CRI 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.
For a computer related invention, novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability are examined in the same way as for any other field. Paragraphs 4 to 4.3 of the CRI Guidelines 2025 say so, and then add the step-by-step approaches the Office follows. The greater skill, the Guidelines say, is needed for deciding whether the subject matter is excluded, which is where the rest of the document concentrates.
Paragraph 4 states that novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and sufficiency are examined for a CRI as for other inventions. Novelty follows a seven-step approach drawn from a 2024 Delhi High Court ruling (4.1). Inventive step follows a five-point test built on the Supreme Court's obviousness standard (4.2). Industrial applicability needs a practical, non-speculative use shown in the specification (4.3). 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 general Manual practice on novelty and inventive step, see our articles on novelty and the search for anticipation and inventive step; this article covers only what the CRI Guidelines add. If an examiner has raised novelty or inventive step on a software claim, a structured patent objection reply should walk through the same steps.
Paragraph 4: the same tests, a different emphasis
Paragraph 4 says the procedure for CRIs is the same as for other inventions as far as novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, sufficiency of disclosure and clarity are concerned. What takes greater skill is deciding whether the claimed subject matter falls into an excluded category. In practice this means a software applicant faces two separate questions: is the subject matter excluded under section 3(k), and, if not, is it new, inventive and industrially applicable?
Novelty (paragraph 4.1)
The Guidelines call novelty the foremost requirement. An invention is not patentable if the subject matter as described and claimed was disclosed before the filing or priority date. For a CRI the test "is no different from any other field".
The Guidelines then set out a seven-step approach proposed by the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Lava International (28 March 2024), as cited there. TaxClue's summary of what the examiner is expected to do:
| Step | What the examiner does | What the applicant should make easy |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Understand the claims, which define the boundaries of the invention | Draft claims whose terms are explained in the description |
| 2 | Collect the prior art that predates the filing date and is relevant to the claims | Cite the closest documents you know |
| 3 | Analyse it, noting similarities and differences against the claim text | Provide a feature-by-feature comparison |
| 4 | Decide whether the prior art discloses the invention explicitly or implicitly | Show why a link cannot be drawn directly |
| 5 | Identify material differences across the entire scope of the claims | Point to the technical features that make the difference |
| 6 | Test the combination of claimed elements as a whole, not each element alone | Argue the combination, not a single feature |
| 7 | Record the finding with a clear rationale and references to the specific sections of the prior art | Ask that the objection identify those sections |
The Court's point, as the Guidelines present it, is also that novelty and obviousness must be kept apart: a document that does not disclose the claimed combination is not an anticipation, even if it makes the invention look obvious. The paragraph closes by saying novelty is also judged under the Act, the Rules and the procedure in Chapter 09.03.02 of the Manual.
Inventive step (paragraph 4.2)
Inventive step is decided under section 2(1)(ja), and for CRIs it is determined "in like manner" as for other categories. The Guidelines reproduce the definition and then rely on two rulings, both cited by name only: Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries (Supreme Court) and F Hoffmann-La Roche v Cipla (Delhi High Court). The Roche ruling is cited for the point that the Supreme Court's test governs and that no additional doctrine should be imported to modify it.
From these, the Guidelines tell the examiner that obviousness must be judged strictly and objectively and that the invention is to be looked at as a whole. Five points are then listed:
- identify the person skilled in the art, meaning a competent craftsman or engineer rather than a mere artisan;
- identify that person's relevant common general knowledge 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 state of the art and that inventive concept;
- ask whether, without knowledge of the alleged invention, those differences would have been obvious or needed some inventive ingenuity.
The Guidelines add that the Ericsson ruling of 28 March 2024 has emphasised this five-step approach again.
For software, the common general knowledge in step 2 is often the practical difficulty. Describe in the specification what a skilled person in that field knows at the priority date, so the examiner is not left to supply it. Our article on the Manual's inventive step chapter covers the same test as applied across fields.
Industrial applicability (paragraph 4.3)
Paragraph 4.3 defines the requirement as capability of being made or used in an industry (section 2(1)(ac)). It ties it to workability and usefulness: if an invention is not workable, it is not industrially applicable. The specification must disclose a practical application and industrial use, and a concrete benefit must be derivable directly from the description coupled with common general knowledge. The paragraph says a speculative use or a vague indication of possible objectives will not suffice.
For a software applicant this means the description cannot stop at an abstract model. It should say what the system or method does, in which kind of industry or technical environment, and what result follows.
How an objection is usually framed and answered
| Objection | Typical answer from the applicant |
|---|---|
| Lack of novelty over a cited document | Map each claim feature to the document and show the missing feature or the missing combination (step 6) |
| Lack of inventive step | Walk through the five points; identify the difference and why it was not an obvious step |
| Industrial applicability not shown | Point to the passages describing the practical use and the concrete benefit |
If the objection under section 3(k) is raised alongside any of these, answer each separately. A technical effect argued for 3(k) can support inventive step too, but the two are different tests.
Need help with a novelty or inventive step objection?
A reply that tracks the Guidelines' own steps is easier for the Controller to accept than a general argument. We can prepare the feature comparison and the technical-effect narrative for your claims. See patent objection reply, and for the sufficiency and claim-form issues in the next paragraph of the Guidelines, read paragraph 4.4 on sufficiency and means plus function claims.
Key takeaways
- Novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability are examined for CRIs as for any invention.
- Novelty follows a seven-step approach drawn from a Delhi High Court ruling cited in the Guidelines.
- Inventive step follows five points built on the Supreme Court's obviousness test.
- Industrial applicability needs a practical use shown in the specification, not speculation.
- Keep section 3(k) and these three tests separate in a reply.
Read next
- CRI Guidelines 2025: scope, terms and the four limbs of section 3(k)
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraph 4.4: sufficiency and means plus function claims
- Manual Chapter 9: how novelty is assessed
- Manual Chapter 9: 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.