CRI Guidelines 2025 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.
The computer programme per se limb of section 3(k) decides most software patent applications. Paragraph 4.5.4 of the CRI Guidelines 2025 gives the Office's four-step assessment, two worked examples and two indicative tables, and paragraph 4.5.5 adds flow charts for all four limbs.
Claims only about programmes, instruction sets, routines, "computer programme products" or storage media with instructions are excluded. But the words "per se" mean the exclusion is not absolute: a technical solution to a technical problem through technical means, with a technical effect beyond a mere incidental effect, takes the claim outside it (para 4.5.4). Novel hardware is not required. 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 legislative background see the opening article and our summary post on software patents in India. If a software claim has drawn a section 3(k) objection, a patent objection reply should be built around the four steps below.
What is excluded
Paragraph 4.5.4 names two kinds of claim that are excluded when they stand alone:
- claims only about computer programmes, sets of instructions, routines or sub-routines;
- claims only about "computer programme products", storage media having instructions, databases, or computer memory with instructions stored in a computer readable medium.
The word "only" matters. A claim to a medium storing instructions is not rejected for its form alone; it is rejected when the substance is the programme and nothing else (see the form and substance discussion in paragraph 4.4).
What "per se" leaves open
The Guidelines say the suffix means that the legislative intent is not absolute for all programme-led inventions, and that it leaves scope for things "ancillary thereto or developed thereon". They note that tests and approaches have evolved through the Office, stakeholders and the courts. Two statements stand out.
- Allowability under section 3(k) does not need novel hardware.
- A technical solution to a technical problem through technical means, achieving technical effects beyond mere incidental effects, may take the claim outside the exclusion even if achieved by a computer programme.
The court rulings behind this are described in our article on paragraph 3.5.
The four-step assessment (paragraph 4.5.4.1)
| Step | What the examiner does | What the applicant should show |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Construe the claim as a whole, looking beyond its wording and form to its actual objective and concept, and identify the essential technical features: the components and functions indispensable to its operation | A description that names the core components and what each does |
| 2 | Identify the core problem and the solution, and so determine the technicality | A clearly stated technical problem and the technical means that solve it |
| 3 | Decide whether the technicality results in a technical effect beyond a mere incidental effect | The effect, tied to the claim: performance of the system, control of a device, security, storage, signal quality |
| 4 | If yes, the claim is not excluded; if no, it is excluded as a computer programme per se | An argument that follows steps 1 to 3 in order |
The Guidelines add that their lists are indicative and every other scenario must be judged on the same principles.
Example 7 in the Guidelines: a recipe management system
The claim is a computing device with a processor and memory, recipe storage, a recipe input module, a search and display module, an ingredient scaling module and a shopping list module.
The Office's reasoning: the core purpose is information management and presentation for personal convenience. The problem (disorganised recipes, scaling by hand, manual list-making) is non-technical. The solution does not make the computer run faster, use less memory, speed data transmission, control a physical device or give an enhanced real-world outcome. Its effect is to organise information for the user's convenience, using standard programming techniques on a general purpose computer. It is excluded at step 4.
Example 8 in the Guidelines: an adaptive network optimizer
The claim is a system that senses real-time network conditions (interference, load), has controllers able to change transmission parameters such as power, frequency or routing, and a processor that analyses the data, decides optimal parameters and sends control commands to the controllers to maintain throughput and reduce latency.
The Office's reasoning: the problem is technical, being network performance and interference. The solution is a closed-loop mechanism combining sensors, controllers and an adaptive algorithm that directly manipulates the physical aspects of transmission. It identifies higher throughput, lower latency, greater reliability and efficient use of resources as technical effects. It is not excluded.
The two indicative tables
The Guidelines add two lists, both stated to be non-exhaustive. TaxClue summarises their themes rather than reproducing them.
| Theme | Direction in the Guidelines |
|---|---|
| Improving the internal working of the system: processing speed, storage access, memory use, database retrieval, compression, security and encryption, resource allocation, error detection | Such aspects may take a claim outside the exclusion |
| Governing external devices or physical processes: machine control, signal handling, sensor-based monitoring, embedded code driving a device, control of vehicles | May take a claim outside the exclusion |
| Concrete technical implementations: medical image analysis, distributed system consistency, simulation of physical systems, efficient training of models for a specific technical task, signal processing | May take a claim outside the exclusion |
| Code or programme products in isolation, or software defined only by its storage medium; data structures detached from a technical process | Within the exclusion |
| Moving a manual task onto a computer, presenting data, game rules, mental exercises, imitation of human reasoning, aesthetic output, symptom matching, simple lookups and preference-based playlists, each without a technical gain | Within the exclusion |
The point of both lists is the contrast between a claim that changes how a system or a device performs and a claim that merely does an ordinary task by computer.
The flow charts (paragraph 4.5.5)
Paragraph 4.5.5 presents flow charts of the examination procedure for each of the four limbs: mathematical method, business method, algorithm and computer programme per se. They are drawn as diagrams, one set per limb, and sit after the written steps. The written steps in paragraphs 4.5.1.1, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.3.1 and 4.5.4.1 are the text to cite in a reply; the diagrams in the official document are a visual aid to the same assessment, and the official document should be consulted for them.
How the objection is usually framed, and how to answer it
| Objection | Answer |
|---|---|
| "The claim is a computer programme per se" | Show the technical problem, the technical means in the claim, and the effect on the system or device |
| "The claimed effect is incidental" | Show an effect beyond what any programme running on a computer produces: measured throughput, reduced memory, a controlled device |
| "The claim is a storage medium claim" | Show that the claim is directed to the technical solution, not the instructions as such |
A worked example (invented)
Sahaj Health files a system for scheduling clinic appointments with a processor and memory. The examiner raises the exclusion, citing the pattern of Example 7. Sahaj's description, however, shows that the scheduler reduces database lock contention by a specific indexing structure, measured in query time. Sahaj amends the claim to recite the indexing structure and its use in retrieving slots, and argues step 3 on the technical effect on the database. The commercial purpose stays, but the claim now rests on a system performance effect that the Guidelines list as indicative.
Common lapses
- Relying on the claim's preamble ("a system comprising a processor and memory") as the technical content.
- Stating an effect in the description but not tying it to claim features.
- Describing the benefit as convenience or accuracy to the user.
- Treating storage-medium claims as a fallback without a technical core.
Need help with a software patent objection?
The strongest replies show the technical problem, the technical means and the effect in the claim itself. Our team can map your specification to the four steps and prepare the response. See patent objection reply. For further examples, read the Annexure I articles on Examples 41 to 50 and Examples 51 to 60.
Key takeaways
- Claims only about programmes or media storing instructions are excluded.
- "Per se" leaves room for programmes with a technical effect.
- Novel hardware is not required.
- The four steps are: construe, identify problem and solution, test for technical effect, conclude.
- The Guidelines' two tables are indicative; every case is judged on the principles.
Read next
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraph 4.5.3: the algorithm exclusion
- CRI Guidelines 2025, Annexure I: Examples 41 to 50
- CRI Guidelines 2025, Annexure I: Examples 51 to 60
- Software Copyright vs Software Patent: Which Protection
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.