On March 9, 2026, the Ministry of Intellectual Property (“MOIP”) announced specific patent examination guidelines (the “Guidelines”) tailored for the semiconductor industry. As the field undergoes rapid advancements in miniaturization and integration—driven by technologies such as Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, amorphous carbon hard masks, High Bandwidth memory (HBM), and next-generation AI chips—MOIP recognized a need for clear standards that reflect these technical characteristics. The Guidelines primarily deal with three patentability requirements in the Korean Patent Act (“Act”): i) enablement requirement (Article 42(3) of the Act), ii) claim description requirement (Article 42(4) of the Act), and iii) novelty and inventiveness requirements (Article 29(1) and (2) of the Act). Although the Guidelines are not substantially different from general prosecution practice, they provide semiconductor-specific examples to assist applicants in preparing Korean applications in this field.

I. Enablement Requirement

1. Overview

An invention must be clearly and specifically described in the written description such that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) can easily practice the invention. The Guidelines emphasize that a POSITA must be able to accurately understand and reproduce the invention without “adding special knowledge.”

2. Examples of Non-Compliance with the Enablement Requirement

The Guidelines provide the following examples where the enablement requirement is not met.

• Unsupported Claimed Configurations: A claim recites multiple possible configurations, but the written description lacks a clear technical realization for some configurations recited in the claim (e.g., a claim recites that the pressure sensor may be installed above or below an electrostatic electrode, but the written description fails to describe a specific manner in which the pressure sensor is installed below the electrostatic electrode to measure electrostatic force).
• Technically Impossible Processes: The written description describes a thin-film formation process that seems to be technically impossible to implement under the stated operational conditions in view of established scientific literature.

II. Claim Description Requirement

1. Overview

All claims in a patent application must be supported by the written description in the application (“Support Requirement”) and be clear and concise (“Clarity Requirement”).

2. Examples of Non-Compliance with the Support Requirement

The Guidelines provide the following examples where the support requirement is not met.

• Unsupported Claim Terms: A configuration or feature recited in a claim is absent in the written description (e.g., while the claim is directed to a composition containing xylene, the written description merely describes aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, without explicitly stating or even implying xylene).
• Omitting or Broadening Essential Features: The written description identifies a specific feature as indispensable to the technical solution, but that feature is either omitted in the claim or diluted into an unsupported abstraction (e.g., the specification identifies the technical task as introducing an adhesive that emits light upon UV irradiation and describes only a configuration that emits fluorescence upon exposure to UV light, but the claim broadly covers fluorescent materials, including those responsive to light outside the UV spectrum).

3. Examples of Non-Compliance with the Clarity Requirement

The Guidelines provide the following examples where a claim fails to meet the clarity requirement.

• Ambiguous Claim Category: A claim is directed to the “use” of a flexible substrate mount, leaving it unclear whether the claim is classified as a product or a process invention.
• Indefinite Relative Terms: Terms such as “low” (e.g., “low resistance”) or “suitable” (e.g., “suitable material”) render a claim indefinite when they fail to provide a specific standard of comparison or a degree.
• Inconsistencies between Related Claims: Inconsistencies in claim limitations between related claims (e.g., a preceding claim specifies that the ground-to-signal ratio is smaller in the inner zone than in the edge zone, whereas a subsequent dependent claim states that the ground-to-signal ratio is larger in the inner zone than in the edge zone).

III. Novelty/Inventiveness Requirements

1. Examples of Compliance with the Inventiveness Requirement

The Guidelines provide the following examples where the inventiveness of the claimed invention is recognized.

• Prior Art Lacking Specific Details or Effects: A prior art reference merely discloses general concepts without disclosing specific structure or effects of the claimed invention (e.g., although the prior art reference is similar to the claimed invention in providing a double-layer film, it does not disclose a claimed feature of forming the lower layer of the double-layer film from an aluminum-containing film, nor does it suggest the technical effects of the claimed invention, such as the ease of forming contact holes and excellent resistance to moisture penetration).
• Different Problem-Solving Principles: Combining features of a secondary prior art reference with the basic structure of a primary prior art reference is not obvious to a POSITA if the problem-solving principle of the secondary prior art reference differs from that of the claimed invention (e.g., a claimed invention uses a stepped portion with an adhesive to bond a lens to a package body, whereas a secondary prior art reference discloses a groove formed solely for the purpose of fitting the lens without using any adhesive).

2. Examples of Non-Compliance with the Inventiveness Requirement

The Guidelines provide the following examples where the inventiveness of a claimed invention is denied.

• The claimed invention could have been easily derived by applying common general knowledge to the prior art reference (e.g., although a prior art reference differs from a claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose that interlayer insulating films are oxide films of different densities, the use of oxide or nitride films as interlayer insulating films is merely a well-known, conventional technology in the semiconductor field; furthermore, forming first and second interlayer insulating layers under different times and conditions—resulting in differing physical properties such as density—is also obvious or corresponds to nothing more than well-known, conventional technology).
• A POSITA would find it obvious to adopt a fluorescent material disclosed in a secondary prior art reference for a component in a primary prior art reference since (i) both references belong to the same technical field, (ii) the material disclosed in the secondary reference can be adopted for a component of the primary reference without altering the basic structural configuration of the primary reference, and (iii) there is no evidence suggesting such a substitution would be difficult or intentionally excluded. Accordingly, the claimed invention could have been easily derived in view of the combination of the references.

3. Novelty/Inventiveness of a Product-by-Process (PBP) Claim

For PBP claims, patentability is evaluated based on the structure or properties of the resulting product—construed in light of the entire claim language (including process steps)— rather than on the manufacturing process alone. In addition, novelty and inventive step must be assessed through a comparison with prior art known before the filing date.

For example, the Guidelines provide the following case example where the novelty of a PBP claim is denied:

• Although a manufacturing method recited in the claim specifies that a second gas supply hole is formed by drilling, this method does not affect the structure or properties of the gas supply hole. Therefore, the feature of “the second gas supply hole being formed by drilling” refers to the second gas supply hole itself. Since this is substantially identical to an upper hole formed in an upper plate of a prior art reference, the claimed invention lacks novelty over the prior art reference.

IV. Implications

The Guidelines impose stricter enablement and support requirements, demanding clear technical realization for all claimed semiconductor features while prohibiting vague or indefinite terms, which should be considered when preparing Korean applications in this field.