CRI Guidelines 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.
Paragraph 4.5.2 of the CRI Guidelines 2025 deals with business methods under section 3(k). It sets out what the Office means by a business method, warns examiners not to be misled by business vocabulary, and gives a three-step assessment with two hypothetical examples, one excluded and one not.
A business method is the whole range of activities in a commercial or industrial enterprise relating to transaction of goods or services. The Office looks at where the core of the invention lies. If the core is a commercial, financial or administrative strategy, the claim is excluded even if implemented by technology. If the core is a technical solution to a technical problem through technical means, it is more likely a technical invention, even in a business setting. 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 other limbs see the mathematical method article. A fintech or platform applicant who has received a business method objection can use a patent objection reply to put the technical core of the claim in front of the Controller.
What the Guidelines mean by a business method
The Guidelines define the term broadly, as all activities in a commercial or industrial enterprise that relate to the transaction of goods or services. They then add a caution that applicants should remember. Words such as "enterprise", "business rules", "supply-chain", "order", "sales", "transactions", "commerce" and "payment", or a business context such as profile matching, event planning, credit providing, employee scheduling, customer feedback analysis or customer relationship management, may not lead to the conclusion that the claim is a business method.
So the vocabulary of the claim is not decisive. The examiner has to evaluate the substance and where the core of the invention lies, asking whether the claim's primary function is an organised administrative or commercial strategy or a pure business strategy.
The two sides of the line
| Core of the invention | Treatment in the Guidelines |
|---|---|
| Essentially carrying out business, trade or financial activity or a transaction, or buying and selling goods through the web | A business method; not patentable |
| A financial scheme, marketing strategy or administrative process; the core idea lies purely in commercial rules or organisational approach, even if implemented with technology | A business method; not patentable |
| A technical characteristic of the underlying system or process, addressing how something is done from a technical perspective and giving a technical solution to a technical problem through technical means | More likely a technical invention, even if applied in a business context |
| A technical improvement to an underlying system or process, refining the operational framework or infrastructure, with the business context only as a constraint defining scope | Not a business method |
The Guidelines say the guiding factor is to look beyond the surface application and identify whether the invention lies in a commercial strategy or in a technical solution.
The Guidelines' own illustrations in the text
Paragraph 4.5.2 gives three short illustrations before the formal steps.
- A tiered service fee for a bank customer, based on balance and transaction volume, is a business method: the core is a revenue and customer management scheme.
- A new cryptographic technique to secure online banking transmission, or a technical process that speeds up transaction processing in the bank's server architecture, would likely not be a business method, because the substance is a technical improvement to the transaction infrastructure.
- A loyalty rewards programme with points, membership levels and discounts is a business method even when a computer tracks the points, because the invention lies in the strategy and not in any technical function beyond ordinary data processing.
The three-step assessment (paragraph 4.5.2.1)
| Step | What the examiner does | What the applicant should show |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Construe the substance | Understand the claim as a whole; capture its objective and solution; decide where the core lies | A description that identifies the technical problem and the technical means |
| 2. Identify the core | Is it (a) primarily an administrative, commercial or business strategy, such as a financial scheme, marketing strategy or rules for revenue, customer management or financial transactions; or (b) a technical improvement to an underlying system or process, with business context used only as a constraint on scope | Claim features that belong to (b): the technical steps, components or protocols |
| 3. Conclude | 2(a) means the claim is within the exclusion; 2(b) means it is not | Reply that tracks the step 2(b) language |
The first worked example: dynamic pricing of online advertisements
In the Guidelines' Example 3, a networked system has a server, a database of financial and advertisement performance data, and a pricing engine. It receives live bids, retrieves past performance for ad slots, applies business rules to calculate a dynamic price and tells a display module to show the ad at that price.
The Office's reasoning: the objective is to optimise revenue by automating pricing and placement. The server and database are only a computational framework for the business rules. The primary aim is to optimise financial outcomes in advertising. It falls under step 2(a) and is a business method.
The second worked example: tap-and-pay at a point of sale
Example 4 is a method for improving cashless payment at a point-of-sale system by adding a contactless card feature. The method configures the system with a near-field communication reader, receives payment data when the card is tapped, processes it with a secure payment protocol, sends it to the financial institution, receives the response and completes the transaction with a confirmation.
The Office's reasoning: the focus is on improving the operational infrastructure of the point-of-sale system by enabling secure contactless payment, with payments serving as a framework for a technical implementation. The steps address technical challenges such as detecting and communicating with the card, securely processing the data and ensuring compatibility with the payment network. It falls under step 2(b) and is not a business method.
Reading the two examples together
Both examples have the vocabulary of commerce. The difference is in what the claim adds. In the first, the price calculation from business rules is the invention. In the second, the invention is how the terminal and the card communicate and how the data is secured. A claim that improves the machinery of a transaction is treated differently from a claim that improves the commercial terms of a transaction.
How the objection is usually framed, and how to answer it
| Objection | Answer |
|---|---|
| "The claim is a business method as it relates to payments, pricing or scheduling" | Business context alone does not decide it (para 4.5.2); identify the technical problem and means |
| "The system merely implements business rules on a server" | Show the technical steps that go beyond standard data processing |
| "The core idea lies in the commercial rules" | Show that the rules are a constraint on scope, and the contribution is to the underlying system |
Note that the court ruling noted at paragraph 3.5.3 reads the business method bar as absolute in India and says the question is whether a business or administrative problem is addressed. The two-step approach in paragraph 4.5.2.1 is how the Office turns that question into an examination procedure: if the problem solved is a technical one, step 2(b) applies. Read the rulings article for the full picture.
A worked example (invented)
Tarang Pay files a claim to a method of allocating merchant fees by transaction tier. The examiner treats it as a business method. Tarang amends to a method of compressing and batching settlement messages between its servers and acquiring banks, reducing the number of network calls, and shows in the description the latency problem and the technical steps. The business setting remains, but the contribution has moved to the message handling, the pattern of step 2(b).
Common lapses
- Leading the claim with commercial terms such as tiers, rewards or ranking, when the technical contribution sits elsewhere.
- Describing the technical solution only in the description and not in the claim.
- Arguing that the invention is "implemented on a computer" as if that settled the matter; the Guidelines say technology implementation does not rescue a commercial strategy.
Need help with a business method objection?
If your product sits in finance, e-commerce, logistics or HR technology, the claim has to be written around the technical contribution. We can review the claim set and prepare the reply. See patent objection reply, and read next how the Office treats algorithm claims.
Key takeaways
- Business vocabulary alone does not make a claim a business method.
- The Office looks for the core of the invention: commercial strategy or technical solution.
- Technology implementation does not rescue a pure commercial strategy.
- Improvements to the underlying system, with business context as a mere constraint, are not excluded.
- The Guidelines give one excluded example (ad pricing) and one allowed example (contactless payment).
Read next
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraphs 4.5 and 4.5.1: the mathematical method exclusion
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraph 4.5.3: the algorithm exclusion
- CRI Guidelines 2025, Annexure I: Examples 21 to 34
- 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.