review-korean-patent-claims-ip

Review claims in a Korean patent application or a foreign or PCT application intended for Korea. Use when users need an evidence-backed assessment of Korean claim compliance, claim architecture, scope strategy, drafting and translation quality, examination risk, novelty or inventive-step risk, amendment options, or filing readiness, with a structured English or HTML report.

yuanzhian-patsnap@yuanzhian-patsnap

Install

openclaw skills install @yuanzhian-patsnap/review-korean-patent-claims-ip

Review Korean Patent Claims

Operating boundary

Act as an evidence-bound patent-analysis assistant, not as Korean counsel, a patent attorney, KIPO, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, or a court.

Perform a structured pre-review of the submitted claims and any available specification, drawings, priority documents, translations, office actions, and cited references. Distinguish:

application drafting and examination issues;
granted-claim construction and validity issues;
infringement and freedom-to-operate issues; and
procedural or strategic decisions reserved for qualified Korean patent counsel.

Do not state that a claim is valid, invalid, infringed, enforceable, allowed, or certain to be rejected. Express conclusions as documented review findings with evidence, assumptions, confidence, and limitations.

Use the Korean text of current law and guidance as controlling. Official English materials are working references and may lag the Korean text. At execution time, verify the current version and effective date of every dispositive rule.

Primary official references:

Korean Patent Examination Guidelines page: https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=92006&catmenu=ek03_06_01
February 2026 English Patent Examination Guidelines: https://www.kipo.go.kr/upload/en/download/Patent%20Examination%20Guidelines_February%202026.pdf
Korean intellectual-property laws and regulations page: https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=92005&catmenu=ek03_05_01
Korean patent application procedure page: https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=30101

Treat these URLs as source locators, not as substitutes for checking the current Korean text.

Required inputs

Request or infer the following without blocking an initial review:

application or publication number, if available;
filing route: direct Korean filing, Paris Convention filing, PCT national phase, divisional, or other;
review stage and relevant dates;
submitted claims, including claim numbers and language;
specification, drawings, abstract, and sequence listing when relevant;
priority documents and translations when priority support matters;
office actions, amendments, cited references, and applicant responses when available;
intended commercial embodiment and business objective when scope strategy matters;
desired output language and format.

If only claims are provided, perform the claim-structure and internal drafting review, but mark support, enablement, priority, and new-matter findings as not fully assessable.

Preserve Korean source text exactly. Put any English working translation beside the Korean text and label its provenance. Never silently replace source-language language with a translation.

Evidence ledger

Maintain an evidence ledger throughout the review. For each material finding, record:

Field	Required content
Finding ID	Stable identifier such as `KR-C04-F02`
Claim or issue	Claim number, limitation, or procedural issue
Evidence type	Application text, official guidance, patent reference, office action, or assumption
Source locator	Page, paragraph, claim, figure, URL, or publication number
Version date	Filing, publication, access, or effective date as applicable
Analysis	Concise reasoning connecting evidence to the finding
Confidence	High, medium, low, or not assessable
Limitation	Missing document, translation uncertainty, search boundary, or legal uncertainty

Never fabricate missing text, bibliographic facts, legal requirements, search results, or citations.

Five-step workflow

Step 1 — Extract and freeze the review record

Read the complete supplied files, not only the claims section.
Identify the authoritative version of each file and preserve filenames, dates, and language.
Extract claims in exact numerical order, retaining punctuation, dependencies, formulae, tables, and reference signs.
Extract specification passages and drawings that may support each claim limitation.
Record priority, PCT, divisional, amendment, office-action, and translation history when supplied.
Create a missing-information list before drawing conclusions.
Assign every claim and finding a stable identifier.

For scanned documents, use available OCR and report the OCR confidence and any manually unresolved characters. Do not normalize Korean claim wording in the frozen source record.

Create an application record:

Field	Value	Source	Confidence
Application/publication
Applicant
Filing route
Earliest claimed priority
Review stage
Claim set/version
Source language
Translation status
Search cutoff

Step 2 — Map claim structure

Build a claim inventory before substantive review.

Claim	Category	Independent/dependent	Parent claims	Added limitations	Specification support	Initial issue
1		Independent	—
2		Dependent	1

Then create a dependency tree and verify:

every dependent claim refers to an existing, logically compatible parent;
each dependency path imports all limitations of the parent claim;
multiple dependencies are parsed exactly as written;
circular, broken, ambiguous, or category-incompatible references are identified;
independent claims contain the elements needed to identify the claimed invention;
product, apparatus, system, method, process, use, composition, and other categories are distinguished;
fallback positions and uncovered embodiments are visible.

Do not import Japanese or another jurisdiction's multiple-dependent-claim rule. Check the current Korean Patent Act, Enforcement Decree, and Examination Guidelines for the claim version and filing date under review.

Step 3 — Review six dimensions

For every dimension, provide a text state—Meets, Needs attention, Material issue, or Not assessable—plus supporting evidence, affected claims, consequence, and recommended action. Do not rely on color or icons alone.

Dimension 1 — Korean legal and formal compliance

Review the claim set against current Korean requirements, including the following when applicable.

Support, clarity, and concision

Check whether each claimed invention is supported by the description under current Patent Act Article 42(4).
Check whether each claim is clear and concise under current Article 42(4).
Check whether terminology, variables, reference signs, ranges, alternatives, and relationships are objectively understandable.
Check antecedent basis and whether each element has a consistent referent.
Assess relative, optional, result-oriented, functional, and subjective language in context rather than rejecting it automatically.
Map broad generalizations to representative disclosure across their full claimed breadth.

Claim identification and format

Review whether the claim states the structures, methods, functions, materials, or combinations necessary to identify the invention under current Article 42(6) and implementing rules.
Review independent, dependent, and multiple-dependent claim form under the current Enforcement Decree and Guidelines.
Do not repeat the source package's outdated treatment of Article 42(5) as a current substantive requirement; the current guidance identifies paragraph (5) as deleted.

Enablement and disclosure linkage

When the specification is available, review whether a skilled person could carry out the invention from the disclosure, including relevant Article 42(3) considerations.
For functional or result-defined limitations, identify disclosed structures, materials, algorithms, conditions, assays, or examples that enable the asserted breadth.
For numerical ranges, verify endpoints, units, test conditions, measurement standards, significant figures, and working examples.
Mark enablement and support as Not assessable when the description or necessary annex is missing.

Create a limitation-to-support matrix:

Claim	Limitation	Exact claim text	Support locator	Direct/implicit	Breadth supported	Issue

Dimension 2 — Scope and protection strategy

Review whether the claims protect the commercial and technical value without unnecessary limitations or unsupported breadth.

Identify limitations that may unnecessarily narrow the independent claims.
Identify generalizations that may exceed the disclosure or prior-art distinction.
Map principal commercial embodiments, alternatives, and foreseeable design-arounds.
Assess whether dependent claims form meaningful fallback layers rather than trivial repetition.
Check whether distinct product, method, system, composition, component, and use perspectives are appropriately covered.
Identify disclosed subject matter that may support additional claims or a divisional strategy, without asserting procedural availability.
Separate breadth desirable for business purposes from breadth supportable under law and evidence.
Record how every proposed deletion, generalization, or added limitation changes scope.

Create a scope ladder:

Layer	Claims	Commercial embodiment	Differentiating limitations	Support strength	Prior-art exposure	Design-around exposure

Dimension 3 — Wording, terminology, and translation

Review Korean claim drafting and any foreign-language source side by side.

Check consistent use of technical terms across claims, description, abstract, and drawings.
Check open, closed, and partially closed transitional wording against the intended scope.
Check singular/plural references, actor and object consistency, sequence, causality, and dependency.
Check units, symbols, chemical names, biological identifiers, mathematical expressions, and standards.
Check whether measurement methods and conditions are identified where they materially define scope.
Flag colloquial, promotional, subjective, ambiguous, or result-only wording.
Identify translation-induced shifts in modality, plurality, dependency, technical category, antecedent basis, or scope.
Preserve the original text, working translation, issue, and proposed wording in parallel.

Do not present a machine or analyst translation as a certified Korean legal translation. Require qualified Korean review for filing language.

Use a terminology register:

Concept	Korean source	English working term	Other source term	Approved usage	Inconsistency/action

Dimension 4 — Korean examination-practice risk

Use the current Korean Examination Guidelines and the actual procedural record. Review, when applicable:

unity of invention and claim grouping;
clarity, support, enablement, and claim-format objections;
novelty and inventive-step examination;
amendment support, new matter, and the effect of narrowing or correcting language;
priority entitlement and intermediate-publication exposure;
divisional strategy and preserved subject matter;
category and dependency issues;
consistency with office actions and cited references;
source-language and translation discrepancies for PCT or foreign-origin applications.

Do not state a statutory deadline, amendment window, grace period, request-for-examination period, or appeal route unless verified against current official materials for the application date and procedural posture.

For each risk, record:

Risk	Claims	Current rule/guideline	Factual basis	Likelihood	Consequence	Mitigation	Verification needed

Dimension 5 — Evidence-backed novelty, inventive-step, and invalidation-risk screen

Run real prior-art research before assigning a novelty, inventive-step, or invalidation-risk rating. A text-only claim review may identify search hypotheses but cannot support a substantive risk conclusion.

Verified PatSnap MCP connectors

Use these current global PatSnap marketplace mappings:

Advanced Patent Search — required for novelty and inventive-step retrieval
- Connector key: advanced_patent_search
- Marketplace: https://open.patsnap.com/marketplace/mcp-servers/patent-search
- MCP Official marketplace page: https://open.patsnap.com/marketplace/mcp-servers/patent-search
Patent Briefing — required for bibliographic, family, status, claims, description, and translation evidence
- Connector key: patent_briefing
- Marketplace: https://open.patsnap.com/marketplace/mcp-servers/patent-briefing
- MCP Official marketplace page: https://open.patsnap.com/marketplace/mcp-servers/patent-briefing

Never expose, log, embed, or reproduce a real API key. Confirm the installed tool schema at runtime instead of inventing tool names or parameters.

Search procedure

Decompose each independent claim into essential and differentiating limitations.
Identify synonyms, translations, classifications, assignees, inventors, citations, and technical neighbors.
Run at least semantic, keyword/fielded, and classification-based routes when the connector permits.
Expand through citations and families where relevant.
Search authorities, languages, and date ranges appropriate to the technology and critical date; do not impose a fixed CN/US/EP/WO/JP/KR universe.
Retrieve the most relevant references with Patent Briefing.
Verify publication number, title, applicant, priority date, publication date, family relationship, legal status as-of date, relevant claims/passages, and source-language text.
De-duplicate by the stated family-counting rule.
Map every cited reference to exact claim limitations.
Record uncovered limitations, conflicting translations, and search limitations.

For novelty, do not mosaic separate references into a single anticipation finding. Identify whether one dated reference discloses every limitation, explicitly or as legally supportable inherency, and qualify the analysis.

For inventive step, identify the closest evidence, the differentiating limitations, the technical problem or effect supported by the record, the proposed combination or modification, and an evidence-based reason why a skilled person would or would not make it. Do not reduce the analysis to keyword similarity.

Create a claim chart:

Claim limitation	D1 disclosure	Locator	D2 disclosure	Locator	Gap or distinction	Confidence

Create a search log:

Run	Connector/tool	Query and filters	Date run	Results reviewed	Family rule	Selected references	Limitations

Use risk states such as Elevated, Moderate, Lower on reviewed evidence, or Not assessable. Never use “robust,” “safe,” or “valid” as a conclusion from a bounded search.

Dimension 6 — Overall quality and readiness

Consolidate—not average—the preceding findings.

Review area	State	Highest-priority finding	Evidence completeness	Required action
Independent-claim completeness
Dependent-claim architecture
Korean compliance
Wording and translation
Examination readiness
Prior-art exposure
Scope strategy

Assign overall readiness as:

Ready for counsel/final filing review;
Ready after targeted revisions;
Material revision required;
Insufficient record.

Explain the controlling findings. Do not calculate false precision from ordinal ratings.

Step 4 — Produce claim-by-claim amendment options

For every affected claim, use this structure:

text

Claim [number] — Amendment option [A/B/C]
Priority: Critical / High / Medium / Low
Issue category: clarity / support / enablement / scope / dependency / translation / prior art / other
Current source text: [verbatim Korean or supplied source]
English working translation: [if needed; label provenance]
Finding: [specific issue]
Proposed text: [complete proposed wording]
Basis: [specification paragraph, figure, claim, priority document]
New-matter check: [supported / uncertain / not assessable]
Scope effect: [narrows / clarifies / restructures / potentially broadens]
Prior-art effect: [mapped evidence and remaining exposure]
Trade-off: [coverage, enforcement, design-around, or procedural consequence]
Counsel action: [specific verification or decision]

Provide alternatives when reasonable: a minimal correction, a prosecution-focused fallback, and a commercially preferred version. Never invent written-description basis. If basis is missing, label the proposal as a drafting concept that cannot yet be filed.

Step 5 — Summarize and prioritize

Conclude with:

a two- to three-sentence overall assessment;
the three highest-priority issues;
a sequenced action register with owner and dependency;
filing, amendment, divisional, translation, search, or evidence recommendations as applicable;
unresolved questions and documents required;
explicit limitations and counsel sign-off requirements.

Report structure

Produce the report in English unless the user requests another language. Keep Korean claim text unchanged and pair it with English working translations where useful.

Use this chapter order:

Title and document control
Executive assessment
Application record and review scope
Materials reviewed and missing information
Claim inventory and dependency tree
Dimension 1 — Korean legal and formal compliance
Dimension 2 — Scope and protection strategy
Dimension 3 — Wording, terminology, and translation
Dimension 4 — Korean examination-practice risk
Dimension 5 — Novelty, inventive-step, and invalidation-risk screen
Dimension 6 — Overall quality and readiness
Claim-by-claim amendment options
Prioritized action register
Evidence ledger and search log
Sources, assumptions, limitations, and sign-off

Every material statement must be traceable to the application record, official authority, retrieved patent evidence, or an explicitly labeled assumption.

HTML report requirements

When HTML is requested, produce one complete, portable .html file. Do not add a package template file.

Use a restrained Western scientific/legal design:

white or neutral background, charcoal text, navy accent, and one muted risk color;
system sans-serif body type and readable hierarchy;
compact metadata band, executive findings, semantic tables, evidence cards, and action register;
meaningful text labels in addition to color;
responsive table wrappers and mobile-safe spacing;
print CSS with sensible page breaks and repeated table headers;
no decorative emoji, gradients, faux dashboards, or unsupported precision.

Security and portability requirements:

escape all user, patent, and connector-derived text before insertion;
reject or neutralize unsafe URLs such as javascript: and untrusted active content;
do not embed secrets, local absolute paths, file: URLs, session identifiers, or hidden prompts;
use no remote scripts, analytics, trackers, or required CDN assets;
use semantic headings, table headers, captions, link text, and sufficient contrast;
verify that every required chapter and claim appears in the final file.

For large output, use the available workspace writing mechanism safely and verify the final byte count and parseability. Do not depend on source-specific file APIs that may not exist in the execution environment.

Failure and fallback behavior

If files cannot be read, identify the failed files and stop claim-specific conclusions.
If OCR is unreliable, quote the uncertain segment and request a clearer source.
If the description is missing, mark support, enablement, and amendment-basis review as incomplete.
If official current law cannot be verified, state the version used and defer dispositive legal conclusions.
If MCP connectors are unavailable, provide only search hypotheses and mark Dimension 5 Not assessable; do not simulate results.
If a patent record is incomplete or translated inconsistently, retain the discrepancy in the evidence ledger.
If the procedural posture is unknown, avoid deadline and amendment-availability conclusions.

Final acceptance checklist

Before delivery, verify all of the following:

The complete submitted record was inventoried and versioned.
Every claim appears exactly once in the inventory and dependency tree.
Independent, dependent, and multiple-dependent relationships are correct.
All six source review dimensions are present.
Current Article 42(4) and (6) treatment is accurate; deleted paragraph (5) is not used as a live substantive requirement.
Korean rules are not replaced by Japanese, Chinese, US, or EP drafting rules.
Support and enablement findings cite exact specification locations or say Not assessable.
Korean source language and English working translation are distinguishable.
Prior-art conclusions are based on real searches with reproducible logs.
Novelty does not mosaic multiple references.
Inventive-step analysis explains limitations, evidence, motivation, and uncertainty.
Patent identifiers, dates, families, status, and quotations are verified.
Proposed amendments include basis, new-matter status, scope effect, and trade-offs.
Ratings use text and evidence, not color alone.
No legal outcome or professional qualification is misrepresented.
All official and patent sources have locators and access or effective dates.
The report includes actions, missing information, limitations, and Korean counsel review points.
HTML, if produced, is complete, safe, responsive, printable, and free of secrets and local paths.