What is ASPEC+ and How It Works?

ASPEC+ introduces a more integrated and collaborative parallel examination framework, where participating AMS IP offices examine corresponding patent applications at the same time. Through this process, the IP offices in Southeast Asia actively share search and examination findings, leverage each other’s work, and coordinate their efforts to enhance consistency and efficiency, while committing to delivering their respective first office actions within stipulated timelines.

ASPEC+ provides applicants with the flexibility to select AMS IP Offices based on their target markets. It also offers the advantage of receiving a first office action within approximately 10 to 14 months from the completion of formalities, depending on the complexity of the application. In addition, ASPEC+ increases the likelihood of obtaining similar or aligned examination results across the selected ASEAN IP Offices, allowing applicants to streamline prosecution by preparing coordinated responses where appropriate. This, in turn, enhances efficiency by optimizing time, effort, and resources, while fostering greater consistency in examination standards across ASEAN and reducing the overall complexity of securing patent protection in multiple jurisdictions.

ASPEC+ has the same accessibility features as ASPEC and remains free of charge for applicants. However, the official search and examination fees of the respective AMS IP Offices continue to apply. The existing ASPEC programme also remains available as part of the overall framework.

Eligibility requirements

ASPEC+ has clear, practical eligibility requirements as elaborated below:

1. A request for ASPEC+ must be filed at the selected AMS IP Offices either together with a new request for search and examination (or substantive examination), or for applications where such a request is already pending but no office action has been issued. The relevant official search and examination fees must be paid.
2. The request must relate to corresponding applications, meaning applications that claim priority to one another, share the same priority, or are national phase entries of the same PCT application.
3. The applications must contain identical claims or claims that sufficiently correspond across the selected jurisdictions.
4. The applicant must submit a request for ASPEC+ request form providing consent for the participating AMS IP Offices to exchange application information and documents.
5. The request must comply with local representation or requirements in accordance with the national laws.
6. Where any deficiencies are identified (including in the examination request, ASPEC+ request form, or claim correspondence), the applicant is required to rectify such deficiencies within the prescribed timelines set by the respective AMS IP Offices. Failure to respond to the rectification will result in exclusion from the programme.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Philippines does not accept ASPEC+ request for pharmaceutical patent applications and Malaysia do not accept ASPEC+ request for divisional application.

Differences: ASPEC vs ASPEC+

Strategic Implications

1. Parallel Collaborative Examination: The simultaneous examination across multiple ASEAN jurisdictions allows faster regional prosecution and the ability to coordinate responses across offices early. This also allows faster insight into patentability across multiple ASEAN jurisdictions.

• Consistency in Examination Outcomes: ASPEC+ increases the likelihood of aligned objections along with a uniform claim scope across Southeast Asia.

• ASEAN-centric Approach: Applicants will be able to decide their key Southeast Asian markets upfront and obtain more harmonized protection across the region.

Conclusion

ASPEC+ represents a meaningful step forward in the evolution of patent examination landscape in Southeast Asia. While the original ASPEC programme established a valuable framework for regional cooperation, in practice its impact has been uneven, with relatively limited reliance placed on ASPEC work products across many IP Offices in Southeast Asia.

ASPEC+ appears designed to address these longstanding gaps by introducing a more structured, parallel and time-bound examination approach. By encouraging simultaneous review and deeper collaboration between offices, it creates a stronger foundation for consistency and efficiency, areas where the earlier framework often fell short.

There is cautious optimism that ASPEC+ will drive greater engagement and practical reliance among IP Offices in Southeast Asia, and in doing so, unlock the full potential that ASPEC had originally envisioned. If this momentum is sustained, ASPEC+ could evolve into a credible regional pathway that begins to rival established programmes such as the Patent Prosecution Highway.

Ultimately, its success will depend on real adoption, not just in form, but in substance. Still, the direction is promising, and ASPEC+ offers a compelling opportunity to reshape how patent prosecution is approached across Southeast Asia.