Overview of the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) - 2025

House no. 316, Ground Floor "A" Sector, Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru- 560 064

1203, The Spire-2, Shital Park BRTS, 150 Feet Ring Road,Rajkot - 360007 Phone : +91 281 242 731

203, 2nd Floor, Shriji Palace,Savsar Plot, Main Road, Morbi-363641 INDIA Phone:91 2822225263

312-313, 3rd Floor,
Abhishek Complex, Akshar Chowk, Old Padra Road,
Vadodara 390 020 INDIA
Phone: (0265) 2322015

The "Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) - 2025" issued by the Indian Patent Office emphasizing the clarity on exclusions under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which bars patents for mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, or computer programs per se. The Guidelines is not rule-making but interpretive, subject to revisions based on court rulings and stakeholder input.

• Strategy for Examiners to Examine CRIs Considering Section 3(k)

• The Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) outlines a systematic approach to determining whether claimed inventions are excluded under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patentability for mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, or computer programs per se.
  
  The core principle is to evaluate the substance of the invention as a whole, disregarding the form of the claim, whether it is presented as a method, system, apparatus, or computer-readable medium. Examiners are instructed to construe the claims holistically to identify the invention's objective and solution, ensuring that if the essence falls within any excluded category, it is deemed non-patentable. A key requirement is the demonstration of a tangible technical effect or advancement, beyond mere incidental benefits from computer implementation.
  
  For mathematical methods, exclusion applies to abstract intellectual constructs such as pure calculations, equations, or data manipulations lacking practical application. The assessment involves construing the claim's substance, outlining the solution, and determining if the core is abstract mathematical processing—if so, it is excluded; if it integrates into a technical process, like signal processing for noise reduction in electronics, it is not. For instance, a system calculating compatibility indices solely through math is excluded, while a robotic control method using kinematics for physical movement is allowable, as the math serves a technical purpose.
  
  Regarding the Business methods, the business methods cover commercial or administrative strategies, such as transactions, marketing or management, and are excluded if the invention's core is business-oriented, even when implemented via technology (E.g. buy/sell goods through the website). The evaluation steps include checking objective and solution, identifying the core substance and, whether substance is business strategy—if yes, exclude; if it offers a technical refinement in a business context, like enhancing secure data transmission in financial systems, it qualify. For instance, a dynamic ad pricing, which is excluded as a revenue model, and a point-of-sale system with NFC for improved security, patentable as it refines technical infrastructure.
  
  Algorithms as abstract sequences of rules or steps, excluded if lacking technical enablement or real-world application. The process requires construing the steps, assessing for abstractness or enablement—abstract or unspecified steps lead to exclusion, while detailed, technically implemented algorithms solving practical problems do not. For instance, a generic pseudo-random number generator is excluded, but an encrypted data transmission method using permutation based pseudo random number generation is allowable due to its enabled technical solution.
  
  Computer programs per se are excluded if claims amount to mere instructions, code, or storage media without technical merit. The assessment involves construing essential features, identifying the problem-solution-technicality nexus, and verifying if it yields a non-incidental technical effect—if yes, it is not excluded. For instance, a simple recipe organizer (excluded as information management), and an adaptive network optimizer that improves metrics like throughput and latency (allowable).
  
  Overall, the guidelines ensure CRIs are scrutinized for genuine technical contributions, aligning with jurisprudence like Microsoft v. Controller, with flowcharts aiding decision-making and emphasis on reproducibility without undue experimentation.
  
  Further, the guidelines addresses the examination of inventions in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), blockchain, and quantum computing, focusing on sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10 and avoidance of Section 3(k) exclusions.
  
  AI/ML/DL inventions stresses that while rooted in mathematics like neural networks (e.g., ANN, CNN, RNN), they are patentable if applied in real world with technical effects. Regarding the AI as an inventor, Inventorship rules clarify that fully AI-generated inventions are non-patentable, as AI is not a "person" under Section 6, but AI-assisted ones may be if meeting criteria. Regarding the requirement of the sufficiency of disclosure, the Sufficiency demands detailed enablement, as per jurisprudence like Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller (2025), avoiding vague claims.
  
  Quantum computing inventions must disclose detailed hardware elements like qubits and cryogenic systems, moving beyond abstraction. Blockchain-related inventions, based on distributed ledgers and consensus mechanisms (e.g., PoA, PBFT), require descriptions of ledgers, smart contracts, and hardware interactions for sufficiency.
  
  In summary, the guidelines promote balanced examination, prioritizing technical contributions while upholding exclusions. Examiners must holistically assess substance, using structured steps to foster innovation in CRIs.