use of the claimed invention up to a category that a person skilled in the art cannot practice”. [1]

The claim in the case is a device for measuring the magnitude of optical interference of a blank phase shift mask. The elements are a sample, a light source, a beam splitter, a photodetector and a calculation unit. The beam splitter is placed between the sample and the light source. It transmits the light of the light source toward the sample and changes the paths of two reflected lights. The claim as given in the Practice Guidelines does not state the kind of light. [1]

The description of the invention gave three kinds of light that the light source can emit. They are EUV light in the 13.5nm wavelength band, DUV light in the wavelength band of about 193nm, and ultraviolet light in the 248nm and 365nm wavelength bands. [1]

The assessment of the Practice Guidelines rests on two things. The first is the nature of the light. The Practice Guidelines state that EUV light is absorbed by most materials and is therefore completely different in nature from DUV light and ultraviolet light. The second is what is not in the specification. The description of the invention had no specific configuration at all of a beam splitter that can be applied to all three kinds of light. The Practice Guidelines found that the claimed invention could not be regarded as one that can be easily practiced from the description of the invention. [1]

2.1.3 The description of the invention only repeats the words of the claim

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “The description of the invention related to the claimed invention is written only at the level of the claimed invention, and a person skilled in the art also cannot easily practice it”. [1]

The case is a system for measuring the warpage of a substrate. The warpage measuring device of the independent claim applies an electrical signal to an electrostatic chuck. It measures the state of the substrate by using the change in impedance along the path of that signal. The claim at issue is claim 9. Claim 9 added the limitation that an electrical signal based on dual frequency is applied to distinguish the warpage shape of the substrate. [1]

The description of the invention stated the same content. It stated that an electrical signal based on dual frequency is applied and that the warpage shape can be distinguished. There were also an explanation that the change in impedance is compared with a table stored in advance, and two tables of experimental results. [1]

The Practice Guidelines pointed out three things. [1]

1. The description of the invention stated only that the warpage shape can be distinguished by using dual frequency.
2. It did not specifically explain the relationship between setting the frequency as dual and the method of distinguishing the warpage shape.
3. Table 1 and Table 2 also did not show the relationship among electrical signals of different frequencies, the warpage shape and the impedance.

The conclusion of the Practice Guidelines is that it is difficult for a person skilled in the art to understand. They found that the description of the invention related to claim 9 could not be regarded as stated so that the invention can be easily practiced. [1]

2.1.4 One of the alternative elements has no way of being realized

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “The statement in the description of the invention related to alternative elements of the claimed invention is deficient, so that a person skilled in the art cannot easily practice the invention as far as that element”. [1]

The case is a substrate processing device that measures the distribution of electrostatic force by placing a pressure sensor in each region of an electrostatic chuck. Claim 2 stated that the pressure sensor is installed “above or below” the electrostatic electrode. The description of the invention also had a sentence stating that it can be installed above or below. [1]

The Practice Guidelines first pointed to the principle of the measurement. It is that, to measure the magnitude of the electrostatic force with a pressure sensor, the sensor must be placed above the electrostatic electrode and be in contact with the substrate. The description of the invention stated no more than that the sensor can also be installed below. It did not state at all how the sensor is installed below and measures the electrostatic force. The Practice Guidelines found that the description could not be regarded as stated to the extent that a person skilled in the art can easily practice the invention. [1]

2.1.5 The claim and the description of the invention are the same, but the invention is not realized at that temperature

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “In a situation where the claimed invention and the related description of the invention are identical to each other, the invention is not realized at the temperature limited in the claimed invention”. [1]

The case is a method of manufacturing an SOI substrate. Claim 8 added a step of heating the second wafer to a temperature of 10000℃ after a part of the first wafer is separated from the second wafer. The description of the invention also stated that the wafer can be further heated to a temperature of 10000℃. The heating time stated in the description of the invention is 30 minutes to 8 hours. [1]

The description of the invention stated that, in one embodiment, the material of the semiconductor substrate is single-crystal silicon and the material of the insulating layer is silicon dioxide. The Practice Guidelines cited the melting points and boiling points of the two materials. [1]

The Practice Guidelines first acknowledged that the same content as claim 8 is also stated in the description of the invention. They then stated that, if heated to 10000℃, the second wafer itself melts and its form cannot be identified at all. The conclusion is that the invention of claim 8 cannot be regarded as one that can be easily practiced from the description of the invention. [1]

The Practice Guidelines do not state how the value 10000℃ came to be in the claim and the description of the invention. [1]

2.1.6 Some of the embodiments do not satisfy the mathematical formula of the claim

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “The description of the invention presents some embodiments that do not satisfy the mathematical formula limited in the claimed invention”. [1]

The case is a mask blank that has a light-shielding film on a light-transmissive substrate. The claim limited the refractive index n and the extinction coefficient k of the light-shielding film to satisfying the relationships of two formulas at the same time. [1]

• Formula (1): n ≦ 0.0733×k² + 0.4069×k + 1.0083
• Formula (2): n ≧ 29.316×k² − 92.292×k + 72.671

Embodiment 2 in the description of the invention stated the refractive index n after heat treatment as 1.16 and the extinction coefficient k as 2.40. The Practice Guidelines put these values into the two formulas and calculated. [1]

The Practice Guidelines stated that formula (1) is satisfied but formula (2) is not satisfied at all. They therefore found it difficult to regard the description of the invention as stated so that a person skilled in the art can easily practice the invention. [1]

The only embodiment that the Practice Guidelines cited in the assessment is embodiment 2. The words of the heading are “일부 실시례” (some embodiments). The description of the invention as given in the Practice Guidelines states that the values of embodiment 2 satisfy the conditions of formula (4), formula (5) and formula (8). That passage says nothing about formula (1) and formula (2) of the claim. [1]

2.1.7 The principle stated in the description of the invention and the form in the claim do not match

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “In view of the technical significance of the content stated in the description of the invention, the invention is understood to have a form different from the claimed invention, so that it is difficult to regard a person skilled in the art as able to easily practice the claimed invention”. [1]

The case is an electrostatic chuck for semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Claim 4 stated that the cooling channel has a cross-section that becomes gradually smaller from the center of the body of the electrostatic chuck toward the edge. The description of the invention also had the same sentence. [1]

The description of the invention stated the reason. The cold generated on the edge side is also conducted toward the fixing block. Relatively little cold is therefore conducted toward the upper side of the edge. The description of the invention stated that this cross-section was chosen to prevent this non-uniformity of the temperature distribution. [1]

The Practice Guidelines acknowledged that the same wording as claim 4 is stated in the description of the invention. They then read it according to the technical significance stated in the description of the invention. The reading is that, for the same amount of cold to be conducted to the center side and the edge side, the cross-section must instead increase toward the edge side. The Practice Guidelines stated that the statement that the cross-section becomes gradually smaller rather goes against common general technical knowledge. The conclusion is that the description cannot be regarded as stated so that a person skilled in the art can easily practice the invention of claim 4. [1]

2.1.8 The statement in the description of the invention conflicts with an outside paper

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “The statement in the description of the invention related to the claimed invention cannot be technically realized in view of an outside paper”. [1]

The case is a method of manufacturing a non-volatile memory device. Claim 3 added the limitation that the second sacrificial film has a greater hardness than the first sacrificial film. Claim 4 stated that the two sacrificial films contain a silicon nitride film. It also stated that the silicon content of the second sacrificial film is greater than that of the first sacrificial film. [1]

The description of the invention stated how the films are made. A buffer film is formed by increasing the supply of the silicon source while the supply of the nitrogen source is maintained. It stated that the buffer sacrificial film can be a film with a hardness superior to that of the main sacrificial film. [1]

The Practice Guidelines cited one paper from outside the specification. It is a paper on the mechanical properties of silicon nitride thin films, published in a journal dated 15 December 2003. According to the Practice Guidelines, that paper expressly states a relationship in which the nitrogen concentration and the hardness are proportional when a silicon nitride thin film is formed. [1]

The Practice Guidelines stated that, in view of this paper, it is difficult to regard the method stated in the description of the invention as technically realizable. It is the method of forming a greater hardness by maintaining the supply of the nitrogen source and increasing the supply of the silicon source. The conclusion is that the description of the invention cannot be regarded as stated so that the invention of claim 4 can be easily practiced. [1]

Claims: support by the description of the invention and clarity of the invention are looked at separately

Section 2.2.1 of the Practice Guidelines requires two things. The claims must be supported by the description of the invention that is laid open. The invention stated in the claims must be stated clearly and concisely. The Practice Guidelines compare unclear claims to unclear boundaries of real estate. [1]

In four of the six subsections below, the passage of the Patent Examination Guidelines is set out alongside. These are places where the wording of the Examination Guidelines speaks of the same type. Section 2.2 of Chapter XII of the Practice Guidelines does not point to the passages of the Examination Guidelines. [1][2]

2.2.2.1 An element stated in the claim is not stated in the description of the invention

Claim 16 in the case stated that the hydrocarbon solvent of the composition contains more than 50% by weight of xylene. According to the Practice Guidelines, the description of the invention stated only aromatic hydrocarbon compounds. Xylene was neither directly stated nor implied. The Practice Guidelines found that claim 16 is not supported by the description of the invention. [1]

The Examination Guidelines also give the same type. Part 2, Chapter 4, 3. (2) ① of the Examination Guidelines states the first of the types that are not supported as follows. It is the case where the matter corresponding to the matter stated in the claim is neither directly stated nor implied in the description of the invention. As an example, the Examination Guidelines give the case where a numerical limitation in the claim is not in the description of the invention, and attach a proviso. The proviso is that, where the numerical limitation is assessed to be within the range that can be understood from the description of the invention, it can be acknowledged as supported. The standard of assessment is the person skilled in the art and the common general technical knowledge at the time of filing. [2]

The Examination Guidelines also state how to look at whether the corresponding matter is in the description of the invention. There is something that is reviewed with more weight than whether the wording of the claim and of the description of the invention is the same. It is whether the claim claims an invention beyond the range that a person skilled in the art can understand from the description of the invention (3. (1) of the same chapter). [2]

2.2.2.2 The element of the claim and the corresponding element of the description of the invention differ from each other

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “The element stated in the claim and the corresponding element stated in the description of the invention differ from each other”. [1]

The case is a semiconductor wafer assembly. Claim 14 stated that the conduit and the cavity are evacuated “스케일링 전에” (before scaling) and refilled with a liquid or a gas. The corresponding sentence of the description of the invention was “캐비티가 밀봉되기 전에” (before the cavity is sealed). [1]

The assessment of the Practice Guidelines has two steps. First, they confirmed that “스케일링 전” (before scaling) is not stated at all in the description of the invention. Next, they compared the meanings of the two words. The Practice Guidelines stated the dictionary meaning of 스케일링 (scaling) as removing foreign matter from a metal surface, and the meaning of 밀봉 (sealing) as attaching firmly and closing tightly. They also found that the two are not matters that a person skilled in the art can understand to be substantially the same. The conclusion is that the invention of claim 14 cannot be regarded as supported by the description of the invention. [1]

The Practice Guidelines do not state how the word “스케일링” (scaling) came to be in the claim. [1]

2.2.2.3 An essential element is not in the claim, and the claim is broader than the description of the invention

The heading in the Practice Guidelines is “A matter explained in the description of the invention as an element essential to solving the problem is not stated in the claim, and the claim is stated more broadly than the description of the invention”. [1]

The case is an adhesive for a pellicle. The claim stated that the adhesive contains a fluorescent material. The description of the invention explained that, when the adhesive is irradiated with ultraviolet light, the adhesive part emits fluorescence. The purpose was to check the state of adhesion between the adhesive and the glass substrate. [1]

The assessment of the Practice Guidelines runs in the order below. [1]

1. The description of the invention takes as its technical problem to be solved the introduction of an adhesive that emits light on irradiation with ultraviolet light. What it presents is only an element that emits fluorescence under ultraviolet light.
2. The claim stated only a fluorescent material, without other limitation. It therefore also includes fluorescent materials for light of wavelengths outside the ultraviolet region, such as infrared light or visible light.
3. It is also difficult to regard a person skilled in the art as able to generalize as far as fluorescent materials for light of wavelengths outside the ultraviolet region.
4. The claimed invention is therefore not supported by the description of the invention.

One more assessment is attached to this case. The Practice Guidelines state that, for the same reason, the description is not stated so that a person skilled in the art can easily practice the invention. It is a case where both support and enablement were stated for a single defect. [1]

The Examination Guidelines also give the same type. It is the case where a matter that is explained in the description of the invention as an element indispensable for solving the problem of the invention is not stated in the claim. The Examination Guidelines attach a limitation to this type. It must be a case where, as a result, the claim is recognized as claiming an invention beyond the range that a person skilled in the art can recognize from the description of the invention (Part 2, Chapter 4, 3. (2) ⑤). The case where, in view of the common general technical knowledge at the time of filing, the content stated in the description of the invention cannot be extended or generalized to the scope of the claimed invention is also a type that the Examination Guidelines give (④ of the same place). [2]

The Examination Guidelines state separately the case where the two requirements are applied together. It is the case where the claim has an invention of a generic concept and the description of the invention has only an invention of a specific concept. If the invention of the generic concept is not clearly understood from the invention of that specific concept, Art. 42(4), subparagraph 1 is applied. There is also a case where Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 is applied together with it. It is the case where the description of the invention has embodiments of only some of the specific concepts, and there is a specific reason to regard the other specific concepts as not easily practicable (Part 2, Chapter 3, 2.4 (1)). [2]

The general standard for the support requirement is covered in “How much support must the description give the claims in Korea?”.

2.2.3.1 The category of the invention is unclear

The claim in the case ends with “가요성 기판 마운트의 용도” (use of a flexible substrate mount). It is a use for debonding a first substrate from fusion-bonded substrates. The Practice Guidelines construed this claim as where the substrate mount is used. They found that it is unclear whether it is an invention of a product or an invention of a process, and that the invention therefore cannot be regarded as clearly stated. [1]

The Examination Guidelines also give the same type. It is the case where the category of the invention stated in the claim is unclear. The Examination Guidelines state, as the principle, that whether the claim is to a product or a process is assessed by the term or expression used at the end of the claim. They state that, where the substance of the invention is identified and it is difficult to distinguish the category, the claim is assessed as unclear (Part 2, Chapter 4, 4. (3) ③). [2] The claim formats that Korea accepts are covered in “Which claim formats does Korea accept?“.

2.2.3.2 A term used in the claim is itself unclear

The Practice Guidelines give two cases for this type. [1]

Case 1 is a quantum well-based semiconductor device. Claim 8 stated that the channel region contains “낮은 저항으로 파동 함수를 전파시키기에 적합한 재료” (a material suitable for propagating a wave function with low resistance). Claim 9 stated that the barrier layer contains “구속시키기에 적합한 재료” (a material suitable for confining) the wave function. The Practice Guidelines regarded “낮은” (low) and “적합한” (suitable) as terms for which the basis or degree of comparison cannot be specified. The assessment is that claim 8 and claim 9 were stated unclearly. [1]

Case 2 is a method claim that stated the composition of a barrier layer in atomic percent. The ranges stated in claim 7 are as follows. [1]

The Practice Guidelines stated that titanium nitride, as a compound, exists in molecular units. They therefore found that claim 7, which expressed the values in atomic percent, was stated unclearly. [1]

The type of Case 1 is also in the Examination Guidelines. The Examination Guidelines give, as a type, the case where the claim contains an expression that makes the configuration of the invention unclear. As examples of expressions with an unclear basis or degree of comparison, they give “적합한” (suitable), “높은” (high), “약” (about) and the like. There is a proviso. If the meaning is clearly supported by the description of the invention and it is recognized that there is no problem in specifying the invention, the expression is not treated as unclear (Part 2, Chapter 4, 4. (3) ⑤). [2]

The Examination Guidelines also set a proviso for the case where the content stated in the claim is unclear. One case is where the unclear part is a minor defect in the statement and a person skilled in the art does not understand the invention to be unclear. The other is where the invention can be clearly understood from the description of the invention, the drawings, the common general technical knowledge at the time of filing and the like. In the two cases, the invention is not treated as unclear (4. (3) ① of the same chapter). The Examination Guidelines also state that the assessment must not be made uniformly on the basis only of the terms used in the claims (4. of the same chapter). [2]

2.2.3.3 A contradiction arises between a referring claim and the claim referred to

The case is an integrated circuit device. Claim 12 stated that the ground-to-signal ratio is greater in the inner zone than in the edge zone. Claim 14 refers to claim 12. Claim 14 stated that the ground-to-signal ratio of the middle zone is greater than that of the inner zone and smaller than that of the edge zone. [1]

The Practice Guidelines compared the statements of the two claims. According to claim 14, the inner zone is smaller than the edge zone. In claim 12, the inner zone is greater than the edge zone. The Practice Guidelines found that, because the contents contradict each other, the invention of claim 14 cannot be regarded as clearly stated. [1]

A violation of the description requirements is a ground for rejection and a ground for a trial for invalidation

Failure to meet the requirements of Art. 42(3) and (4) is a ground for rejection (Patent Act, Art. 62, subparagraph 4). Where the examiner intends to make a decision of rejection (decision to reject a patent application), the examiner must notify the applicant of the ground for rejection and give the applicant an opportunity to submit a written argument within a period that the examiner sets (main clause of Art. 63(1)). This does not apply where the examiner intends to dismiss an amendment (make a decision to reject an amendment) under Art. 51(1) (proviso to the same paragraph). Where there are two or more claims, the notice must clearly indicate the claims that are rejected and state specifically the grounds for rejection for those claims (Art. 63(2)). [3]

The Examination Guidelines state that, when a ground for rejection is notified, the place of the defect is pointed out specifically in the notice. Where the reason is a violation of the enablement requirement, the corresponding claim is indicated (Part 2, Chapter 3, 6. (1)). [2]

This continues after registration. Art. 133(1), subparagraph 1, which states grounds for a trial for invalidation, contains “Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 or paragraph (4) of the same Article”. An interested party or an examiner can file the petition, and where there are two or more claims, the petition can be filed for each claim. [3]

Grounds for rejection and grounds for a trial for invalidation do not have the same scope. [3]

The current wording of Art. 42(3) and (4) is as amended by Act No. 12753. That Act was promulgated on 11 June 2014 and entered into force on 1 January 2015. Art. 8 of the Addenda to that Act makes the previous provisions apply to patent applications filed before that Act entered into force, and to the examination of and trials on patent applications. This article does not cover the previous provisions. [3]

Art. 42 is not among the grounds for a request for revocation of a granted patent (특허취소신청). The grounds that Art. 132-2(1) states are a violation of Art. 29 (with some exclusions) and a violation of Art. 36(1) to (3). [3]

At the application stage, any person can provide information. Information to the effect that the patent application falls under a ground for rejection and cannot be granted a patent can be provided, together with evidence, to the Minister of Intellectual Property (지식재산처장) (main clause of Art. 63-2). What the proviso excludes is the requirements of Art. 42(3), subparagraph 2, Art. 42(8) and Art. 45. Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 and Art. 42(4) are not in the proviso. [3]

The procedure of a trial for invalidation is covered in “How does a trial for invalidation work in Korea?“.

The original specification sets the scope of what an amendment can fix

To fix a defect in the description requirements by amendment, two limits must be passed: the time and the scope. [3]

When an amendment can be made

The applicant can amend the specification or drawings before the certified copy of the decision to grant is served (main clause of Art. 47(1)). After receiving a notice of grounds for rejection, the applicant can amend only in three cases (proviso to the same paragraph). [3]

1. Where the applicant receives a notice of grounds for rejection for the first time, or receives a notice of grounds for rejection that is not the notice of grounds for rejection of subparagraph 2: the period for submission of a written argument under that notice of grounds for rejection. A notice of grounds for rejection on a ground for rejection that arose from an amendment made in response to a notice of grounds for rejection is excluded from the notice of grounds for rejection of subparagraph 1
2. Where the applicant receives a notice of grounds for rejection on a ground for rejection that arose from an amendment made in response to a notice of grounds for rejection: the period for submission of a written argument under that notice of grounds for rejection. Where a notice under Art. 66-3(2) has been given, the notices of grounds for rejection given before that notice are excluded from the notice of grounds for rejection of subparagraph 2
3. Where a request for re-examination under Art. 67-2 is filed: the time of the request

For a patent application in a foreign language (외국어특허출원), the specification or drawings can be amended only where the Korean translation (국어번역문) has been submitted under Art. 42-3(2) (Art. 47(5)). [3]

Among amendments under subparagraphs 2 and 3, an amendment to the claims can be made only in four cases (Art. 47(3)). [3]

• Where the claims are narrowed by limiting or deleting a claim or by adding to a claim
• Where clerical errors are corrected
• Where an ambiguous description is clarified
• Where, for an amendment beyond the scope under Art. 47(2), the claims are returned to the claims before that amendment, or are returned and at the same time amended under the three cases above

If an amendment under subparagraph 2 or 3 violates Art. 47(2) or (3), the examiner must dismiss that amendment by decision. The same applies where the examiner recognizes that a new ground for rejection has arisen from that amendment. Among amendments under Art. 47(3), subparagraphs 1 and 4, an amendment that deletes a claim is excluded from the assessment of a new ground for rejection (main clause of Art. 51(1)). The proviso to Art. 51(1) states, in three subparagraphs, the amendments that are not dismissed. [3]

• Where an ex officio amendment under Art. 66-2 is made: an amendment made before that ex officio amendment
• Where ex officio re-examination under Art. 66-3 is carried out: an amendment made before the cancelled decision to grant
• Where a request for re-examination under Art. 67-2 is filed: an amendment made before that request

The time for amendment is covered in “When can claims be amended in Korea?“, and amendments under subparagraphs 2 and 3 are covered in “What amendments are allowed after a notice of final rejection in Korea?”.

The scope within which an amendment can be made

An amendment of the specification or drawings must be made within the scope of the matters stated in the specification or drawings originally attached to the written patent application (former part of Art. 47(2)). An amendment beyond the scope under Art. 47(2) is a ground for rejection (Art. 62, subparagraph 5). After registration, an amendment beyond the scope under the former part of Art. 47(2) is a ground for a trial for invalidation (Art. 133(1), subparagraph 6). Art. 62, subparagraph 5 does not distinguish the former part from the latter part, and Art. 133(1), subparagraph 6 states only the former part. [3]

In 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 of the Practice Guidelines, what the Practice Guidelines said was not in the description of the invention is a specific configuration or explanation. In none of the 14 cases do the Practice Guidelines state whether that defect can be resolved by amendment. What the Patent Act sets is the scope of amendment. An amendment must be made within the scope of the matters stated in the specification or drawings originally attached, and an amendment beyond that scope is a ground for rejection. [1][3]

The basis documents where the application was filed in a foreign language

An international patent application is deemed a patent application filed on its international filing date (Art. 199(1)). The description of the invention, claims and drawings submitted by the international filing date are deemed the specification and drawings originally attached to the written patent application (Art. 200-2(2)). [3]

An applicant who filed an international patent application in a foreign language must submit the Korean translation within the period for submitting domestic documents (국내서면제출기간) (main clause of Art. 201(1)). The period for submitting domestic documents is 2 years and 7 months from the priority date. An effect follows for the final Korean translation submitted by the reference date. The description of the invention, claims and drawings submitted by the international filing date are deemed amended on the international filing date according to the final Korean translation (Art. 201(5)). The reference date is the expiration date of the period for submitting domestic documents. If the applicant filed a request for examination in that period, it is the date of that request. Where a document stating the intention to extend has been submitted under the proviso to Art. 201(1), the extended period for submitting the Korean translation is the period for submitting domestic documents (Art. 201(3)). [3]

The scope of amendment of an international patent application filed in a foreign language has two layers. [3]

The latter part states that the amendment “shall be made also within the scope”. Both scopes must be kept. Where the translation has been corrected, the final Korean translation means the corrected Korean translation (latter part of Art. 47(2), Art. 208(4)). [3]

An international patent application can be amended only when all three requirements are met (Art. 208(1)). They are that the official fee under Art. 82(1) is paid, that the Korean translation under Art. 201(1) is submitted, and that the reference date has passed. If the reference date is the date of the request for examination, the time at which examination was requested must have passed. The second requirement does not apply to an international patent application filed in Korean. Amendments under Art. 204(2) and Art. 205(2) are excluded from this limit. [3]

A mistranslation in the final Korean translation can be corrected. The applicant of an international patent application can correct it, in the manner prescribed by Prime Ministerial Decree, in the period in which an amendment can be made under Art. 47(1) and Art. 208(1) (Art. 201(6)). For a patent application in a foreign language filed directly, Art. 42-3(6) provides the same route. That period is the period in which an amendment can be made under Art. 47(1). Art. 42-3 does not apply to an international patent application (Art. 199(2)). [3]

Two things follow from a correction. The provision under which an amendment is deemed made according to the translation does not apply to the corrected Korean translation (latter part of Art. 201(6), latter part of Art. 42-3(6)). If a correction is made in the period under Art. 47(1), subparagraph 1 or 2, all corrections made before the last correction are deemed never to have existed (Art. 201(7), Art. 42-3(7)). [3]

For an application that claims priority under a treaty on the basis of a foreign-language application, the Examination Guidelines state something separately. The Examination Guidelines state that, if an application with a priority claim under a treaty based on a foreign-language application, or the like, has a translation error, whether there is a deficiency in the description is assessed from the specification of that application alone. Only where there is a deficiency in the description is a ground for rejection notified under Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 or Art. 42(4). They also state that, even if the translation is wrong and the content has come to differ from that of the first application, a ground for rejection must not be notified on the ground of a translation error. The Examination Guidelines state that, if technical content that was only in the specification of the first application is added by a written amendment, it is highly likely that new matter is added (Part 2, Chapter 3, 5. (2)). [2]

The time limit for submitting the Korean translation is covered in “Can the Korean translation be filed after the national phase deadline?“.

Correction after registration

After registration, the way for the patentee to change the specification or drawings is correction. A petition for a trial for correction can be filed in three cases (Art. 136(1)). They are narrowing the claims, correction of clerical errors, and clarification of an ambiguous description. [3]

A correction can be made within the scope of the matters stated in the specification or drawings of the patented invention. For correction of clerical errors, it is the scope of the matters stated in the specification or drawings originally attached to the written application (Art. 136(3)). A correction cannot substantially extend or amend the claims (Art. 136(4)). There are two periods in which a petition for a trial for correction cannot be filed (Art. 136(2)). One is the period from the time a request for revocation of a granted patent is pending before the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB, 특허심판원) until the decision on it becomes final and conclusive. However, if an action requesting revocation of a decision rendered by the IPTAB (legal proceedings against trial rulings), brought against a trial decision in a trial for invalidation of a patent or in a trial to invalidate corrections, is pending before the Intellectual Property High Court of Korea (Patent Court of Korea), the petition can be filed by the date on which the pleadings are closed in that court. For a judgment rendered without pleadings, it is by the date the judgment is rendered. The other is the period during which a trial for invalidation of a patent or a trial to invalidate corrections is pending before the IPTAB. The respondent in a trial for invalidation can file a request for correction in the period designated in that proceeding, only in a case that falls under any of the subparagraphs of Art. 136(1) (Art. 133-2(1)). [3]

In the amended Patent Act that enters into force on 16 March 2027 (Act No. 21955), the wording of the provisions used in this article is the same as now. [3]

What applicants should do

In general, we suggest checking a specification to be filed in Korea in the order below. It is a check made before filing or before submitting the Korean translation.

1. Compare the words and elements of each claim with the corresponding sentences of the description of the invention one by one. Section 2.2.2.1 of the Practice Guidelines is a case where a substance in the claim, and 2.2.2.2 a case where one word, was not in the description of the invention. The Practice Guidelines do not state how that word came to be there. [1]
2. For a national phase application, make the same comparison also between the Korean translation and the original text of the international application. A mistranslation in the final Korean translation can be corrected in the period in which an amendment can be made (Art. 201(6)). An amendment must be made within the scope of the description of the invention, claims or drawings submitted by the international filing date. It must also be made within the scope of the final Korean translation or the drawings submitted by the international filing date (Art. 208(3) and (4)). [3]
3. Match the numerical values, units and mathematical formulas of the dependent claims against the values of the embodiments. Put the values of the embodiments into the formula of the claim and calculate. Section 2.1.5 of the Practice Guidelines is a case where a temperature value was at issue, 2.1.6 one embodiment, and Case 2 of 2.2.3.2 the unit of a composition. [1]
4. For each alternative element joined by “또는” (or) and each broadly stated use, check whether the description of the invention contains a way to realize it. Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.4 of the Practice Guidelines are those cases. Also check whether a term of the claim is broader than what the description of the invention explained as the element for solving the problem (2.2.2.3). [1]
5. Read whether the working principle stated in the description of the invention and the form in the claim point in the same direction. Section 2.1.7 of the Practice Guidelines is a case regarded as a violation of the requirement even though the same wording as the claim was in the description of the invention. Section 2.1.3 is a case where there was no explanation of the principle, and 2.1.8 a case where a paper from outside the specification was used in the assessment. [1]
6. Look at the form of the claims. The points are whether the end of the claim shows whether it is a product or a process (2.2.3.1), whether a word that expresses degree has a basis (2.2.3.2), and whether a dependent claim conflicts with the claim it refers to (2.2.3.3). [1]
7. Set the time of the check on the premise that content that is not in the description of the invention is difficult to fill in after filing. An amendment must be made within the scope of the matters stated in the original specification or drawings (former part of Art. 47(2)). [3]
8. Please confirm the assessment of an individual case with your Korean agent.

FAQ

Are there separate description requirements that apply only to semiconductor specifications?

Art. 42 of the Patent Act has no provision that distinguishes technology fields. The provisions that the Examination Guidelines state as the basis are Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 and Art. 42(4) of the Patent Act. Chapter XII of the Examination Practice Guidelines by Technology Field contains, in 13 types, cases of violation that are likely to occur in applications for semiconductor-related inventions. For the description requirements, the Practice Guidelines do not state the relationship with the general Examination Guidelines. [1][2][3]

If the same sentence as the claim is in the description of the invention, is the enablement requirement met?

In the cases in the Practice Guidelines, it was not. In 2.1.5 the same content as the claim, and in 2.1.7 the same wording, was in the description of the invention. In both cases the Practice Guidelines found that the description could not be regarded as stated so that the invention can be easily practiced. In 2.1.4 as well, “above or below” was in the description of the invention, but there was no way of installing the sensor below. [1]

Does a violation of the description requirements still matter after registration?

It does. A violation of Art. 42(3), subparagraph 1 and Art. 42(4) is a ground for a trial for invalidation (Art. 133(1), subparagraph 1). Art. 42(3), subparagraph 2 and Art. 42(8) are grounds for rejection but are not stated in Art. 133(1), subparagraph 1. Art. 42 is not among the grounds for a request for revocation of a granted patent. [3]

If the Korean translation contains a mistranslation, can it be fixed?

For the final Korean translation of an international patent application, a mistranslation can be corrected in the period in which an amendment can be made under Art. 47(1) and Art. 208(1) (Art. 201(6)). For a patent application in a foreign language filed directly, there is Art. 42-3(6). The Examination Guidelines state that, if an application with a priority claim under a treaty based on a foreign-language application, or the like, has a translation error, whether there is a deficiency in the description is assessed from the specification of that application alone. [2][3]

Are the cases in the Practice Guidelines actual applications?

The Practice Guidelines do not say. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Chapter XII have no application numbers or case numbers, and there is also no statement on the source of the cases. [1]

How DEFINE IP Law Firm handles this

DEFINE IP Law Firm checks the description requirements of a semiconductor application at the stage of reviewing the specification before filing. For national phase applications, we check the numerical values, units and terms of the claims against the original text before submitting the Korean translation. When a notice of grounds for rejection is received, we first check whether the content to be added by amendment is in the original specification. For questions about the specification of a semiconductor application in Korea, please write to contact@defineip.kr.

Sources

1. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Examination Practice Guidelines by Technology Field (기술분야별 심사실무가이드), March 2026, Chapter XII, Semiconductor Field (제12부 반도체 분야; the opening note states establishment in March 2026), 1., 2.1.1 to 2.1.8, 2.2.1, 2.2.2.1 to 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3.1 to 2.2.3.3, 3.1, the foreword (December 2020) and the history of establishment. https://www.kipo.go.kr/ko/kpoContentView.do?menuCd=SCD0200147 (verified 10 October 2026)
2. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Patent Examination Guidelines (특허·실용신안 심사기준), MOIP Established Rule No. 7, in force from 13 March 2026, Part 2, Chapter 3, 2., 2.2, 2.4, 5. (2) and 6. (1); Part 2, Chapter 4, 3. (1) and (2), 4. and 4. (3). https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/특허·실용신안심사기준 (verified 10 October 2026)
3. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Patent Act (특허법), Act No. 21134, in force from 11 November 2025, Art. 42, Art. 42-3, Art. 47, Art. 51, Art. 62, Art. 63, Art. 63-2, Art. 107(6), Art. 132-2, Art. 133, Art. 133-2, Art. 136, Art. 199, Art. 200-2, Art. 201, Art. 208, and Art. 8 of the Addenda (Act No. 12753, promulgated on 11 June 2014, in force from 1 January 2015). In the version scheduled to enter into force on 16 March 2027 (Act No. 21955), the wording of these provisions is the same. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법 (verified 10 October 2026)