Autonomous driving inventions in Korea: which examination guidelines, accelerated examination and examining units apply?

Sangwook Je, Partner · Published 9 November 2026

Last verified 10 October 2026

The autonomous driving field at a glance

As of October 2026.

Chapter VII of the Practice Guidelines states the article numbers of two provisions of the Patent Act. They are Art. 42(4), subparagraph 2 (the example in 4.2 and the example in 4.3) and Art. 32 (Case 2). The Practice Guidelines do not state the numbers of the other provisions in the table. Those provisions were taken from the statements of basis in the Patent Examination Guidelines (특허·실용신안 심사기준, “Examination Guidelines”). [2][3]

• Description of the invention: Part 2, Chapter 3, 1. of the Examination Guidelines gives Art. 42(3) of the Patent Act as the relevant provision.
• Claims: Part 2, Chapter 4, 1. of the Examination Guidelines gives Art. 42(4) of the Patent Act as the relevant provision.
• Subject matter eligibility: Part 3, Chapter 1, 3. of the Examination Guidelines states the eligibility requirement as a requirement of the main clause of Art. 29(1) of the Patent Act. Section 4. states that the definition in Art. 2, subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act must be satisfied.
• Inventive step: Part 3, Chapter 3, 1. of the Examination Guidelines gives Art. 29(2) of the Patent Act as the relevant provision.
• Functional claims: Part 2, Chapter 4, 4. (7) of the Examination Guidelines states that, where a functional limitation is not clear, a ground for rejection is notified for violation of Art. 42(4), subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act.

Examination standard: Chapter VII, “Autonomous Driving Field”, of the Practice Guidelines

The main text, the Addenda and the attached Tables of the Patent Act do not contain the words “자율주행” (autonomous driving), “자동차” (motor vehicle), “운전” (driving), “로봇” (robot), “인공지능” (artificial intelligence) or “모빌리티” (mobility). “차량” (vehicle) appears in one place, Art. 96(1), subparagraph 2. That subparagraph states matters to which the effects of a patent do not extend. They are ships, aircraft and vehicles merely passing through the Republic of Korea, or machines, instruments, equipment or other articles used therein. The provisions on filing and examination have no provision only for the autonomous driving field. [1]

Autonomous driving inventions are also examined under the patentability requirements (Art. 29), unpatentable inventions (Art. 32) and the description requirements for the specification (Art. 42(3) and (4)). A violation of any of the three provisions is a ground for rejection (Art. 62, subparagraphs 1 and 4). [1]

The examination practice in the autonomous driving field is in Chapter VII of the Examination Practice Guidelines by Technology Field. Chapter VII states that it applies to inventions related to an Automated Driving System (자율주행 시스템). The Practice Guidelines call these inventions “autonomous driving-related inventions” (자율주행 관련 발명). [2]

The Practice Guidelines describe autonomous driving technology as a field in which technologies of different kinds, such as sensors, information and communications, and computers, are converged with existing motor vehicle technology. The Practice Guidelines give four technologies. They are technology that perceives the surrounding environment, technology that decides the driving situation and the route, technology that controls the vehicle and road infrastructure devices, and technology that provides transport services. [2]

The opening note of Chapter VII gives January 2022 for establishment and January 2024 for revision. The history at the end of the book is the same. The foot of the body pages is marked “2024년 1월 추록” (supplement of January 2024). The unit in charge of revision and management is the Autonomous Driving Technology Examination Division. The MOIP website posts these Practice Guidelines as the March 2026 edition. [2]

Chapter VII has no Addenda or transitional rule that sets from which applications it applies. A search of the whole of Chapter VII for “부칙” (Addenda) and “출원부터” (from applications) returned nothing. 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 in new technology fields. [2]

Chapter VII is organized as follows. [2]

Driving automation levels and terms

The Practice Guidelines state the driving automation levels as six stages, from 0 to 5. Level 1 (driver assistance) and Level 2 (partial driving automation) are grouped as “운전자 보조” (driver assistance). Level 3 (conditional), Level 4 (high) and Level 5 (full driving automation) are grouped as “자율주행” (autonomous driving). The Practice Guidelines also carry the explanation of the levels according to the KS standard (KS R ISO/SAE PAS 22736). [2]

The Practice Guidelines show in a figure which items of the Practice Guidelines correspond to which level. That figure draws the items on autonomous driving services (3.1.2, 3.3.4) above Level 4 and Level 5. [2]

Section 1.1 explains 14 terms. They are perception, decision, control, autonomous driving service, ADAS, ACC, SPAS, AEB, LKA, HDA, BSD, LiDAR, GNSS and stereo camera. The Practice Guidelines explain an autonomous driving service as a business method that combines autonomous driving technology with a transport service. [2]

Relationship with the general Examination Guidelines and other guidelines

Chapter VII points to another standard in two places. Section 2.1.1 states that the assessment of the requirements for the description of the invention basically follows Part 2, Chapter 3 of the Patent Examination Guidelines. Section 2.2.1 states that the requirements for the claims follow Part 2, Chapter 4 of the same Examination Guidelines. [2]

The current version of the Patent Examination Guidelines is MOIP Established Rule No. 7. It has been in force from 13 March 2026. The name of Part 2, Chapter 3 is “발명의 설명” (description of the invention), and the name of Chapter 4 is “청구범위” (claims). [3]

In Chapter VII, no wording was found that points to Chapter I of the Practice Guidelines (Artificial Intelligence Field) or to the standard for computer-related inventions. The scope searched is the whole of Chapter VII (PDF pages 557 to 638). The words searched for are “인공지능 분야” (Artificial Intelligence Field), “컴퓨터 관련” (computer-related), “소프트웨어 관련” (software-related) and “제1부” (Chapter I), and none of them appeared (the search was made after removing spaces and line breaks). The word “심사기준” (Examination Guidelines) appears in only two places, 2.1.1 and 2.2.1. Section 3. (patentability requirements) and section 4. (functional claims) have no sentence that points to a Part or Chapter of the general Examination Guidelines. [2]

The opening note of Chapter I states the scope of application of Chapter I separately. It states that Chapter I applies to applications for inventions that require machine learning-based artificial intelligence technology for the working (practice) of the invention. It states that matters not explained in Chapter I follow the Patent Examination Guidelines or the Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions (컴퓨터 관련 발명 심사기준). [2]

Three items of Chapter VII deal with those subjects. Section 3.1.2 asks whether information processing by software is concretely realized by using hardware. Section 3.3.3 deals with inventive step where artificial intelligence technology is simply applied to autonomous driving. Sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.4 deal with inventions relating to business methods. [2]

The general standards for those subjects are covered in the articles below.

• “Is software patentable in Korea?“
• “How are AI inventions examined in Korea?“
• “Are business methods patentable in Korea?”

Description of the invention: the driving automation level is the yardstick for the enablement requirement

The assessment standard in section 2.1.1 of the Practice Guidelines is whether a person skilled in the art can accurately understand and reproduce the invention. This must be possible without adding special knowledge, in light of the state of the art at the time of filing. [2]

The Practice Guidelines state that the specific technical means are to be stated so that they can be clearly understood. The Practice Guidelines give three means. They are perception means such as sensors, cameras and GPS. They are decision means such as computers, ECUs and decision algorithms. They are control means such as engines, motors, actuators and their controllers. [2]

Section 2.1.1 has a proviso. It concerns the case where the specific technical means are not explicitly stated or are stated only abstractly. Even so, if they can be clearly understood by a person skilled in the art in view of the state of the art at the time of filing, the invention is found capable of being easily practiced. [2]

Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 also have provisos attached. The proviso to 2.1.3 concerns the case where, even though the specific technical means are not explicitly stated or are stated only abstractly, they can be clearly grasped in light of the state of the art at the time of filing. It states that, in that case, the invention can be found capable of being easily practiced. The proviso to 2.1.4 concerns the case where, even though the technical content of the mathematical formula is not explicitly stated, it can be clearly understood in view of the state of the art at the time of filing. It states that, in that case, it is not found that the invention cannot be easily practiced. [2]

In 2.1.2 (1), the Practice Guidelines point separately to inventions relating to full autonomous driving technology at Level 5 and to autonomous driving service inventions that apply it. They state that, for such inventions, it must be examined whether a person skilled in the art can easily practice the invention without adding special knowledge. [2]

What the Practice Guidelines give as “출원 당시의 기술수준” (the state of the art at the time of filing) in the example in 2.1.2 (1) is sensor precision, V2X communication technology, whether road infrastructure has been built, the level of computer computation and the like. [2]

The general standard for the enablement requirement is covered in “What does Article 42 of the Korean Patent Act require of the description and claims?“.

Claims: who operates the vehicle, and the category

The assessment standard in section 2.2.1 of the Practice Guidelines is whether a person skilled in the art can clearly grasp the invention for which a patent is sought. The statements in the description of the invention, the drawings and the like, and the common general technical knowledge at the time of filing, are taken into account. [2]

Section 2.2.2 of the Practice Guidelines states that an autonomous driving-related invention can be stated in two categories. [2]

• Invention of a process (방법의 발명): a series of processes or operations connected in time series, that is, steps, are specified. An invention relating to a business method in which a transport service is implemented by autonomous driving technology can also be stated as an invention of a process.
• Invention of a product (물건의 발명): the vehicle itself, a sensor for recognition, an infrastructure device for traffic control, a control device and the like. Where it is difficult to express the invention by structural elements alone, it can be stated by functional limitations.

Section 2.2.3 of the Practice Guidelines gives two examples in which the invention is not stated clearly and concisely. [2]

For the second type, the Practice Guidelines state that, even if time-series expressions are partly included, a claim that states the combination relationship between device elements falls under an invention of a product. [2]

The general standard for claim formats is covered in “Which claim formats does Korea accept?“.

Subject matter eligibility: steps judged by a person, and autonomous driving service inventions

Section 3.1.1 of the Practice Guidelines states that an invention under the Patent Act must be the creation of a technical idea utilizing the laws of nature. The Practice Guidelines give things that cannot be called inventions utilizing the laws of nature. They are the laws of nature themselves, something that uses human mental activity or psychological or physiological action, something that uses the laws of logic as they are, inventions contrary to the laws of nature, and the like. [2]

The Practice Guidelines give two examples. [2]

• A method of dealing with a breakdown that has a step in which the passenger determines abnormal behavior of the vehicle and a step of transmitting that situation to a management server. The Practice Guidelines found that the determination and the transmission are processing carried out on the basis of human mental activity and therefore do not fall under an invention under the Patent Act.
• A recording medium on which data including the coordinates of the user’s residence, the coordinates of the workplace, the time of going to work and the time of leaving work are recorded. The Practice Guidelines found that it is no more than a mere presentation (recording) of information.

The second example has a proviso. Where there is a technical feature in the means of presenting (recording) the information, it falls under an invention. The Practice Guidelines give the case where the manner of recording is specifically limited in the claims and that manner itself has a technical feature. [2]

Section 3.1.2 of the Practice Guidelines deals separately with autonomous driving service inventions. They are inventions relating to a new business system or business method that provides a transport service by using autonomous driving technology. [2]

The Practice Guidelines state two things for an autonomous driving service invention to be complete as an invention. The statement of the claim must not stay at the level of merely raising an idea. All the elements that are indispensable for achieving the purpose of the invention must be stated specifically and clearly. [2]

The assessment standard for subject matter eligibility is not whether there is a feature in the method of carrying out the transport service. It is whether the information processing by software that the invention uses is concretely realized by using hardware. [2]

The example in the Practice Guidelines is a method of providing shared autonomous vehicles that has a step in which the administrator of the operating site matches a vehicle according to the customer’s preference. The Practice Guidelines found that the step is a process carried out by the artificial judgment of the administrator. They also found that it is not stated as a process of information processing by software using hardware. The conclusion is that it cannot be regarded as the creation of a technical idea utilizing the laws of nature. [2]

Unpatentable inventions: traffic laws and ethical choices

Art. 32 of the Patent Act provides that no patent can be obtained for an invention that violates public order or sound morals or is likely to harm public health. [1]

The opening sentence of section 3.2 of the Practice Guidelines refers to the case where working for the original purpose of the invention inevitably violates public order or sound morals. The Practice Guidelines state three cases in which an autonomous driving-related invention violates public order or sound morals. They are where working the invention brings about the result of violating public-interest regulations such as traffic laws, where it damages human dignity, and where it is used in an unlawful act. [2]

There is a proviso. If, when the description of the invention is referred to, the case of violating traffic laws and the like is for a reasonable purpose, it is treated as not violating public order or sound morals. [2]

The premise that the Practice Guidelines attach to the third case is when changes in the social environment and institutions are expected on the premise of the advancement and commercialization of autonomous vehicles. [2]

The Practice Guidelines give two examples of the fourth case. One is an invention that controls the vehicle by giving priority to preventing property damage to the vehicle over preventing harm to human life. The other is an invention that, under conditions in which harm to human life cannot be prevented, selects and protects only some of a plurality of lives. In this passage, the Practice Guidelines state the Ethics Guidelines for Autonomous Vehicles (자율주행자동차 윤리가이드라인, December 2020) of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (국토교통부) as a reference. [2]

The Practice Guidelines also carry two examples of claims. One is a device that carries out emergency braking because of a pedestrian ahead. It is a driver protection device that controls the vehicle not to carry out emergency braking if the amount of impact of a rear-end collision is predicted to be at or above a threshold value. The Practice Guidelines found that, if the problem and the means for solving it are so stated in the description of the invention, physical injury to the pedestrian is caused in order to protect the driver. The assessment is that it brings about the result of harming human dignity and cannot be patented. The other is a collision control system that allows a collision with another vehicle according to the driver’s will to collide. The Practice Guidelines found that it violates public order or sound morals on the ground that it not only falls under an unlawful act but also brings about the result of damaging human dignity. [2]

The second example has a proviso. It concerns the case where the problem is stated in the description of the invention as relating to a combat situation between military vehicles and the own vehicle is limited in the claims to a military vehicle. The Practice Guidelines treat that case as being for a reasonable purpose. [2]

Inventive step: the six types in the Practice Guidelines

For each of the six types, section 3.3 of the Practice Guidelines states together the case where inventive step can be denied and the case where it cannot. The fourth column of the table below is, in 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.6, the sentence that begins with “다만” (however). In 3.3.1 it is the last paragraph of the example, and in 3.3.5 it is the paragraph that begins with “또한” (in addition). [2]

The sentences that could not all be put in the table are stated below. [2]

In 3.3.1, the Practice Guidelines state that, when cited inventions in fields of technologies of different kinds are combined, whether a suggestion, motivation and the like are presented in the cited inventions is mainly taken into account. They state that the appropriateness of the citation, such as the relevance to autonomous driving technology, the identity of the problem and the identity of the function, must be sufficiently reviewed. Even if that is not so, inventive step can be denied if it can be acknowledged that a person skilled in the art could easily arrive at the combination. What the Practice Guidelines give as the basis for this is the state of the art at the time of filing, the common general technical knowledge, the basic problems of the field of autonomous driving technology, the trend of development and the like. [2]

In 3.3.2, the Practice Guidelines give two examples of simple automation. They are technology that automatically flashes the hazard lights in bad weather and technology that controls the horn to sound automatically in a situation where there is a risk of collision with a pedestrian. [2]

In 3.3.3, the Practice Guidelines have a separate sentence on the effect. The effect of improved accuracy or speed of perception, decision and control through the application of artificial intelligence and the like is no more than the general effect that is sought to be achieved through autonomous driving technology. The same goes for the effect of improved convenience, safety and the like of the vehicle. [2]

Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 state what the examining side must keep in mind. Because ADAS technology has been developed gradually from driver assistance devices at Level 1, the point in time at which each element technology is treated as well-known and commonly used art differs. The greater the number of cited inventions combined, the higher the possibility that the case falls under hindsight or under a lack of a proper ground for rejection. [2]

What the Practice Guidelines give as ADAS in 3.3.5 is ACC, SPAS, HDA, BSD, AEB, LKA and the like. [2]

The examples in 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 have the same pattern. The Practice Guidelines first show a claim that is found to be easily invented or derived, and add, in a paragraph that begins with “그러나” (however), the case where inventive step cannot be denied. In the example in 3.3.3, that case is where a distinctive learning model is applied and the effect arises that the time to distinguish the kind of obstacle is shortened by half or more compared with a conventional deep learning algorithm. The example in 3.3.6 has no such paragraph. [2]

The general standard for inventive step is covered in “What is the inventive step standard under Article 29(2) of the Korean Patent Act?“.

Functional claims: a subject to which the Practice Guidelines give a separate section

Section 4. of the Practice Guidelines deals separately with functional claims (기능식 청구항). The explanation in the Practice Guidelines is as follows. It is a claim that does not directly express the elements of the invention by physical structure, material and the like. It expresses them indirectly and abstractly through the function, effect, properties and the like of the elements. [2]

Description of the invention (4.1)

If the claim includes an element limited by a functional limitation, the specific configuration for performing that function must be stated clearly and in detail in the description of the invention. However, if a person skilled in the art can clearly recognize the specific technical configuration from the statement of the claims alone, it is treated as capable of being easily practiced. [2]

In the example in the Practice Guidelines, “차량 전방의 영상을 촬영하는 촬영 수단” (image capturing means that captures an image of the area ahead of the vehicle) is an expression that can be clearly recognized as a camera, an image sensor and the like. The Practice Guidelines give five more examples of the same kind. They are obstacle distance detection means, obstacle speed detection means, driving information display means, collision sensing means and collision risk determination means. [2]

“촬영된 영상에서 위험 거리 내에 존재하는 노약자를 식별하는 식별 수단” (identification means that identifies, in the captured image, an elderly or infirm person present within a dangerous distance) was seen differently. The Practice Guidelines state that it is a case where the specific technical configuration cannot be clearly recognized from the statement of the claims itself alone. [2]

Claims (4.2)

A functional limitation cannot be allowed unless it is a case where the configuration of the invention is found to be clear as a whole even with such a statement. The Practice Guidelines state that case as the case where the meaning of the functional limitation can be clearly determined from the statements of the description of the invention and the drawings. [2]

The assessment is made by whether, from the standpoint of a person skilled in the art, the matter for which a patent is sought can be clearly grasped. The statements in the description of the invention, the drawings and the like, and the common general technical knowledge at the time of filing, are taken into account. If it is acknowledged that this is not so, a ground for rejection is notified. The Practice Guidelines state that this case also falls under a ground for rejection under the requirements for the description of the invention in 4.1. Part 2, Chapter 4, 4. (7) of the Examination Guidelines states, in the same sentence, that ground for rejection as a violation of Art. 42(4), subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act. [2][3]

The first example in the Practice Guidelines is “복수의 주행경로 중에서 안전성이 가장 높은 주행경로를 선택하는 최적경로 결정부” (optimal route determination unit that selects the driving route with the highest safety from among a plurality of driving routes). What the Practice Guidelines look for in the description of the invention or the drawings is the criterion for determining safety, the manner of comparison between driving routes, the specific principle of selection and the like. They found that, if these are not clearly stated, it falls under a ground for rejection under Art. 42(4), subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act. [2]

“복수의 주행경로를 산출하는 주행경로 산출부” (driving route calculation unit that calculates a plurality of driving routes) in the same claim was found not to fall under a ground for rejection. The Practice Guidelines state that it limits a function relating to the general manner of route search of a navigation device. The standard in the Practice Guidelines is whether the functional limitation is no more than well-known and commonly used art that is frequently used in that technical field and whether the invention can be clearly grasped from that expression alone. [2]

Section 4.2 has one more example. It is a driving information input device that has image projection means that projects a keyboard image onto the surface of the console box and detection means that detects the movement of a finger. The Practice Guidelines give the case where the description of the invention states that a publicly known laser projector and publicly known pattern recognition software are used. They state that, in that case, the meaning of the functional limitation can be clearly determined, so that it cannot be regarded as a deficiency in the description. [2]

Claim construction (4.3)

As long as an action, function, property or characteristic stated in the claim is included as a matter that limits the content of the invention, the claim cannot be construed by excluding it from the elements of the invention. A statement that seeks to specify a product by using a function, characteristic and the like is, in principle, construed as meaning all products that have such a function, characteristic and the like. The case where the description of the invention explicitly defines it to have a specific meaning is excluded. [2]

The Practice Guidelines have one more sentence here. It concerns the case where there are other circumstances, such as where a special meaning of a term stated in the claims is defined or explained in the description of the invention or the drawings. In that case, the term is construed objectively and reasonably, on the basis of the general meaning of the term and after considering the technical significance that is sought to be expressed by that term. [2]

The example in the Practice Guidelines is a parking control device that has “주차선 신뢰성 판단수단” (parking line reliability determination means). The Practice Guidelines found that, from the statement of the claims alone, it cannot be clearly grasped what characteristic “주차선에 대한 신뢰성” (reliability of the parking line) means. The Practice Guidelines give the case where an embodiment (comparing the sharpness of the parking line with a reference value) is stated in the description of the invention. In that case, the element is determined by taking the embodiment into account and is compared with the cited invention. They state that it can be found that the invention cannot be easily invented because the corresponding element is not disclosed in the cited invention. They state that the image capturing means and the parking line detection means of the same claim are construed as meaning all means that have such functions. [2]

The same example also states another case. If the specific content from which the element can be determined is not clearly stated in the description of the invention, it can fall under a ground for rejection under Art. 42(4), subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act. [2]

How Korea differs: 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the United States

What the original texts of the two countries provide is set side by side.

Section 4.3 of the Practice Guidelines refers directly to the United States provision. It states that, where the claims include a functional limitation, attention must be paid to the difference in claim construction when the United States examination history (OPD) of a case in the same family is referred to. [2]

MPEP 2181, the examination guidance of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), states the interpretation at the examination stage. Its subject is the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). MPEP 2181 states that it is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. [9]

The 10 examination cases

Section 5. of the Practice Guidelines contains 10 cases. Two concern the requirements for the description of the invention and eight concern inventive step. The results of the assessment in the eight inventive step cases divide four and four. The results of the assessment in Cases 3, 4, 7 and 10 are that inventive step can be denied (진보성을 부정할 수 있다), that the invention is no more than a modification of a design that can be made (설계변경할 수 있는 정도에 불과하다), and that the invention can be easily derived (쉽게 도출할 수 있다; two cases). The results of the assessment in Cases 5, 6, 8 and 9 are that inventive step is not denied (진보성이 부정되지 않는다), that one cannot easily derive the invention (쉽게 도출할 수 없다), that the invention cannot be easily derived (쉽게 도출될 수 없다), and that inventive step cannot be denied (진보성을 부정할 수 없다). The “Conclusion” in the table below is the wording of the “판단결과” (result of the assessment) in the Practice Guidelines. The Practice Guidelines did not link the cases to the type numbers of 3.3. [2]

In Case 1, the Practice Guidelines found that the manner of calculation in the description of the invention is stated somewhat ambiguously in part. Even so, they took into account that the calculation is a matter of a degree that belongs to the common general technical knowledge of this technical field. [2]

In Case 2, the Practice Guidelines used the state of the art at the time of filing as the basis of the assessment. They found that it was at the degree of recognizing the shape of a person from a camera image, and did not reach the level of distinguishing a vehicle towing agent among them. The Practice Guidelines also attached an assessment under Art. 32 to this case. The reason is that maintaining parking or stopping if a towing agent is not recognized, even after the permitted parking and stopping time has passed, falls under illegal parking. [2]

Two cases claimed artificial intelligence training (Case 3 and Case 9). The result of the assessment in Case 3 is that inventive step can be denied, and the result of the assessment in Case 9 is that inventive step cannot be denied. In Case 3, the Practice Guidelines regarded selecting and using two neural networks according to the kind of data as well-known and commonly used art in the technical field of artificial intelligence. In Case 9, they found that the cited inventions do not disclose at all the element of extracting and learning driving condition data. They acknowledged that a new input value is added, the structure of the neural network changes and an unpredictable better effect arises. [2]

Case 5 is a case that used blockchain technology. The Practice Guidelines gave the difference in the specific purpose. The invention of the application used blockchain technology to divide the work of the route generation process between the vehicles and the server. The cited invention used it to raise the security of communication information and driving safety. [2]

In Case 10, the Practice Guidelines found that the element in which the route changes according to a stop reservation is no more than a transport service using a non-autonomous bus. They found that the point of using an autonomous bus and the criterion of the route of the shortest time correspond to the functions of the autonomous shuttle of cited invention 2. [2]

The decisions on which the standard is based

Chapter VII has four case numbers, and all of them are in 4. Functional claims. They are [97Hu1344], [2005Heo7354] and [2005Hu1486] in 4.2 and [2007Hu4977] in 4.3. Below are the three Supreme Court decisions whose full text was read. [2][8]

The opening sentence of section 4.2 of the Practice Guidelines is that a functional limitation cannot be allowed unless it is a case where “the configuration of the invention is found to be clear as a whole”. The Practice Guidelines attached [97Hu1344] to this sentence. A decision with that case number was not found in the case database of the Ministry of Government Legislation. The same phrase is in Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1337 Decided October 2, 1998. Decision 97Hu1337 also held that a term that expresses the configuration of the invention unclearly is, in principle, not allowed in the claims. [2][8]

Decision 2005Hu1486 held that, if a person skilled in the art can clearly grasp the invention for which a patent is sought, the statement of the claims is lawful. What is taken into account is the statements in “the detailed description of the invention, drawings, etc. and common general technical knowledge at filing”. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the claim was clearly stated. The reason for the reversal was the assessment of inventive step. It is that the lower court construed the elements of the independent claim by limiting them to some elements of a dependent claim or to a specific embodiment. [8]

Decision 2007Hu4977 set out the principle for construing a statement that specifies an invention by function, effect, properties and the like. The principle is to construe it as meaning “every invention that has” such a function and the like. If there are other circumstances, such as where a special meaning of the term is defined or explained in the specification, it is construed objectively and reasonably after considering the technical significance. The second paragraph of section 4.3 of the Practice Guidelines carries this holding and attaches the case number. [2][8]

The sentence to which section 4.2 of the Practice Guidelines attached [2005Heo7354] is from Patent Court Decision 2005Heo7354 Decided November 23, 2006 (Invalidation of Registration (Patent), trial decision revoked), a decision of the Intellectual Property High Court of Korea (Patent Court of Korea). The case record of the Ministry of Government Legislation states “상고” (final appeal filed) for this decision. The result of the final appeal was not found by the case search of the Ministry of Government Legislation. For that reason, this decision is not included in the table above. Part 2, Chapter 4, 4. (7) of the Examination Guidelines cites this decision and states two cases in which a functional limitation is allowed. The first is where there are circumstances in which it is difficult to clearly express the technical idea of the invention by conventional technical configuration alone, so that it is necessary to express it functionally. The second is where the meaning of the functional limitation can be clearly determined from the statements of the description of the invention and the drawings. Section 4.2 of the Practice Guidelines carries only the second. [2][3][8]

The three decisions were handed down in 1998, 2007 and 2009. The written judgments do not contain the promulgation number of the Act that was applied. The written judgments use the words “발명의 상세한 설명” (detailed description of the invention), and the words of the current Art. 42 are “발명의 설명” (description of the invention). Art. 42(4) as carried in Decision 97Hu1337 contains the requirement that the claims be “발명의 구성에 없어서는 아니되는 사항만으로 기재” (stated only with the matters indispensable to the configuration of the invention). The requirements of the current Art. 42(4) are two, subparagraph 1 (to be supported by the description of the invention) and subparagraph 2 (the invention to be stated clearly and concisely). The current Art. 42(3) and (4) carry the amendment marking of 11 June 2014. [1][8]

Within the scope searched by entering phrases of the decisions into the case search of the Ministry of Government Legislation, no decision that overruled these decisions was found. [8]

The fast track: grounds for accelerated examination and the dedicated organization

The basis for accelerated examination is Art. 61 of the Patent Act. Subparagraph 2 is the case where it is found necessary to urgently process a patent application prescribed by Presidential Decree. [1] Among the grounds in the Public Notice on Request for Accelerated Examination on Patent or Utility Model (특허·실용신안 우선심사의 신청에 관한 고시; Notification, “the Public Notice”), the three below are those in whose original text the words autonomous vehicle, vehicle or mobility appear.

An application eligible for a request for accelerated examination is an application for which examination has been requested (Public Notice, Art. 4(1)). The current version of the Public Notice is MOIP Notification No. 2026-3 and has been in force from 23 February 2026. The amended provisions of this Public Notice apply from requests for accelerated examination that are filed on or after its enforcement date (Addenda, Art. 2). The former provisions apply to applications for which accelerated examination was requested before its enforcement (Addenda, Art. 3). [5]

New patent classification Z03V related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Art. 4(1), subparagraph 2, item (p) of the Public Notice covers a patent application that has two things. It is a patent application that utilizes technology of the 19 technology fields, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and autonomous vehicles. It is a patent application to which MOIP has assigned a new patent classification related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution as set out in attached Table 3. Attached Table 3 states the classification of autonomous vehicles as Z03V. [5]

Part 7, Chapter 4, 4.15 of the Examination Guidelines is the examination guidance for this ground. [3]

• It covers patent applications. Utility model registration applications are not eligible.
• The new patent classification system related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution applies from applications filed on or after 1 January 2018. It is a system separate from the International Patent Classification (IPC) and the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), and is used only as a secondary classification or additional information.
• No separate supporting document needs to be submitted when accelerated examination is requested. It is sufficient for the requester to state in the written explanation of the request for accelerated examination that the application is technology that falls under one or more of the technology fields of item (p).
• Even where the requester has not stated the technology field clearly and has stated it in general terms, the examiner can accept the request for accelerated examination without an instruction to supplement if the examiner finds that the invention can fall under one of the new patent classifications.
• Even if the classification is absent as a result of the classification by the patent classification agency, the examiner must look at the content of the invention and assess whether it is directly related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. If the examiner finds that the existing classification is wrong, the examiner can add the classification by ex officio correction, and can accordingly acknowledge the application as eligible for accelerated examination.
• If an application without the classification is found not to be directly related, an instruction to supplement is given, setting a period of up to 1 month, and if it is not supplemented, the request for accelerated examination is dismissed.
• If the classification is present and the relationship with the Fourth Industrial Revolution is acknowledged, accelerated examination is decided unless there are special circumstances. However, if the examiner finds that the classification is clearly wrong, it can be deleted through a request for correction of classification. If the application is accordingly no longer eligible for accelerated examination, the request is dismissed after an instruction to supplement.
• If content related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution was not in the original specification or drawings and is added as new matter, the request for accelerated examination is dismissed.

The Examination Guidelines also state the principle for giving a new patent classification. The principle is that it is assigned to the core technical elements of the ICT base technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and is not assigned to mere services and applications of the base technologies. However, where a base technology and a service field combine to create new value, a classification of the convergence service field is assigned. There is no case where a main classification is set or changed according to a new patent classification. Every application has a main classification and secondary classifications according to the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC). [3]

Patent applications that utilize technology related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution became eligible for accelerated examination from 24 April 2018. [3]

Advanced technology designation: no announcement under the name of autonomous driving was found

Art. 4(1), subparagraph 2, item (r) of the Public Notice is an application related to advanced technology for which the Minister of Intellectual Property (지식재산처장) determines and announces the eligible cases and the request period. [5]

The “특허 우선심사제도 소개” (introduction to the patent accelerated examination system) page of the MOIP website carries seven announcements of 31 October 2025. They are semiconductors, displays, secondary batteries, bio (biotechnology), bio (healthcare), advanced robotics and artificial intelligence. There is no announcement on autonomous driving or mobility. [6]

On 10 October 2026, the notices and announcements board was searched by title. For “자율주행” (autonomous driving) and “모빌리티” (mobility), no posts were returned. The newest posts with “첨단기술” (advanced technology) in the title are the two announcements issued again on 30 January 2026, and they concern artificial intelligence and bio (biotechnology). [6]

The table in Part 7, Chapter 4, 4.20 of the Examination Guidelines states the designation announcements from 2022 to February 2025. That table also has no designation under the name of autonomous driving or mobility. [3]

The current announcement of the AI designation is Announcement No. 2026-22 (30 January 2026). It covers patent applications or utility model registration applications that are directly related to artificial intelligence technology. The Announcement requires that both of two things be met. [6]

1. An artificial intelligence-related patent classification (CPC) is assigned as the main classification
2. The application is an application by a company that manufactures, or is preparing to manufacture, artificial intelligence-related products, devices and the like in Korea, or that is developing artificial neural networks, training methods, systems and the like in Korea, or an application for the results of a national research and development program related to artificial intelligence technology

The artificial intelligence-related patent classifications that Announcement No. 2026-22 states are the eight lines below. They include B60W, B62D 57 and G05D. The classifications to which the Announcement attached a name with “차량” (vehicle) are B60W and B62D 57. [6]

The request period that the Announcement states is from 1 February 2026 to 31 October 2026. Eligible applications are those for which accelerated examination is requested in that period. The Announcement states “한시적 시행 후 ’26년 11월 연장여부 검토 예정” (operated for a limited time, after which whether to extend is to be reviewed in November 2026). [6]

Announcement No. 2026-22 is an announcement of change (extension) of Announcement No. 2025-19 of 31 October 2025. B25J 9, B60W, B62D 57, G05B 19 and G05D are classifications that were not in No. 2025-19. The classifications of No. 2025-19 were G06N 3 to 7, 20, G05B 13 and G16B 40. As of 10 October 2026, the “특허 우선심사제도 소개” page of the website carries No. 2025-19. No. 2026-22 is on the notices and announcements board. [6]

The patent classifications of the advanced robotics designation (Announcement No. 2025-18, 31 October 2025) are B25J 1 to 21, G05B 1 to 11 and 15 to 99, G05D 3 to 99 and G06F 3. The Announcement attached the name “로봇 비전기적 변량의 제어” (control of non-electric variables of robots) to G05D 3 to 99. There are three requirements. The application must be directly related to advanced robotics technology, and that classification must be assigned as the main classification. And the application must be an application by a company that manufactures, or is preparing to manufacture, in Korea, or an application for the results of a national research and development program. The request period is from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 2026. [6]

As of 10 October 2026, there is no announcement on the notices and announcements board that gives notice of a designation from 1 November 2026. [6]

The “첨단모빌리티” (advanced mobility) classifications of carbon-neutral green technology

Art. 4(1), subparagraph 2, item (b) of the Public Notice covers a patent application to which a carbon-neutral green technology patent classification eligible for accelerated examination, as posted on the website by the Minister of Intellectual Property, has been assigned. [5]

The posted list (in force from 19 February 2025) has a “첨단모빌리티 관련” (advanced mobility-related) group. That group has six classifications. [6]

• GAG501 Technology related to electric energy storage of electric vehicles
• GAG502 Electric energy management
• GAG503 Electric propulsion or power transmission devices of electric vehicles
• GAG504 Technology related to structural aspects for electric vehicles
• GAG510 Hydrogen electric vehicles, and methods or devices for manufacturing them
• GAG511 Technology related to fuel cells

The names of the six classifications concern electric vehicles and hydrogen electric vehicles. The word “자율” (autonomous) was not found in this group. [6] The Examination Guidelines state the difference between the Fourth Industrial Revolution classification and the green technology classification. For the new patent classification related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the whole of the relevant technology fields is eligible for a request, and for the carbon-neutral green technology patent classification, only some patent classifications posted on the website are eligible for a request. [3]

Can foreign applicants use it?

The main clause of Art. 3 of the Public Notice states that, where there is an application, any person can file a request for accelerated examination. The proviso concerns an application that concerns the duties of the State or a local government (Art. 4(1), subparagraph 2, item (d)). [5]

The wording of item (p) has no words that ask about the nationality or address of the applicant or about manufacturing in Korea. What item (p) states is the technology field and the new patent classification assigned by MOIP. Attached Table 1 has no line of supporting documents for item (p). [5]

The announcements of the AI designation and the advanced robotics designation also have no wording that asks about the nationality of the applicant. However, the requirements of the two announcements are based on manufacturing or preparation for manufacturing in Korea (including development, for the AI designation) or on a national research and development program. The examples of supporting documents that Announcement No. 2026-22 gives are a factory registration certificate, a goods supply contract, a system supply contract, a delivery confirmation, a research and development agreement and the like. The Announcement describes these as documents that prove that development and the like take place in Korea. [6]

Art. 4(1) of the Public Notice has further grounds whose wording does not contain the words manufacturing in Korea or development in Korea. Three of them are below. [5]

• Subparagraph 1: an application for which it is found that a third party is working the filed invention for business purposes after the application is laid open
• Subparagraph 3: a patent application that the Minister of Intellectual Property has agreed with the head of a foreign patent authority to examine on an accelerated basis and that meets the request requirements of attached Table 2 (limited to the case where the supporting documents of attached Table 1 are attached)
• Subparagraph 2, item (q): an international patent application for which MOIP carried out the international search under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and for which the document under Art. 203 of the Patent Act has been filed

The requirements and request procedure for these grounds are covered in “How do I get accelerated examination in Korea?“.

Dedicated organization

The examination of patent applications and utility model registration applications in the field of convergence technology is a matter assigned to the head of the Digital Convergence Examination Bureau. What the Organization Decree states as that field is artificial intelligence and big data, the Internet of Things, bio and healthcare, intelligent robots, autonomous driving and smart manufacturing (Decree on the Organization of the Ministry of Intellectual Property and Institutions under Its Jurisdiction (지식재산처와 그 소속기관 직제, “Organization Decree”), Art. 17(3), subparagraph 1). [7]

The Digital Convergence Examination Bureau has the Autonomous Driving Technology Examination Division (Enforcement Rule of the same Organization Decree, Art. 14(2)). The head of the Autonomous Driving Technology Examination Division is assigned the examination of patent applications and utility model registration applications in the fields of steering control, speed control, traffic control and sensor control (Art. 14(7)). [7]

The Autonomous Driving Technology Examination Division exists for a limited period. Art. 3(1) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule (Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2054, 1 October 2025) provides that nine teams, including the Autonomous Driving Technology Examination Division, exist until 8 September 2027. If no special provision is made by then, from the following day the matters assigned to the head of the Autonomous Driving Technology Examination Division are assigned to the head of the Artificial Intelligence & Big Data Examination Division (인공지능빅데이터심사과) (paragraph (2), subparagraph 6 of the same Article). [7]

Other technology of vehicles is under another bureau. The head of the Automobile Examination Division (자동차심사과) of the Machinery & Metals Examination Bureau (기계금속심사국) is assigned the examination in the fields of vehicle chassis, powertrain, vehicle air conditioning and lighting devices (Enforcement Rule, Art. 17(6)). [7]

Where the Practice Guidelines are out of date

The last revision of Chapter VII was in January 2024. What changed after that, and the places where the text of the Practice Guidelines differs from the current original texts, are stated below.

• Patent Act: The text of Art. 29, Art. 32 and Art. 62 is the same in the version in force from 18 October 2022 and in the current version. Art. 42 differs only in that “특허청장” (Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office) was changed to “지식재산처장” (Minister of Intellectual Property) and “산업통상자원부령” (Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy) in paragraph (9) was changed to “총리령” (Prime Ministerial Decree). In the version scheduled to enter into force on 16 March 2027 (Act No. 21955) as well, the text of the provisions used in this article is the same. [1]
• The wording of Art. 32: Section 3.2 and Case 2 of the Practice Guidelines write the old wording “공중의 위생을 해할 염려” (liable to harm public health). The words of the current provision are “공중의 위생을 해칠 우려” (likely to harm public health). [1][2]
• The wording of Art. 42(6): Section 4.3 of the Practice Guidelines writes that the structures, methods, functions and materials, or combinations thereof and the like “기재할 수 있으므로” (can be stated, and therefore) in a claim. The current Art. 42(6) provides that the same things “적어야 한다” (shall be stated). Part 3, Chapter 2, 4.1.2 (1) of the Examination Guidelines also has the same text as the Practice Guidelines. [1][2][3]
• Examination Guidelines: The Patent Examination Guidelines to which the Practice Guidelines point have changed to the version in force from 13 March 2026 (MOIP Established Rule No. 7). The names of Part 2, Chapters 3 and 4, to which the Practice Guidelines pointed, are unchanged. [3]
• Artificial intelligence: The opening note of Chapter I of the Practice Guidelines (Artificial Intelligence Field) gives January 2026 as the last revision. Section 3.3.3 of Chapter VII is text of the supplement of January 2024, and no wording that points to Chapter I was found. [2]

What applicants should do

• In general, we suggest deciding before filing which driving automation level the claimed technology corresponds to. Section 2.1.2 of the Practice Guidelines looks at whether specific technical means that can be reproduced are stated where an excessive level of technology is applied compared with the state of the art at the time of filing. [2]
• If the feature of the invention lies in an algorithm of recognition or decision, we suggest stating that manner of analysis in the description of the invention. The example in section 2.1.3 of the Practice Guidelines and Case 2 deal with a description of the invention that states only that something is distinguished in an image and does not state the specific manner of analysis or algorithm. [2]
• When stating a mathematical formula in a claim, we suggest stating in the description of the invention the definitions of the constants and variables and the technical meaning of the formula. We also suggest checking whether the formula is physically correct when extreme values are entered (Practice Guidelines 2.1.4). [2]
• We suggest stating who performs each step of a method claim. The Practice Guidelines deal with a step judged by a person as a matter of subject matter eligibility (3.1.1, 3.1.2). They deal with a step whose performing entity is unclear as a matter of clarity (2.2.3). [2]
• We suggest dividing elements that end with “수단” (means) or “부” (unit) into two. They are those that are frequently used in this field (image capturing means, driving route calculation unit) and those that are not (identification means for an elderly or infirm person, optimal route determination unit). For the latter, we suggest stating the criterion of determination and the principle of selection in the description of the invention (Practice Guidelines 4.1, 4.2). [2]
• When carrying over the means-plus-function claims of a United States application as they are, we suggest taking the difference in construction into account. Section 4.3 of the Practice Guidelines states as the principle that such a claim is construed as all products that have that function, except where the description of the invention explicitly defines it. The Practice Guidelines state that attention is to be paid to this difference when the United States examination history is referred to. [2][9]
• For an autonomous driving invention to which artificial intelligence is applied, we suggest stating in the description of the invention the learning model, the manner of data processing, the features of the input data and the effects that result from them. Section 3.3.3 of the Practice Guidelines asks whether those three have a distinctive technical feature. Case 9 gave as the basis that a new input value was added. [2]
• For an invention that deals with control that may be contrary to traffic laws or with a choice in a dangerous situation, we suggest stating the purpose in the description of the invention and examining what the claims apply to. Section 3.2 of the Practice Guidelines makes the assessment by looking at the description of the invention and the limitations of the claims. [2]
• Content that is not in the description of the invention is difficult to add after filing. An amendment 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 the Patent Act, Art. 47(2)). For an international patent application filed in a foreign language, that basis is the description of the invention, claims or drawings submitted by the international filing date (Art. 208(3)). That amendment must also be made within the scope of the matters stated in the final Korean translation or the drawings submitted by the international filing date (excluding captions in the drawings) (latter part of Art. 47(2), Art. 208(4)). [1]
• To use accelerated examination, we suggest first checking whether Z03V has been assigned to the application. The announcement of the AI designation states as eligible the applications for which accelerated examination is requested from 1 February 2026 to 31 October 2026. As of 10 October 2026, a designation after that has not been announced. [3][5][6]
• Please confirm the assessment of an individual case with your Korean agent.

FAQ

Is there a separate examination standard that applies only to autonomous driving inventions?

The Patent Act has no provision only for the autonomous driving field. The Examination Practice Guidelines by Technology Field contain Chapter VII, “Autonomous Driving Field”, and its opening note states establishment in January 2022 and revision in January 2024. Chapter VII states that the description requirements for the description of the invention and the claims follow the Patent Examination Guidelines, and adds to them the standards and examples of this field. [1][2]

Can full autonomous driving at Level 5 be claimed?

The Practice Guidelines do not state that it cannot be claimed. Section 2.1.2 of the Practice Guidelines deals with the case where an excessive level of technology is applied compared with the state of the art at the time of filing. It states that, in that case, the invention can be found not capable of being easily practiced if the description of the invention is not stated so that it can be reproduced. [2]

Is an invention that drives in a way contrary to the current Road Traffic Act unpatentable?

Section 3.2 of the Practice Guidelines divides the cases. It states that control for evading public-interest regulations cannot be patented. An invention for which the possibility of being released from the regulation is sufficiently acknowledged, on the premise of the advancement and commercialization of autonomous vehicles, is found not to violate public order or sound morals. The example in the Practice Guidelines is an invention that drives on ordinary roads unmanned, without a driver. [2]

Is inventive step acknowledged if artificial intelligence is applied to existing autonomous driving technology?

Section 3.3.3 of the Practice Guidelines finds that the simple application of publicly known artificial intelligence technology and the like can be easily derived. Inventive step is not denied if the learning model, the manner of data processing, the manner of design and the like have a distinctive technical feature and an effect that a person skilled in the art could not predict arises. [2]

Can an autonomous driving application receive accelerated examination?

A patent application for which examination has been requested, that utilizes autonomous vehicle technology and to which MOIP has assigned Z03V, a new patent classification related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is eligible for a request for accelerated examination. According to the Examination Guidelines, no separate supporting document needs to be submitted. Utility model registration applications are not eligible under this ground. As of 10 October 2026, no advanced technology designation announcement under the name of autonomous driving or mobility was found. [3][5][6]

How DEFINE IP Law Firm handles this

DEFINE IP Law Firm checks the description requirements of an autonomous driving application at the stage of reviewing the specification before filing. For each element stated by its function, we check against the claims whether the description of the invention has a corresponding configuration. We check the grounds for accelerated examination before filing the request for examination. For questions about autonomous driving patent applications in Korea, please write to contact@defineip.kr.

Sources

1. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Patent Act (특허법), Act No. 21134, in force from 11 November 2025, Art. 2, Art. 29, Art. 32, Art. 42, Art. 47, Art. 61, Art. 62, Art. 96, Art. 208. In the version scheduled to enter into force on 16 March 2027 (Act No. 21955), the text of the provisions used in this article is the same. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법 (verified 10 October 2026)
2. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Examination Practice Guidelines by Technology Field (기술분야별 심사실무가이드), March 2026, Chapter VII, Autonomous Driving Field (제7부 자율주행 분야; the opening note states establishment in January 2022 and revision in January 2024), the foreword (December 2020), and the opening note of Chapter I. https://www.kipo.go.kr/ko/kpoContentView.do?menuCd=SCD0200147 (verified 10 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 2, Chapter 3, 1.; Part 2, Chapter 4, 1. and 4. (7); Part 3, Chapter 1, 3. and 4.; Part 3, Chapter 2, 4.1.2; Part 3, Chapter 3, 1.; Part 7, Chapter 4, 4.3.2, 4.15 and 4.20. https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/특허·실용신안심사기준 (verified 10 October 2026)
4. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act (특허법 시행령), Presidential Decree No. 35809, in force from 1 October 2025, Art. 9. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/특허법시행령 (verified 10 October 2026)
5. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Public Notice on Request for Accelerated Examination on Patent or Utility Model (특허·실용신안 우선심사의 신청에 관한 고시), MOIP Notification No. 2026-3, in force from 23 February 2026, Art. 3, Art. 4, Addenda Arts. 2 and 3, attached Table 1, attached Table 3. https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/특허·실용신안우선심사의신청에관한고시 (verified 10 October 2026)
6. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Announcement No. 2026-22 “첨단기술 관련 출원(인공지능)의 우선심사 대상 지정 공고” (Announcement designating advanced technology applications (artificial intelligence) eligible for accelerated examination, 30 January 2026), Announcements No. 2025-19 and No. 2025-18 (31 October 2025), the carbon-neutral green technology patent classifications eligible for accelerated examination (in force from 19 February 2025), and the notices and announcements board. https://www.kipo.go.kr/ko/kpoContentView.do?menuCd=SCD0200225 , https://www.kipo.go.kr/ko/kpoBultnMgmt.do?menuCd=SCD0200610 (verified 10 October 2026)
7. Decree on the Organization of the Ministry of Intellectual Property and Institutions under Its Jurisdiction (지식재산처와 그 소속기관 직제), Presidential Decree No. 36514, in force from 21 July 2026, Art. 17; Enforcement Rule of the same Organization Decree, Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2138, in force from 21 July 2026, Art. 14, Art. 17, and Addenda (Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2054, 1 October 2025), Art. 3. https://www.law.go.kr/법령/지식재산처와그소속기관직제 (verified 10 October 2026)
8. Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1337 Decided October 2, 1998 (97후1337), Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu1486 Decided September 6, 2007 (2005후1486), Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu4977 Decided July 23, 2009 (2007후4977), Patent Court Decision 2005Heo7354 Decided November 23, 2006 (2005허7354). Cases of the Korean Law Information Center of the Ministry of Government Legislation (법제처 국가법령정보센터 판례). https://www.law.go.kr/판례 (verified 10 October 2026)
9. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Appendix L (Patent Laws), 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and MPEP 2181 [R-07.2022]. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html , https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html (verified 10 October 2026)