|
On August 21, 2026, the Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) launched a pilot of its new "Applicant Consultative Examination System." Applicants may sometimes wonder whether an examiner has fully understood their invention or wish to directly explain core technical aspects that may not be fully conveyed by the written specification to the examiner. This new system is intended to provide applicants with such an opportunity. Although MOIP already operates a consultative examination system, the following explains how this new applicant-initiated system differs from the existing one.
1. Overview of the Existing Consultative Examination System
Patent applications are generally examined by a single examiner. For convergence technologies combining multiple technical fields, however, one examiner alone may have difficulty fully grasping all aspects of the technology. MOIP therefore operates a consultative examination system for such applications, under which, three examiners exchange views and conduct an examination through consultation. By drawing on the expertise of examiners from different technical fields and reaching a consensus, the system is intended to improve the accuracy and consistency of examinations.
2. Comparison of the "Applicant Consultative Examination System
The newly introduced "Applicant Consultative Examination System" may be initiated at an applicant's request. It essentially combines an examiner interview, in which the applicant and examiner communicate directly, with consultative examination by three examiners. Applicants can therefore benefit both from direct and timely communication with the examiner and from the combined expertise of three examiners. The two systems are compared below:
| NO |
Item |
Applicant Consultative Examination |
Existing Consultative Examination |
| 1 |
Introduction date |
August 21, 2026
|
Introduced in November 2019 with the establishment of the Convergence Technology Examination Bureau; scaled back from 2023 due to examination backlog |
| 2 |
Initiated by |
At the applicant's request |
At the examiner's initiative (ex officio) |
| 3 |
Selection of applications |
Applications for which the applicant considers consultation necessary and files a request |
Applications selected by the examiner as requiring consultation |
| 4 |
Request procedure |
File a request through MOIP's online filing portal (Patent-ro) → request an examiner interview and submit relevant information → request a review of a proposed amendment
(select "Request for Three-Examiner Consultative Examination" when requesting the review of the proposed amendment) |
Conducted ex officio; no separate request required |
| 5 |
When a request may be filed |
After the first Office Action, when requesting a review of a proposed amendment
(linked to the proposed-amendment review procedure) |
Not applicable |
| 6 |
Eligible applications |
No technology-field restriction |
Applications involving convergence technologies |
| 7 |
Fee |
Free |
Free |
| 8 |
Requirements |
1) The need for consultation by three examiners must be recognized
2) The applicant's representative (patent attorney) must participate |
Not applicable |
| 9 |
Remote participation |
Available by videoconference or telephone |
Not applicable |
| 10 |
Annual limits |
Total of 500 cases per year; up to 5 cases per applicant per year |
Not applicable |
3. When to Consider Using the "Applicant Consultative Examination System"
The system may be particularly useful in the following situations:
(1) Where the invention combines multiple technologies and written submissions alone may not fully explain the technical aspects of the invention;
(2) Where it is difficult to respond effectively to an Office Action through written submissions alone;
(3) Where there is a disagreement with the examiner regarding the invention and input from other examiners may help resolve the issue;
(4) Where it is particularly important to ensure that the examiner accurately understands the core technical aspects of the invention; or
(5) Where the application is important in view of planned foreign filings and careful consideration of the scope of protection is needed.
After receiving a first Office Action, an applicant may request a review of a proposed amendment and submit in advance the amendment to be discussed during the Applicant Consultative Examination. Based on the outcome of the consultation, the applicant may then file its final amendment.
In terms of its underlying purpose, the new system is broadly analogous to the USPTO's Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review (PABRR), which allows an applicant to obtain a panel review before filing an appeal brief. Under current USPTO practice, the review panel includes at least a supervisor and the examiner of record. Thus, both procedures provide an opportunity for a multi-examiner review before the applicant proceeds to the next stage.
|