CRI explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Examples 41 to 50 in Annexure I of the CRI Guidelines 2025 begin the computer programme per se group. Applying the four-step test of paragraph 4.5.4.1, the Annexure finds that each of these ten claims is not excluded, because each gives a technical solution to a technical problem with a technical effect beyond mere automation. The next ten examples in the Annexure go the other way.
All ten examples (41 to 50) are found not to fall under the computer programme per se exclusion. Each pairs software with a technical setting (sensors and signals, storage and networks, embedded memory, device security) and the Annexure names a measurable technical effect: faster, more reliable, more secure or less resource-hungry operation of a system. The Guidelines are the Patent Office's guidance and do not have the force of law; the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003 as now in force prevail.
The Office revises its guidelines, so check the current version on ipindia.gov.in. For the four steps see the computer programme per se article. To prepare a software specification that shows these features from the start, see patent drafting and filing.
How each example is analysed
The Annexure follows the four steps. Step 1 identifies the essential technical features, the components that are indispensable to the claim. Step 2 states the technical problem and the technical solution. Step 3 names the technical effect, which must go beyond an incidental effect of using a computer. Step 4 concludes. The claims are invented by the Office; this article describes them in TaxClue's words and does not reproduce them.
The ten examples
| No. | Field | Outcome in the Annexure | Technical problem and technical effect found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | Adaptive traffic signal control using image sensors, a trained neural network and a signal controller in a closed feedback loop | Not excluded | Problem: static signal timing that cannot respond to live traffic and emergencies. Effect: direct control of traffic lights with shorter waits, lower fuel use and higher throughput |
| 42 | Compressing data in cloud storage by choosing a compression method per segment and placing data across storage nodes | Not excluded | Problem: inefficient use of storage and bandwidth. Effect: less storage, lower bandwidth use, faster retrieval and lower energy use |
| 43 | Correcting errors in wireless communication by adaptive coding, parity checks and selective retransmission | Not excluded | Problem: data loss and repeated retransmission on unreliable channels. Effect: less retransmission, better throughput and reliability, energy savings |
| 44 | Managing memory in embedded devices by monitoring usage, predicting demand and compacting memory | Not excluded | Problem: fragmentation and wasted memory that harm performance. Effect: better memory use, less fragmentation, improved reliability and lower power use |
| 45 | Securing IoT communication with certificate-based authentication, lightweight encryption and key rotation | Not excluded | Problem: vulnerability of constrained devices to interception and replay attacks. Effect: blocks unauthorised access, protects confidentiality and integrity, resists replay |
| 46 | Drone-based crop monitoring with multispectral cameras, image analysis and wireless reporting | Not excluded | Problem: slow, subjective manual inspection. Effect: early detection, targeted use of inputs, wider coverage |
| 47 | Real-time fraud detection on financial transactions with a trained machine learning model | Not excluded | Problem: slow and inaccurate manual or rule-based detection. The Annexure finds a technical effect from the integration of data capture, machine learning analysis and automated action |
| 48 | Spectrum allocation in wireless networks using distributed sensors and interference management | Not excluded | Problem: congestion and interference from static allocation. Effect: better use of spectrum and network throughput |
| 49 | Real-time network intrusion detection with packet inspection and a deep learning model | Not excluded | Problem: fast-moving attacks that manual or rule-based methods miss. The Annexure finds a technical solution through packet inspection, deep learning analysis and automated alerting |
| 50 | Hierarchical token-based secure access to industrial automation, with a zone token and a time-limited device command token | Not excluded | Problem: controlling remote access to actuators. Effect: enhanced security, controlled scope of access and real-time authorisation of each command |
What the ten have in common
Looking across the examples, the Annexure's reasoning returns to the same elements.
- Real data from a technical environment. Image sensors, spectrum sensors, packet streams, memory counters, radio channels.
- A control or protection step on a system. Traffic lights are adjusted, memory is reallocated, packets are retransmitted, a token is validated.
- A technical problem stated in engineering terms, not in commercial terms.
- Effects the Annexure calls measurable or concrete, and which are described as more than "mere automation or data processing".
- Several components working together. The Annexure uses the idea of synergy among the essential technical features.
Reading the more doubtful examples
Examples 47 and 49 (fraud detection and intrusion detection) are the ones most likely to be treated as general analytics. The Annexure reasons that each is a technical solution because of the integrated pipeline: real-time capture of data, feature extraction consistent with the model's training, analysis by a trained model, and an automated response. A claim that stops at "a model that scores transactions" would not have the same features. If your invention is of this type, the claim should recite the capture, the processing and the action taken.
Example 46 is similar: the drone, cameras and wireless reporting are the technical hardware around the image analysis. Take the hardware away and the claim would look more like the data analysis claims that the Annexure treats differently in Examples 51 to 60.
Using the examples in a reply
| Objection | Answer from the Annexure |
|---|---|
| "The claim is a computer programme per se" | Identify the technical problem, the essential technical features and the effect, in that order, as the Annexure does |
| "The effect is incidental to using a computer" | Point to the effect on the system: storage, throughput, latency, security, memory, device control |
| "The claim is analytics or data processing" | Show the capture and control steps that tie the analysis to equipment, as in Examples 41, 46, 47 and 49 |
Remember that the Annexure is indicative and non-exhaustive; the Act and Rules prevail and each application is examined on its own claims and disclosure.
A worked example (invented)
Vistaar Telecom files a method of choosing an error-correcting code for a wireless link, claimed as "selecting a code based on channel quality and transmitting data using it". The examiner treats it as a programme per se. Vistaar's specification describes parity checking at the receiver and a feedback path that triggers resending of only the damaged segments, with measured reduction in retransmitted data. Vistaar amends the claim to add the detection and selective retransmission steps and relies on the reasoning in Example 43 that the combination improves the operation of the communication system. The claim now carries the problem, the components and the effect.
Common lapses
- Reciting only the analytic step and leaving out the data capture and control steps.
- Describing the effect in marketing terms (smarter, faster) without naming the system parameter that improves.
- Treating the passing outcomes as a promise for any claim in the same field.
- Leaving the essential technical features scattered in the description instead of in the claim.
Need help drafting a software claim that shows its technical effect?
The claims in this part of the Annexure succeed because the technical features and the effect are in the claim. Our team can review your claim set against the four steps and the closest example. See patent drafting and filing and read next about Examples 51 to 60, where the outcome is different.
Key takeaways
- The Annexure finds all of Examples 41 to 50 not excluded as computer programme per se.
- Each pairs software with a technical environment and names a measurable technical effect.
- Analytics claims such as fraud and intrusion detection pass when they include capture, processing and automated action.
- The essential technical features should appear in the claim, not only in the description.
- The examples are indicative; the Act and Rules prevail.
Read next
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraph 4.5.4: computer programme per se
- CRI Guidelines 2025, Annexure I: Examples 35 to 40 on algorithms
- CRI Guidelines 2025, Annexure I: Examples 51 to 60
- Software Patents in India: Can Software Be Patented
Disclaimer: Based on the manuals and guidelines published by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks that are named in the article, as consulted on 4 October 2026. They are guidance and do not have the force of law; the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended (including the 2024 amendment rules) prevail, and the current versions on ipindia.gov.in should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.