Introduction: Navigating a Changing Patent Examination Environment

Patents are the most crucial means of protecting intangible assets in technology competition. However, even an excellent technology may face challenges in obtaining patent rights if it is filed without an appropriate examination strategy. In recent years, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) has implemented various institutional reforms to improve examination efficiency and quality. Central to these are systems such as the ‘Focused Examination Program’ and the ‘Amendment Review Interview’. Among these, the Examiner Interview system is a core mechanism that requires redefinition in light of recent changes.

This article reviews the evolution of the examiner interview system and proposes strategic measures that professionals can adopt in practice.

Focused Examination Program and Changes in Communication Channels

The ‘Focused Examination Program’ is designed to allow examiners to dedicate specific time blocks exclusively to examination duties, free from external interruptions. From 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 to 4:00 p.m., meetings, reports, and even individual communications from applicants are restricted. Contact is made via the main examination office number, with the examiner returning calls afterward.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews have shifted to non-face-to-face formats such as phone or video calls. This has limited free dialogue and made it difficult to provide in-depth technical explanations. For applications with complex technical issues, these conditions can be major obstacles. Thus, applicants must strategically decide when and how to secure interview opportunities.

Structural Comparison: General Interview vs. Amendment Review Interview

1. General Interview:

There are no timing constraints, the process is simple, and no formal records are kept. It is effective for cases such as:

– Addressing clear errors like insufficient disclosure

– Pre-checking amendment requirements

– Explaining the applicant’s position after submitting a response

Because of its accessibility and lower risk of prosecution history estoppel, it is useful for urgent matters. However, since it is not formally recorded, the examiner may not fully reflect the explanation in future actions.

2. Amendment Review Interview:

Though the process and timing are stricter, it enables more detailed feedback. Amendments must be submitted at least one week in advance via the e-filing portal, and the examiner is required to document their views formally.

It is suitable for complex rejection issues or testing multiple amendment scenarios. Early alignment with the examiner’s interpretation improves registration chances. However, since the amendment becomes part of the record, estoppel may apply in future disputes.

Strategic Implications and Usage Guidelines

Applicants should choose between a general or amendment review interview depending on the case. For example:

As illustrated by the U.S. Motion to Amend Pilot Program, a pre-consultation-based amendment system significantly enhances success rates. A similar approach in Korea could improve allowance outcomes through practical application.

Power of Strategy Under Constraints

An examiner interview is not just for delivering information; it is an opportunity to structure and present the applicant’s technical and strategic reasoning. With fewer contact opportunities under the focused examination program, choosing the right timing and format has become a strategic competency.

Patents are no longer secured merely through filing. Understanding system changes and developing strategic approaches to leverage them is now key. Flexible use of the examiner interview system can be the starting point of such strategic practice.