Manual 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.
After novelty, the examiner asks whether the invention is obvious. Paragraphs 09.03.03.01 and 09.03.03.02 of the Manual state the general principle and the steps the examiner follows, together with judicial observations that the Manual quotes and cites.
Inventive step is a feature that involves technical advance, economic significance or both, and makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The examiner looks at the invention as a whole, may combine several documents only if the prior art leads the skilled person to do so, and treats a merely predictable or workshop improvement as lacking inventive step. A five-step check is set out. The Manual is the Patent Office's guidance and does not have the force of law; the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003 as now in force prevail.
Check the current Manual on ipindia.gov.in. For the definition, see section 2: invention, inventive step and industrial application, and for the broader overview what is patentable: novelty and inventive step. Applicants preparing a reply can use our patent objection reply service.
The general principle (09.03.03.01)
The Manual defines inventive step as a feature involving technical advance over existing knowledge, or economic significance, or both, which makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The order of examination is fixed: the examiner first checks whether novelty is established and then goes on to inventive step. This means a reply on inventive step is reached only if the novelty objection is answered or not raised; see novelty examination.
The steps in determination (09.03.03.02)
The Manual gives five working propositions.
| Proposition | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Prior art as a whole | The examiner relies on the prior art revealed in the search, taken as a whole, to judge whether it discloses the claimed invention |
| Invention as a whole | It is not enough to say the invention is obvious merely because individual parts of the claims are known or might be found obvious separately |
| Verification of predictions | If the invention only verifies earlier predictions, with nothing added for technical advancement or economic significance, inventive step is lacking |
| Mosaicing allowed here | Multiple prior art documents may be combined to show obviousness, if the cited prior art leads the skilled person to combine the teachings at the filing or priority date |
| Workshop improvement | If the invention is predictable from the prior art and needs only workshop improvement by the skilled person, inventive step is lacking |
Contrast this with novelty: there, combining documents is not allowed; here it is allowed, but only where the prior art gives a lead to combine.
What the Manual quotes from the courts
The Manual cites the Supreme Court in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd, as cited in the Manual, for the proposition that obviousness is to be strictly and objectively judged, and it quotes a test drawn from Rado v. John Tye & Son Ltd as cited there. It also cites the Delhi High Court in F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla, as cited in the Manual, which treated the Biswanath Prasad test as the governing one and refused to add further qualities to the person skilled in the art. The Manual then summarises the test in one line: obviousness must be strictly and objectively judged, and the invention is looked at as a whole.
The test, as the Manual frames it through those decisions, asks whether, with the common general knowledge at the priority date, a skilled craftsman or engineer faced with the problem would have been led to the claimed solution without knowing the invention. It describes that person as a competent craftsman or engineer, not a mere artisan.
The five questions the examiner asks
The Manual then lists the points to be objectively judged, looking at the invention as a whole:
- Identify the person skilled in the art: a competent craftsman or engineer as distinguished from a mere artisan.
- Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person at the priority date.
- Identify the inventive concept of the claim, or construe it if it cannot readily be identified.
- Identify the differences between the cited state of the art and the inventive concept of the claim.
- Viewed without knowledge of the alleged invention, decide whether those differences would have been obvious to the skilled person or required some degree of inventive ingenuity.
How to answer an inventive step objection
The five steps are also a framework for the reply. A reply that follows them is easier to read than one that argues in general terms.
| Step | What the reply should show |
|---|---|
| Skilled person | The field and level of skill, supported by the specification |
| Common general knowledge | What was generally known at the priority date, with evidence if disputed |
| Inventive concept | The claimed concept, stated in one sentence |
| Differences | A feature-by-feature comparison with the closest document |
| Obviousness | Why the prior art gave no lead to make the change, and the technical advance or economic significance achieved, as the specification discloses it |
Points for the applicant to keep in view:
- A combination argument fails if no cited document leads the skilled person to combine; say so, and say why.
- Effects and data stated in the specification are the usual way to show technical advance, so put them in the application as filed.
- The "invention as a whole" principle answers an examiner who has taken each feature from a different document.
- A claim that only confirms a prediction or is a routine optimisation will be treated as workshop improvement; amend or argue a real difference.
Worked example
Mehra Sensors Pvt Ltd claims a soil moisture probe with a self-calibrating circuit. The examiner cites D1 (a probe) and D2 (a calibrating circuit for a different instrument) and says the combination is obvious. The agent's reply follows the five steps: it defines the skilled person as an instrument engineer, identifies the inventive concept as calibration during insertion, shows that D1 and D2 give no lead to put the circuit in a probe exposed to soil, and points to the specification's data on measurement drift. The Controller decides on that record.
Need help with an inventive step objection?
A reply that follows the examiner's own steps is easier to accept. Our patent objection reply team prepares the comparison, the evidence and the amendments for a first examination report or a hearing.
Key takeaways
- Inventive step is technical advance, economic significance or both, and non-obviousness to the skilled person.
- The invention is judged as a whole; known parts taken separately do not make it obvious.
- Documents may be combined for inventive step only if the prior art leads the skilled person to combine them.
- Predictable or workshop improvements lack inventive step.
- The Act and Rules as now in force prevail over the Manual.
Read next
- Chapter 9: novelty examination
- Chapter 9: industrial applicability, sufficiency and unity
- Pharmaceutical Guidelines 2014: inventive step
- What is patentable: novelty and inventive step
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.