Section 3 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.
Paragraphs 09.03.05.11 to 09.03.05.15 of the Manual cover the last five clauses of section 3: literary and artistic works (3(l)), schemes, rules and mental acts (3(m)), presentation of information (3(n)), topography of integrated circuits (3(o)) and traditional knowledge (3(p)). The Manual's paragraph on section 3(k), 09.03.05.10, sits between them and is no longer used.
The Office rejects claims whose substance is a creative work, a mental method or game, a way of presenting information, a circuit layout or traditional knowledge. For traditional knowledge the examiner searches the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) and other resources. Section 3(k): the CRI Guidelines, 2025 (para 6) delete the Manual's paragraph 09.03.05.10 on that clause, so it should not be relied on; read the CRI Guidelines instead. 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 an overview, see what cannot be patented under section 3 and software patents in India. If you are answering an objection, our patent objection reply team can help.
Where section 3(k) now sits
The Manual's paragraph on section 3(k) (mathematical or business methods, computer programmes per se and algorithms) is deleted by para 6 of the CRI Guidelines, 2025, which say the Chapter 09.03.05.10 of the Manual shall stand deleted. This article does not use it. For section 3(k), read the CRI Guidelines 2025: scope, definitions and the four limbs of section 3(k).
A related note: the Manual's list of works under section 3(l) (below) mentions computer programmes. For software claims, the CRI Guidelines now govern the position under section 3(k), and a claim should be prepared on that basis.
Section 3(l): literary, artistic and aesthetic works (09.03.05.11)
A literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation, including cinematographic works and television productions, is not an invention. The Manual's list of unpatentable items includes writings, music, fine art, paintings, sculptures, electronic databases, pamphlets, lectures, drawings, architecture, engravings, lithography, photographic works, applied art, illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, topography, translations and adaptations. It adds that such works fall within the Copyright Act, 1957.
The examiner's question is whether the claim is to the work itself. A claim to a device that produces or displays a work in a technical way is a different matter and is judged on its technical features.
Section 3(m): schemes, rules, mental acts and games (09.03.05.12)
A mere scheme or rule or method of performing a mental act or method of playing a game is not an invention, because it is the outcome of a mental process. The Manual's examples are a method of playing chess, a method of teaching and a method of learning.
Section 3(n): presentation of information (09.03.05.13)
Any manner, means or method of expressing information, whether visual, audible or tangible, by words, codes, signals, symbols, diagrams or any other mode of representation, is not patentable. The Manual's illustrations are a speech instruction in printed text with underlining for stress and vertical lines dividing words into rhythmic groups, a railway time table and a hundred-year calendar.
Section 3(o): topography of integrated circuits (09.03.05.14)
Because layout designs of integrated circuits are governed separately by the Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Layout-Design Act, 2000, the three-dimensional configuration of electronic circuits used in microchips and semiconductor chips is not patentable. A claim to the layout as such is therefore outside the patent system.
Section 3(p): traditional knowledge (09.03.05.15)
An invention which in effect is traditional knowledge, or which is an aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known components, is not an invention. The Manual treats traditional knowledge as knowledge already existing and gives two examples: the antiseptic properties of turmeric for wound healing and the pesticidal and insecticidal properties of neem. The examiner conducts the investigation using the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and other resources.
For the 2012 TK Guidelines that govern the screening of such applications, see TK Guidelines 2012: screening, who examines, Form 1 declaration and NBA permission and the six guiding principles on novelty and inventive step.
TaxClue's checklist
| Clause | What the examiner looks at | How the applicant answers |
|---|---|---|
| 3(l) | Is the claim to a creative or aesthetic work? | Show the technical apparatus or process, not the content |
| 3(m) | Is it a scheme, rule or mental method or a game method? | Show a technical implementation beyond the mental act |
| 3(n) | Is it only a way of expressing information? | Show a technical effect, not the presentation of information |
| 3(o) | Is it a circuit layout as such? | Claim the device or process and not the topography |
| 3(p) | Is it traditional knowledge or an aggregation of known properties? | Show a new and non-obvious technical contribution beyond the traditional use, with evidence that TKDL records do not disclose it |
For 3(p), the reply is evidence-led. Searching the TKDL before filing, and drafting the claims around what the TK records do not disclose, avoids an objection that the examiner can establish from the Library.
Worked example
Iyer Herbals Pvt Ltd files for a wound dressing containing turmeric. The examiner searches the TKDL and cites the antiseptic use of turmeric under section 3(p). The agent responds that the application claims a specific process for stabilising the active component in a polymer matrix and a dressing so made, which the TK records do not disclose, and removes the claim that simply recites turmeric for wound healing. A second application claims a board game scoring rule; the examiner raises section 3(m) and the applicant withdraws the claim to the rule, retaining a claim to the electronic scoring apparatus.
Need help with a section 3 objection?
Whether an objection is under 3(m), 3(n) or 3(p), the reply depends on what the specification shows as the technical contribution. Our patent objection reply team can review the application and prepare the response.
Key takeaways
- Section 3(l) excludes creative and aesthetic works, which fall under the Copyright Act.
- Section 3(m) and 3(n) exclude mental methods, game methods and the presentation of information.
- Circuit layouts are protected separately; the topography as such is not patentable.
- Traditional knowledge is not patentable; the examiner searches the TKDL.
- The Manual's paragraph on section 3(k) is deleted by the CRI Guidelines 2025; do not use it.
- The Act and Rules as now in force prevail over the Manual.
Read next
- Chapter 9: section 3(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f)
- CRI Guidelines 2025: scope, definitions and the four limbs of section 3(k)
- TK Guidelines 2012: screening, who examines and NBA permission
- Software patents in India
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.