<4D F736F F D20A2BAC7D1B1B BDC5C3BBBEC8B3BBB9AE5FC7D1B5A75F5F456E676C F2DB0E8BCD3BDC7BDC32E646F63>

Procedures to File a to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program between the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the Danish Patent and Trademark Office I. Purpose of the Document This document aims to publicize requirements and necessary documents for requesting participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) in order that an applicant is able to easily file a request for preferential examination under the PPH pilot program. When an applicant files a request for preferential examination under the PPH pilot program to KIPO based on examination results by the Danish Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the PPH request should meet the requirements described in the below paragraph III. II. Trial Period for the PPH Pilot Program The PPH pilot program commenced on March 1, 2009 and will be continued until both Offices notify of any changes to the PPH pilot program. III. Procedures to File a for Preferential Examination under the PPH Pilot Program 1. Basic Requirements for ing Preferential Examination under the PPH Pilot Program at the KIPO (1) The KIPO (including a national phase ) is 1) an which validly s priority under the Paris Convention to the corresponding PTO (Examples are provided in the Annex I, figure A, B, C, D, 1

E, F and G) (may include utility model s filed in the PTO please refer to the Annex I, figure L) 2) a national phase that contains no priority s (direct s) and indicates both the KIPO and the PTO as Designated Offices (DO) (An example is provided in the Annex I, figure H), or 3) an which validly s priority under the Paris Convention to a that contains no priority s. (Examples are provided in the Annex I, figure I, J and K.) The following KIPO s are also eligible for the PPH pilot program: - an ing priority to multiple PTO s or s, or - a divisional based on the filed which is included in 1) to 3) above. A for examination must have been filed to the KIPO in order for the applicant to request for the preferential examination under the PPH in the KIPO. (2) The corresponding PTO has at least one that is determined to be patentable by the PTO. 1) The corresponding PTO should have at least one which has been determined to be patentable at the examination stage in the PTO. It is noted that the following types of cases are not eligible : Examination was conducted in the EPO and the patent right was validated in Denmark as a designated state. 2) Corresponding in the PTO should not necessarily be interpreted as the which forms the basis of the priority, but may be the which derived from the which forms the basis of the priority; e.g., a divisional of the, or an which s internal priority to the. Note that where the PTO that contains the allowable/patentable s is not the same from which priority is ed in the KIPO, applicant must identify the relationship between the PTO that contains the allowable/patentable s and the PTO priority ed in the KIPO (eg PTO X that contains the allowable/patentable s, s domestic priority to PTO Y, which is the priority ed in the KIPO ). 2

3) Claims clearly identified to be patentable in the latest office action at the examination stage at the PTO are able to be a base of a request for a preferential examination under the PPH pilot program, even if the which include those s is not granted for patent yet. The following cases will fall within this interpretation: When a PTO examiner sends a notification specifying the PTO s intention to grant. The headings for such notifications will be Godkendelse. (3) All s in the KIPO must sufficiently correspond or be amended to sufficiently correspond to one or more of those s indicated as patentable in the PTO. 1) Claims shall be considered to sufficiently correspond where, accounting for differences due to translations and format, the s are of the same or similar scope. This means that the s have a common technical feature which makes the s patentable over the prior art in the corresponding PTO. The s must thus be practically the same. Claims filed to the KIPO which contains additional technical features compared to the s that the PTO have found patentable will be considered to sufficiently correspond to the KIPO s. This is also illustrated in example 1 below, where the s are found to sufficiently correspond (it is noted that OFF is short for Office of First Filing, whereas OSF is short for Office of Second Filing). Example 1: KIPO s (OSF) PTO s (OFF) correspondence 1 1 the same 2 1 the KIPO 2 has the additional component A on the PTO 1 3 1 the same except for format Dependant s in the KIPO which are appended to earlier s in the PTO corresponding to s that are indicated as patentable by the PTO will also be considered where such s fall within the scope of the s indicated as patentable by the PTO. This is also illustrated in example 2 below, where the s are found to sufficiently correspond: 3

Example 2: KIPO s (OSF) PTO s (OFF) correspondence 1 1 the same 2 2 the same 3 3 the same 4 dependent of 3 2) It is not necessary to include all s determined to be patentable in the PTO in an in KIPO (the deletion of s is allowable). For example, in the case where an to the PTO contains 5 s determined to be patentable, the corresponding in KIPO may contain only 3 of those 5 s. 3) When (s) are determined to be patentable by the PTO by making amendment to (s) in the PTO, the (s) in the KIPO should be amended similar way to sufficiently correspond to the patentable (s) in the PTO. (4) Whether examination of the KIPO for participation in the PPH Pilot program has begun does not affect the eligibility for participation in the PPH pilot program. In other words, the KIPO is eligible for preferential examination under the PPH pilot program not only in the case that examination has not begun, but also when examination has already begun. 2. Documents Necessary to File a for Preferential Examination under the PPH Pilot Program at the KIPO Applicant must submit a request form for preferential examination under the PPH pilot program, The Explanation of Circumstances Concerning Preferential Examination under the PPH Pilot Program. The documents that the applicant should attach to The Explanation of Circumstances Concerning Preferential Examination are the documents mentioned under section (1), (2), (3) and (4) below. (1) A table to explain the correspondence of s which were determined to be patentable in the PTO and all s in the KIPO 4

The relation between s should be described in the table for each KIPO. Please see the example shown below in Annex II. (2) Copies and translations of all office actions in the PTO Office actions are documents which relate to substantive examination and which were sent to an applicant from the PTO examiner. Both Korean and English are acceptable as translations languages. In the case where the PTO is the OFF, an applicant who requests to the KIPO as the OSF does not have to submit copies of the office actions when those documents are provided via PTO s database PVS online http://onlineweb.dkpto.dk/pvsonline/patent? action=1&subaction=front&language=gb. This is due to the fact that the KIPO will be able to retrieve such office actions from PVS online. However, the Korean or English translations of the office actions must be submitted by the applicant in cases where the office actions are not provided in English in PVS online. When an applicant submits the translations of the office actions, machine translations will be admissible. However, if it is impossible for the examiner to understand the outline of the translated office action(s) due to insufficient translation, the KIPO examiner can request the applicant to submit (or resubmit) translations. It is noted that the request is not rejected because the translation is not enough to understand the outline of the translated office action(s). (3) Copy and translation of s determined to be patentable in the PTO The Copies of the s determined to be patentable in the PTO might be either copies of the amendments, the document submitted at filing (where no later amendments to the patent s have been made) which includes s determined to be patentable, or a copy of the PTO s publication of the granted patent. The Descriptions in the requirement 2.(2) above regarding the occasions where the applicant will not have to submit copies and translations and regarding machine translation also apply to this requirement 2.(3). (4) Documents cited by the examiner in the PTO Applicants are required to submit the documents cited by the examiner in the PTO. If a cited document is a patent document, applicants do not have to submit it because it is usually available to the KIPO, but in the case where the KIPO has difficulty in obtaining a document, 5

it will ask the applicant to submit it. In every case, translations of the cited documents are not required. 3. form and fee Applicant must submit a request form for preferential examination under the PPH pilot program, titled The Explanation of Circumstances Concerning Preferential Examination under the PPH Pilot Program. Please find the request form attached in the Annex II. Applicant must submit preferential examination fee same as other request for preferential examination. 4. Notes on examination and notification procedure KIPO decides whether the can undergo a preferential examination under the PPH when it receives a request with the documents set forth above. The grant for assigning a special status for preferential examination under the PPH pilot program will not be notified, but instead applicant can recognize it by the reception of an office action resulting from preferential examination. In those instances where the request does not meet all the requirements set forth above, applicant will be notified and the defects in the request will be identified. Applicant will be given opportunity to perfect the request. If not perfected, applicant will be notified and the will await action in its regular turn. Where an applicant amends any of the s of an before the undergoes a preferential examination at KIPO under the PPH and the amended s do not substantially correspond to one or more allowable or patentable s in the PTO, the applicant is required to submit a comparison table between the amended s and the documents cited by the examiner in the PTO along with the amendments. 6

ANNEX I Figure A: Indication of patentable (s) or Grant KR for PPH Figure B: Indication of patentable (s) or Grant KR DO* *DO Designate Office 7

Figure C: 1 Indication of patentable (s) or Grant 2 KR Figure D: 1 Domestic 2 KR Indication of patentable (s) or Grant 8

Figure E: Indication of patentable (s) or Grant KR 1 KR 2 Divisional for PPH Figure F: Without priority Indication of patentable DO* KR DO* (s) Grant or *DO Designated Office 9

Figure G: 1 Domestic priority or divisional 2 Indication of patentable (s) or Grant KR Figure H: DO* Indication of patentable (s) or Grant KR DO* *DO - Designated Office 10

Figure I: DO* Indication of patentable (s) or Grant KR * DO Designated Office Figure J: DO* Indication patentable (s) Grant of or KR DO* *DO Designated Office 11

Figure K: Without priority Indication of patentable DO* KR DO* (s) Grant or *DO Designated Office Figure L: (Conversion of - from utility model to patent) (Utility model) Conversion (patent) Indication of patentable (s) or KR 12

ANNEX II Form 서면 [ 별지제 3 호서식 ] 서류명 특허심사하이웨이(PPH) 에의한우선심사신청설명서 대상국가 본원출원번호 대응출원번호 본원출원과대응출원의관계 제출서류 특허가능하다고판단된특허청구범위 서류명및제출 ( 발행 ) 일 서류제출여부 ( 제출생략이유 ) 번역문제출여부 ( 제출생략이유 ) 심사관련통지서 서류명및통지일 서류제출여부 ( 제출생략이유 ) 번역문제출여부 ( 제출생략이유 ) 심사단계에서인용된선행기술문헌 명칭 제출여부 ( 제출생략이유 ) 청구항간대응관계설명표 본원출원의청구항번호대응출원에서특허가능하다고판단한청구항번호대응관계설명 13

기재요령 1. 대상국가 란에는한국특허청이특허심사하이웨이를시행하고있는대상국가 ( 일본, 미국, 덴마크, 영국, 캐나다, 러시아, 핀란드, 독일 ) 중어느한국가의명칭기재합니다. 2. 대응출원번호 란에는위대상국가에서특허가능하다고판단한특허청구범위를포함하고있는특허출원의출원번호및출원일을적습니다. 예 ) 대응출원 JP 평 18-1234 호, 2007. 1. 1. 3. 본원출원과대응출원의관계 란에는위대응출원과본원출원간의대응관계를명확하게설명합니다. 대응출원에는조약우선권주장의기초가된상대국의특허출원뿐만아니라조약우선권주장의기초가된상대국의특허출원과연계되어있음이명확한상대국의다른특허출원 ( 예. 분할출원, 국제출원의조기국내단계진입출원 ) 도포함됩니다. 예 ) 본원출원과대응출원의관계 대응출원 JP 18-1234 은본원출원 ( 분할출원 ) 의원출원 (KR10-2008-12345) 이조약우선권주장하고있는상대국특허출원 JP 17-5678 의분할출원으로서본원출원의대응 ( 패밀리 ) 특허에해당합니다. 4. 특허가능하다고판단된특허청구범위 란에는대상국가에서특허가능하다고판단한특허청구범위가기재된서류명및제출여부를다음과같이기재합니다. 가. 서류명및제출 ( 발행 ) 일 란에는해당특허청구범위가기재된서류의종류와제출일, 공보발간된경우공보번호와공개일등을함께기재합니다. 나. 서류제출여부 란에는 제출 로기재하고해당특허청구범위를첨부하여제출합니다. 다만, 심사관이정보통신망 [ 예. AIPN( 일본 ), public PAIR( 미국 ), PVS online( 덴마크 ) 등 ) 을통해해당특허청구범위를용이하게입수할수있는경우에는제출생략이가능하므로 서류제출여부 란에 제출생략 으로기재하고 제출생략이유 란에생략가능한이유를기재합니다. 다. 해당특허청구범위가국어또는영어가아닌언어로작성된경우에는 번역문제출여부 란을만들어 제출 로기재하고국어또는영어로번역된번역문을첨부하여제출합니다. 다만, 심사관이정보통신망에서국어또는영어로된번역문을확인할수있는경우에는제출생략이가능하므로 번역문제출여부 란에 제출생략 으로기재하고 제출생략이유 란에생략가능한이유를기재합니다. 라. 우선심사신청후심사관이해당특허청구범위를입수할수없거나국문또는영문번역이불충분하여보완지시를하는경우에는해당서류를보완하여제출하여야합니다. 예 1) 서류명및발행일 JP2000-123456(2000.01.01) 14

서류제출여부 제출생략 제출생략이유 OOOO 을통해심사관이입수가능하므로제출생략 번역문제출여부 제출생략 제출생략이유 OOOO 에서영어번역문이제공되므로제출생략 예 2) 서류명및제출일 보정서, 2009.06.25 자로일본특허청에제출 서류제출여부 제출 번역문제출여부 제출 5. 심사관련통지서 란에는대응출원에대한대상국가의심사관이통지한실체심사관련서류명 ( 거절결정서, 등록결정서, 의견제출통지서등 ) 및제출여부를다음과같이기재합니다. 가. 서류명및통지일 란에는실체심사와관련하여통지된서류의명칭, 통지일등을기재합니다. 나. 서류제출여부 란에는 제출 로기재하고해당심사관련통지서를첨부하여제출합니다. 다만, 심사관이정보통신망 [ 예. AIPN( 일본 ), public PAIR( 미국 ), PVS online( 덴마크 ) 등 ) 을통해해당심사관련통지서를용이하게입수할수있는경우에는제출생략이가능하므로 서류제출여부 란에 제출생략 으로기재하고 제출생략이유 란에생략가능한이유를기재합니다. 다. 해당통지서가국어또는영어가아닌언어로작성된경우에는 번역문제출여부 란을만들어 제출 로기재하고국어또는영어로번역된번역문을첨부하여제출합니다. 다만, 심사관이정보통신망에서국어또는영어로된번역문을확인할수있는경우에는제출생략이가능하므로 번역문제출여부 란에 제출생략 으로기재하고 제출생략이유 란에생략가능한이유를기재합니다. 라. 우선심사신청후심사관이해당통지서를입수할수없거나국문또는영문번역이불충분하여보완지시를하는경우에는해당서류를보완하여제출하여야합니다. 예 1) 서류명및통지일 특허사정서, 2008.12.30 서류제출여부 제출생략 제출생략이유 정보통신망을통해심사관이입수가능하므로제출생략 번역문제출여부 제출 6. 심사단계에서인용된선행기술문헌 란에는심사관련통지서에서기재한선행기술문헌 15

의명칭및제출여부를다음과같이기재합니다. 가. 명칭 란에는인용된선행기술문헌의종류, 공개일 ( 공보일 ) 을기재합니다. 나. 서류제출여부 란에는 제출 로기재하고해당선행기술문헌을첨부하여제출합니다. 다만, 심사관이해당선행기술문헌을용이하게입수할수있는특허문헌 ( 비특허문헌은제출 ) 은제출생략이가능하므로 제출여부 란에 제출생략 으로기재하고 제출생략이유 란에생략이유를기재합니다. 예 ) 명칭 JP2000-123456(2000.01.01), US2004/348454(2004.05.04) 제출여부 제출생략 제출생략이유 특허문헌으로용이하게입수가능하므로제출생략 명칭 3GPP TR 29.802 v7.0.0 'Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; (G)MSC-S-(G)MSC-S Nc Interface based on the SIP- I protocol, JUNE 2007(sections 5.7 and 5.8) 제출여부 제출 7. 청구항간대응관계설명표 란에는본원출원의모든청구항에대하여대응되는 대응출원의특허가능하다고판단한청구항번호 를기재하여야하며, 대응관계설명부분에는양청구항의동일여부또는차이점을구체적으로기재하여야합니다. 예 ) 본원출원의청구항번호 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 대응출원에서특허가능하다고판단한청구항번호 1 2 3 5 6 4 1 대응관계설명양청구항은동일 양청구항은기재형식의차이일뿐실질적으로동일 청구항 7 은대응출원의청구항 1 에 A 라는구성이부가됨 16