Patent Office frames guidelines on AI in patent examination: AI may assist, the Examiner or Controller stays fully responsible
The Office of the CGPDTM has published Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures. They list 12 typical uses with risks and safeguards, six prohibited uses — including feeding unpublished applications into public AI tools — and provide for an AI Governance Committee.
Key facts
- In force
- Guidelines published on the IP India website; may be revised from time to time
- Who it affects
- Patent applicants, patent agents and attorneys, Examiners and Controllers of the Patent Office
- What it is
- New facility
- Section
- Trademark & IP
- Published
- 7 August 2026
In 30 seconds
- The Guidelines apply to AI use in screening, classification, search, translation support, drafting support, technical comparison and knowledge retrieval.
- AI is intended to assist, and not replace, the Examiner or Controller, who remains fully responsible for every official act.
- Entering unpublished patent application contents, confidential office records or internal deliberative material into public AI tools is prohibited.
- No citation suggested by AI may be used unless independently verified in the original source; if that is not feasible, it is to be discarded.
- Where machine translation of a citation is relied upon, that fact is to be recorded in the reasoning on patentability.
- An AI Governance Committee of examiners, controllers, IT and QMS officers is provided for.
हिंदी में सार
CGPDTM कार्यालय ने पेटेंट परीक्षण में Artificial Intelligence के इस्तेमाल पर दिशानिर्देश प्रकाशित किए हैं। AI सिर्फ़ सहायक है — हर आधिकारिक काम की पूरी ज़िम्मेदारी Examiner या Controller की ही रहेगी। अप्रकाशित पेटेंट आवेदन की सामग्री public AI टूल में डालना, और बिना मानवीय जाँच के सिर्फ़ AI के आधार पर FER या आदेश जारी करना मना है। AI का सुझाया हर citation मूल स्रोत से जाँचना अनिवार्य है।
What has been published
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has published, on the IP India website, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures. Their stated objective is to guide and regulate the use of AI in patent examination in a way that supports efficiency and quality while preserving confidentiality, accountability, consistency and “the independent application of mind by the Examiner or Controller”.
The Guidelines are addressed to the Patent Office’s own officers. They matter to applicants and agents because they say what an officer may and may not do with AI while examining an application.
The core rule: human oversight
AI “is intended to assist, and not replace” the functions of the Examiner or Controller. Any use that may influence search or examination is subject to manual review and validation, and the officer remains fully responsible for every official act; the use of AI “shall not dilute or transfer such responsibility”.
Typical uses and safeguards
| Use of AI | Safeguard laid down |
|---|---|
| Identifying candidate IPC/CPC classifications | Check against an authenticated source such as the WIPO-IPC or CPC website; verify manually with the claims and complete specification |
| Generating search terms | The officer selects the terms with complete human oversight |
| Claim-feature extraction | No search or novelty / inventive-step analysis on an unverified AI-generated feature list |
| Translation support | Where machine translation is relied upon, that fact is to be clearly recorded in the reasoning for patentability |
| Improving the language of a draft office communication | Only after the officer has prepared the substantive draft; limited to grammar and readability |
| Legal or technical citations; understanding case law | No citation, verbatim quote or ratio relied upon without checking the primary source; if verification is not feasible, the AI-generated citation is discarded |
| Preliminary novelty or inventive-step analysis | AI output is only a preliminary assistive input; the final conclusion is the officer’s own analysis |
| Prior-art search with officially subscribed AI tools | Results assessed manually; final results selected by the officer |
The table in the Guidelines has 12 entries in all; clarity of claims and sufficiency of disclosure are also covered.
What is prohibited
- Entering unpublished patent application contents, confidential office records or internal deliberative material into public AI tools.
- Using AI as a substitute for the officer’s application of mind on novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, sufficiency, clarity or unity of invention.
- Issuing office actions, FERs, hearing notices or decisions solely on AI-generated output without adequate human oversight.
- Citing case law, prior art or literature suggested by AI without independent verification from authentic sources.
- Using AI-generated content in official communications without review, correction and adoption by the officer.
- Relying solely on AI for decisions affecting the rights of applicants, patentees or third parties — especially in opposition proceedings.
Administrative measures
The competent authority may prescribe that material use of AI be recorded — the name of the tool, the nature and date of use — and that disclosure “may be available to the stakeholders”. An AI Governance Committee, drawn from examiners and controllers, the IT Office and the QMS Division, may review and approve tools, run pilot studies and revise the Guidelines. Annexure-I gives illustrative examples; one shows an AI tool producing “verbatim quotes” from an IPAB order that it later admitted were reconstructions.
What applicants and agents can take from this
When replying to an examination report, check every cited document and case against the source. The Guidelines themselves require the officer to have done so, and to record reliance on machine translation.
Questions and answers
Can a patent examiner use AI to examine my application?
The Guidelines permit AI as an aid in tasks such as classification, search, translation support and drafting support, subject to safeguards. AI is intended to assist and not replace the Examiner or Controller, who remains fully responsible for every official act.
Can my unpublished patent application be put into a public AI tool?
No. Entering unpublished patent application contents, confidential office records or internal deliberative material into public AI tools is a prohibited use. Only approved internal tools or secure authorised environments, if any, may be used for such material.
Can an FER be issued purely on AI output?
No. Issuing office actions, FERs, hearing notices, decisions or other official communications solely on the basis of AI-generated output without adequate human oversight is prohibited.
Will applicants be told when AI was used?
The Guidelines say the competent authority may prescribe that material use of AI in specified functions be recorded, and that the disclosure may be available to stakeholders. Reliance on a machine translation is to be recorded in the reasoning on patentability.
Published 7 August 2026. Updated 8 October 2026. This report is for general information and is not professional advice. Read the source document before acting on it.