The first step of a patent application is not drafting the specification. It is prior-art search. If the same or close technology is already public, novelty or inventive step is denied, and you cannot recover filing fees, examination fees, or attorney costs.
This article covers (1) what Korean Patent Act §29 actually requires, (2) how the prior-art set forms the boundary for claim scope design, (3) the no-new-matter rule that limits post-filing amendments, (4) how office-action (OA) costs accumulate, and (5) how iphere combines KIPRIS, EPO, and AI in a single flow.
Korean Patent Act §29 — two gates to registration
§29(1)(i) — Novelty — A patent is denied if the invention is identical to anything known or used in or outside Korea or described in a publication distributed before filing. Identical disclosure anywhere in the world ends the case.
§29(2) — Inventive step — Registration is also denied if a person skilled in the art could easily derive the claimed invention from the prior art at the time of filing. Satisfying novelty alone is not enough — the inventive-step bar is the harder threshold.
KIPO examination guidelines combine structural difference and advantageous effects when judging inventive step. Unexpected effects over the prior art preserve inventive step. Prior-art search therefore also shapes how you should write the effects statements in the specification.
Claim scope design — prior-art boundary is the safe zone
Narrow claims let competitors design around easily and reduce the patent's value. Too-broad claims collide with prior art and get refused. The boundary of the prior-art set identified by your search defines the safe zone for claim scope.
In practice, main independent claims are placed just inside the prior-art boundary, while dependent claims progressively narrow to layer the protection. If some claims are refused in an OA, others can carry the registration through.
| Situation | Without search | With search |
|---|---|---|
| Registrability | Low — exposed to refusal | Pre-verified, higher |
| Claim scope | Too narrow or overreaching | Optimized to prior-art boundary |
| OA frequency | Repeated responses and amendments | Risk avoided in initial drafting |
| Time to registration | 1–2 years + OA delays | Often under 1 year |
No-new-matter — the amendment limit
Adding to the specification or drawings anything not originally disclosed is treated as new-matter addition and rejected under §47. Searching after filing and deciding "let's narrow the claim more" fails if the narrowing terms were not in the original specification.
OA cost structure — once is rarely the end
When an examiner issues an OA, you respond with a written argument and amendment. The amendment government fee is small (around KRW 4,000), but attorney fees for drafting the response and amendment typically run tens to hundreds of thousands of won per OA.
OAs often repeat. Second and third OAs accumulate costs. The first OA should bring broad enough fallback amendments, which only works if the original specification was thorough, which only works if prior-art search was done before filing.
- Government fee
- KRW 4,000 per amendment per filing
- Attorney fee
- Tens to hundreds of thousands of won per OA, scales with complexity
- Extension fee
- KRW 14,000 per month if response deadline extended
- Examination fee
- Non-refundable never returned even after refusal
How iphere runs prior-art search
iphere integrates KIPRIS direct search + EPO supplementary search + AI relevance analysis + cited auto-injection on a single screen. Enter keywords and the following runs automatically.
- KIPRIS 3-mode search — Three queries combining keywords and IPC classification, in precise / standard / broad modes, executed in parallel. Results are ranked by risk and relevance.
- EPO supplementary search — Foreign registered patents (especially USPTO and EPO publications) are fetched in parallel and merged with KIPRIS results after deduplication.
- AI relevance grading — The Opus model evaluates each candidate's claims against your invention and assigns high / medium / low grades.
- cited auto-injection — Anything you cite, along with your difference notes, is automatically injected into the AI prompts for drawing, claim drafting, and body writing — improving downstream quality.
What AI does not handle well
AI is strong at candidate discovery, relevance grading, and keyword expansion. But subtle case-law shifts and unwritten conventions of a specific technical field still need attorney review. Selection of cited and difference notes ultimately belong to the inventor and attorney — AI narrows candidates, not the judgment itself.
Prior-art search runs alongside patent filing
Enter the core keywords of your invention — KIPRIS + EPO + AI analysis are consolidated on one screen. Cited entries flow into drawing, claim, and body drafting automatically.
Prior-art search is not just a cost-saving tactic — it is the tool that secures registrability before you spend on it. Five minutes of search can save six months of OA fighting.