Patent Examination Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions 2025

Page 2 of 63 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Terms/Definitions ................................................................................................................. 5 3. Legal Provisions and recent jurisprudence relating to CRIs ................................... 8 4. Examination Procedure Related to CRI Applications .............................................. 15 4.1 Novelty ............................................................................................................................. 15 4.2 Inventive step ................................................................................................................ 16 4.3 Industrial Applicability: ............................................................................................ 18 4.4 Sufficiency of Disclosure: .......................................................................................... 19 4.5 Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs: ........................ 22 5. Examination of Inventions related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), Blockchain, Quantum Computing ............. 45 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 45 5.2. Dealing with AI/ML/DL related inventions: ....................................................... 45 5.3. Dealing with Quantum computing related inventions: .................................. 57 5.4. Dealing with Blockchain related inventions: ..................................................... 60 6. Saving Clause of Provisions of Manual .......................................................................... 63 7. Applicability of Guidelines ................................................................................................ 63

Page 3 of 63 1. Introduction 1.1. Information Technology has gained special significance in the past few decades. It has emerged as a vital tool for scientific development. The term “Information Technology” encompasses the whole gamut of inputting, storing, retrieving, transmitting and managing data through the use of computers and various other networks, hardware, software, electronics and telecommunication equipment. Industry has witnessed rapid growth due to the computerization of activities which were hitherto carried out manually or mechanically. The advent of the internet and the World Wide Web (www) coupled with the exponential growth of processing and storage power has led to capabilities previously unheard of. Recent developments in the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Computer Science, such as advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain technology, quantum computing, cloud computing and the Internet of Things (IoT), are rapidly transforming industries and reshaping innovation. These technologies often involve complex algorithms, data processing techniques, and hardware-software integrations. In recent times centric to this advancement are Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing and Large language Model which are now recognized as core technologies that can revolutionize industries by enabling sophisticated automation, customized user experiences, and predictive analytics. These technologies are increasingly integrated into fields such as healthcare for early diagnostics, finance for risk management, and education for adaptive learning, enhancing overall system intelligence. Additionally, AI-driven natural language processing technologies are revolutionizing human-computer interactions by enabling virtual assistants, automated translation, and sentiment analysis tools, thus broadening accessibility and functionality. Cloud computing has significantly catalyzed this evolution, providing scalable and cost-effective solutions for data storage and processing, essential to modern IT architectures. The shift to cloud-based infrastructure allows organizations to handle extensive data volumes, facilitate collaboration, and deploys applications rapidly, making it a fundamental component in IT frameworks. Meanwhile, edge computing, a complementary technology to cloud computing, enables data processing near the source, reducing latency and accelerating real-time analytics—capabilities vital for the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart city applications. Quantum algorithms promise to solve complex problems in mere seconds, challenges that would take classical computing systems centuries to process. This capability could significantly impact fields such as cryptography, climate modeling, and pharmaceutical development. Quantum computing, regarded as a keystone technology of the future, is the focus of substantial investment from technology giants and research institutions striving to advance its commercialization. Cyber security remains a critical priority as digital transformation accelerates and cyber threats grow in complexity and frequency. Advances in cyber security technology, including AI-driven threat detection, empower systems to identify and mitigate cyber-attacks in real time, while blockchain technology provides enhanced data security through distributed

Page 4 of 63 ledger mechanisms. Privacy-centric computing techniques, such as homomorphic encryption and differential privacy, are also emerging as critical components, allowing organizations to extract insights from data without compromising individual privacy, thereby meeting regulatory and compliance requirements. The adoption of 5G/6G technology is further shaping the IT landscape by delivering faster, more reliable connectivity that supports advanced applications in field of communication such as in Internet of Things (IoT), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR). High-speed 5G/6G technology networks facilitate real-time data transmission across devices, creating new possibilities for remote work, smart infrastructure, autonomous vehicles, and immersive gaming and educational experiences. Collectively, these advancements are constructing a robust, interconnected, and intelligent digital ecosystem, paving a way for new patentable innovations. The convergence of technologies including AI, cloud computing, cyber security, quantum computing, 5G, and many more is driving a surge in patent applications, reflecting both the originality and applicability of these developments. As society and industry increasingly embraces a digital future, careful consideration of these issues is essential to ensure responsible and sustainable technological progress. However, this rapid pace of innovation brings a need to develop a complementary regulatory system for patent examination. 1.2. Creators of knowledge in the domain of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) have consistently endeavored for appropriate protection of their patent rights. The patent regimes have to cope up with the challenges of processing of patent applications related to CRIs. While examining applications for patent in these cutting-edge fields, it is essential to consider how these innovations transcend traditional software and algorithms to provide a technical solution. The core elements in the application of Information Technology are computers and their peripherals. CRIs comprise inventions which involve the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and techniques related thereto and include such inventions having one or more features of which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer hardware/software. 1.3. The aim of this document is to provide guidelines for the examination of patent applications in the field of CRIs by the Indian Patent Office so as to further foster consistency in the examination of such applications. The objective of this document is to bring out clarity in terms of exclusions expected under section 3(k) so that eligible applications of patents relating to CRIs can be examined efficiently and effectively. 1.4. The guidelines discuss various provisions relating to the patentability of CRIs. The procedure to be adopted by the Patent Office while examining such applications and the jurisprudence that has evolved in this field has also been discussed. Various examples and case laws relating to CRIs have also been incorporated for better understanding of the issues involved. It is important to mention that these guidelines do not constitute rule making. In case of any conflict between these

Page 5 of 63 guidelines and the statutory provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended), herein after referred as “the Act”, or the Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended), herein after referred as “the Rules”, made there under, the said provisions of the Act and Rules will prevail over these guidelines. The guidelines are subject to revision from time to time based on interpretations by Courts of law, statutory amendments and valuable inputs from the stakeholders. 1.5. It is important to mention that the case laws referenced in the Guidelines are intended for the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, and are inherently dynamic in nature. 2. Terms/Definitions The terms/definitions often used while dealing with CRIs are summarized hereunder. The terms which are defined in any of the Indian statutes have been construed accordingly and those which have not been given any statutory definition are normally construed in accordance with their use and ordinary dictionary meaning or judicial pronouncements. 2.1 Algorithm The term “algorithm” is not defined in Indian statutes. However, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs on 3 July, 2024 at Para 25 stated: “...An algorithm may be defined as a set of rules or instructions for solving a problem, typically through a sequence of steps or operations. Devising an algorithm would also, therefore, be an intellectual exercise and intellectual property protection would be limited to copyright protection, subject to originality, for the form of expression. While the expression is commonly used in the context of software-based routines in computers, as is evident from the above, it can be used in other contexts...”. 2.2 Computer The term “computer” is defined in The Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of 2000) as “any electronic, magnetic, optical or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software, or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network.” Microsoft Technology Licensing LLCvs Assistant Controller of Patents(3 July, 2024) ((T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023[OA/36/2020/PT/CHN])

Page 6 of 63 2.3 Computer Network The term “computer network” is defined in The Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of 2000) as “the interconnection of one or more computers through – (i) the use of satellite, microwave, terrestrial line or other communication media; and (ii) terminals or a complex consisting of two or more interconnected computers whether or not the interconnection is continuously maintained;” 2.4 Computer Programme The term computer programme has been defined in the Copyright Act 1957 under Section 2(ffc) as “"computer programme" means a set of instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, including a machine readable medium, capable of causing a computer to perform a particular task or achieve a particular result;” 2.5 Computer System The term “computer system” is defined in The Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of 2000) as “a device or collection of devices, including input and output support devices and excluding calculators which are not programmable and capable of being used in conjunction with external files, which contain computer programmes, electronic instructions, input data and output data, that performs logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval, communication control and other functions;” 2.6 Data The term “data” is defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of 2000) as “a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts, magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer;” 2.7 Firmware The term “firmware” is not defined in Indian statutes and hence, for interpretation of this term, the general dictionary meaning is being used. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines “firmware” as “a type of computer software that is stored in such a way that it cannot be changed or lost”.

Page 7 of 63 The Cambridge Dictionary defines “firmware” as “a computer program or data that is stored on a chip and that cannot be changed or lost”. 2.8 Function The term “function” is defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of 2000) as “"function", in relation to a computer, includes logic, control arithmetical process, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication from or within a computer;” 2.9 Hardware The term “hardware” is not defined in Indian statutes and hence, for interpretation of this term, the general dictionary meaning is being used. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines “hardware” as “the physical and electronic parts of a computer, rather than the instructions it follows”. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “hardware” as “the physical and electronic parts of a computer, rather than the instructions it follows”. 2.10 Information The term “information” is defined in The Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of 2000) as "information" includes data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes, computer programmes, software and databases or micro film or computer-generated micro fiche;” 2.11 Per se The term “per se” is not defined in Indian statutes including the Act, However, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on 3 July, 2024 at Para 25 stated: “...Black's Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, 11th ed., 2019, p. 1378) defines 'per se' as follows: “of, in, or by itself; standing alone, without reference to additional facts; this phrase denotes that something is being considered alone, and not with other collected things...”. Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents (3 July, 2024) ((T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023 [OA/36/2020/PT/CHN])

Page 8 of 63 2.12 Software The term “software” is not defined in Indian statutes and hence, for interpretation of this term, the general dictionary meaning is being used. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines “software” as “the programs, etc. used to operate a computer”. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “software” as “the instructions that control what a computer does; computer programs”. 2.13 Manual The term “Manual” as hereafter appears means “Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure” issued by the Office of CGPDTM, as may be amended from time to time, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. 3. Legal Provisions and recent jurisprudence relating to CRIs 3.1 The Patents (Amendment) Act 2002 (No. 38 of 2002) came into effect on 20th May, 2003. The Act defines “invention” under section 2(1)(j) as ““Invention” means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application;” “Inventive step” under section 2(1)(ja) as “ “Inventive Step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art; ” Further, “capable of industrial application” under section 2(1) (ac) as “"capable of industrial application", in relation to an invention, means that the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry;” 3.2 The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 also amended the exclusions from patentability under section 3 for CRIs as under: Definition of ‘Invention’ under The Patents Act 1970, after 2002 Amendments Definition of ‘Inventive Step’ under The Patents Act 1970, after 2005 amendments Definition of ‘Capable of Industrial Application’ under The Patents Act 1970

Page 9 of 63 (k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms; (l) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions; (m) a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game; (n) a presentation of information; (o) topography of integrated circuits; 3.3 While examining the Patents (Amendments) Bill, 2002the Joint Parliamentary Committee expressed the following views regarding suffix “per se” to computer programme in section 3(k): “In the new proposed clause (k) the words ''per se" have been inserted. This change has been proposed because sometimes the computer programme may include certain other things, ancillary thereto or developed thereon. The intention here is not to reject them for grant of patent if they are inventions. However, the computer programmes as such are not intended to be granted patent. This amendment has been proposed to clarify the purpose.” 3.4 Hence, as on date there are four limbs of section 3(k), namely: - Mathematical method, - Business method, - Algorithm, - Computer programme per se 3.5 Recent jurisprudence In the recent times, while dealing with matters pertaining to section 3(k) Hon’ble courts have articulated the interpretation of the legislative provisions, their meaning and legislative intent. The same has helped in evolution of jurisprudence with regard to CRIs. In fast evolving Indian jurisprudence of CRIs, there have been many decisions which have looked the allowability/non-allowability of CRIs under section 3(k) from different perspectives(Refer ANNEXURE-II). Though the case laws are inherently dynamic in nature and their reference would always be non- exhaustive in nature, yet excerpts from few of the related case lawsfor the purpose of elucidating jurisprudential evolution with regard to interpretation of the relevant provisions of section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, are given below: Report of the Joint Committee presented to the Rajya Sabha on 19th December, 2001 and laid on the table of Lok Sabha on 19th December 2001

Page 10 of 63 3.5.1 In the matter of FeridAllani vs. Union of India &Ors :Whileadjudicating a matter with regard to judging the non-patentability under computer programme per se exclusion of section 3(k), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of FeridAllani vs. Union of India &Ors on 12 thDecember, 2019 at para 11 commented on the importance of adopting technical effect and/or technical contribution test for deciding the patentability of computer program- basedinventions, it stated: “11. ...Across the world, patent offices have tested patent applications in this field of innovation, on the fulcrum of “technical effect” and “technical contribution”. If the invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or a “technical contribution” it is patentable even though it may be based on a computer program...” 3.5.2 In the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs:While deciding whether the claimed invention falls within the scope of exclusion under computer programme per se limb of the section 3(k) or not,Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 15thMay, 2023 at looked into the technical effect produced by the technical solution of the claimed invention and determined whether the claimed technical solution is beyond mere user interface design and whether the solution is closer to the heart of computer and network technology than user-interface. It stated: “41. … This technical solution goes beyond the user-interface level and provides a technical effect and contribution, that is patentable. The technical aspects of the invention, such as the use of cookies and two-factor authentication, are fundamental to the functioning of computer networks and are not limited to the user-interface…. Additionally, the use of multiple cookies for authentication is a technical solution that goes beyond mere user interface design and involves complex network-level communication protocols. The technical aspects of the invention are closer to the heart of computer and network technology, rather than user-interface...”. 3.5.3 In the matter of OpentvInc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs :While adjudicating on whether the claimed subject matter falls under the exclusion ofbusiness method or not, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of OpentvIncvs. The Controller Of Patents AndDesigns on 11 thMay, 2023 at paras 67 and 72- 73delved into the differences of Indian legislative provisions regarding section 3(k) vis-à-vis those under UK and EP Law. The fact that unlike UK or EP laws, in FeridAllani vs. Union Of India &Ors [W.P.(C) 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019] Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD- PAT) 29/2022] OpentvInc vs The Controller Of Patents AndDesigns[C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2021]

Page 11 of 63 Indian law “per se” is suffixed only to computer programme per se exclusions and not with any other limbs of section 3(k), was clearly brought out in this decision. Hon’ble Court stated: “67. …the exclusion in respect of business methods is an absolute one and is not restricted by the words 'per se' as in the case of computer programs…” “72. …The qualifier `as such ‘thus applies in both U.K. and Europe to all categories of excluded inventions including business methods. Thus, the bar is not absolute and if there is something more than the business method itself, patenting could be permissible. However, in India, the phrase ‘per se’ does not qualify business methods. Thus, the patentability of inventions based on methods of doing business or financial transactions, raised on the basis of decisions from the U.K. and European Patent Office which analyse the technical effect of a business method invention would not be squarely applicable in India. The bar in India to grant of business method patents has to be read as an absolute bar without analysing issues relating to technical effect, implementation, technical advancement or technical contribution…” “73. …Thus, the only question that the Court or the Patent Office while dealing with patent applications involving a business method, needs to consider is whether the patent application addresses a business or administrative problem and provides a solution for the same…” 3.5.4 In the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs: While looking into the exclusion under mathematical method, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on 3rdJuly, 2024 observed that mere presence of a mathematical formula in a claim would not necessarily render it 'a mathematical method' claim. Hon’ble Court at Para 23 stated: “…A mathematical method is a specific approach to resolve a mathematical problem or question and would typically involve a series of steps. Consequently, at the idea or concept level, it would be ineligible for any kind of intellectual property protection. The CRI Guidelines 2017 suggest - and, in my view, correctly - that the mathematical method exclusion is intended to exclude the mere expression of an intellectual exercise, such as a method of calculation, the formulation of equations and the like. By way of illustration, Brent's method in numerical analysis to find the root or the Adams' method of solving differential equations would be excluded. Said Guidelines also clarify - again, correctly - that the mere presence of a mathematical Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents (3 July, 2024) ((T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023 [OA/36/2020/PT/CHN])

Page 12 of 63 formula in a claim would not necessarily render it 'a mathematical method' claim…”. 3.5.5 In the matter of Raytheon Company vs Controller General Of Patents And Designs:While dealing with exclusions under computer programme per se, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Raytheon Company vs Controller General Of Patents And Designs on 15thSeptember, 2023 at para 21 reiterated the importance of technical effect and/or technical contribution test and categorically barred the requirement of novel hardware and termed it as lacking any legal basis. It stated: “21. ...in case of computer related inventions, the patent office needs to examine if there is a technical contribution or as to what is the technical effect generated by the invention as claimed...The requirement of novel hardware is a higher standard which lacks any basis in law…” 3.5.6 In the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs:While looking into theways to overcome the limitations imposed under section 3(k), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 16thApril, 2024 at paras 33, 34 and 35 commented that the claimed invention upon implemented on a general-purpose computer must contribute directly to a specific and credible technical effect beyond mere general computing processes. It stated: “33. …in case of an invention involving computer programmes, to circumvent the limitations imposed by Section 3(k) of the Act, a patentee must demonstrate that the overall method and system disclosed in the patent application, upon implementation in a general-purpose computer, must contribute directly to a specific and credible technical effect or enhancement beyond mere general computing processes. Therefore, the inventive contribution of a patent should not only improve the functionality of the system but also achieve an innovative technical advantage that is clearly defined and distinct from ordinary operations expected of such systems…” “34. …From the claim construction analysis carried out, it is clear that the subject patent application discloses a method and system that not only provides a real- world application for complex mathematical transformations, including lapped transforms and reversible overlap operators, but also integrates these operations into a hardware setup (processor [4710] and data storage buffer [4740]) that performs digital media data compression. This integration significantly enhances the functionality of the hardware components of the subject patent application by Raytheon Company vs Controller General Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 121/2022] Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD- PAT) 185/2022]

Page 13 of 63 enabling efficient and reversible compression, which directly contributes to improved system performance and efficiency. Therefore, clearly the subject patent application enhances the functionality of the general-purpose computers that would implement the subject patent application…” “35. …Clearly, in the understanding of the Court, this optimization is not merely a theoretical improvement but is applied in practical hardware configurations, contributing a clear technical effect of enhanced data compression capabilities and reduced storage requirements during processing. Accordingly, the integration of the described methods and techniques into a digital media processor, as detailed in Claims involving specific hardware components of data storage buffers and processors, transforms the capabilities of general-purpose computing hardware into a specialised apparatus capable of efficient and effective data compression, which it otherwise was not expected to be capable of. This transformation also meets the criteria of further technical effect as stated to be a requirement in Lava (supra), wherein an invention that incorporates computer programmes or algorithms in such a way that it significantly enhances the hardware's functionality is considered patentable, as long as it meets the criteria for patentability …”. 3.5.7 In the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs:While looking into exclusion/non-exclusion of computer program based inventions, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs on 3rd July, 2024 at para 36 highlighted the importance of improving the system’s functioning and efficacy; and providing a technical solution to a technical problem to overcome section 3(k) related exclusion. It stated: “36.…Thus, even when the claimed invention relates to a CRI, if it results in a technical effect that improves the system's functioning and efficacy (effect on hardware), or provides a technical solution to a technical problem and is, therefore, not limited in its impact to a particular application or data set, it would surmount the exclusion under section 3(k) of the Patents Act…” Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [[(T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023, [OA/36/2020/PT/CHN]]

Page 14 of 63 3.5.8 In the matter of Ab Initio Technology Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs:While delving a little deeper into what constitutes technical effect and what not, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ab Initio Technology Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 30thJuly, 2024 observed that technical effect should be something which is beyond the usual 'user interface'. At para 38, Hon’ble Court stated: “38. …'Technical effect' is the bridge or the connect between an input and the processor. If an ingenious input system/method is able to allow the processor to give a more efficient and faster output and computation, the effect, in this Court's opinion, would be 'technical'. A 'technical effect' cannot be just about nuts and bolts, or hardware tweaks and transformations. If an innovative input [in form of a program] allows the hardware to process the output faster, then it would amount to a 'technical effect'. In other words, a well-designed innovative input in the form of a process, system, or method which enhances the computational ability of the processor would undoubtedly result in a 'technical effect' and which goes beyond the usual 'user interface'…” 3.5.9 In the matter of Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs:While adjudicating in a matter pertaining to exclusion under algorithms, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 30thAugust, 2024 observed the importance of implementation and enablement while judging exclusion under section 3(k) under the limb of algorithm. Hon’ble Courtat para 48 and 52 stated: “48. …Accordingly, it is evident that insofar as algorithms are concerned, if the invention relates purely to a set of instruction or policies which determine the flow without any substantial change in the hardware, such instructions even if they have a bearing on the manner in which the flow of data occurs would not be entitled to patent protection in India…” “52…Insofar as the patentability of inventions incorporating algorithms is concerned, if the invention relates purely to a set of instruction or policies which determine the flow without any substantial change in the hardware, such instructions even if they have a bearing on the manner in which the flow of data occurs would not be entitled to patent protection in India. But if the algorithm instructions are thereafter implemented through computer software coded for this purpose and result in a technical effect or technical contribution then the test applicable to computer software can also be applied and patentability can be adjudged. In such a case the inventive feature would have to be the implementation and not the algorithm itself…” Ab Initio Technology Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 26/2021] Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022]

Page 15 of 63 4. Examination Procedure Related to CRI Applications The examination procedure of patent applications relating to CRIs is the same as that for other inventions to the extent of consideration of novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and sufficiency of disclosure, clarity, definitiveness etc. The determination that the subject matter relates to one of the excluded categories requires greater skill on the part of the Examiner and these guidelines focus more on this aspect. 4.1 Novelty Novelty is the foremost requirement to determine the patentability of any invention. No invention can be held patentable if the subject matter as described and claimed was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority, as the case may be. The determination of novelty in respect of CRIs is no different from any other field of invention. In Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd on 28 thMarch, 2024,Hon’ble Delhi High Court while proposing a 7-step approach for novelty determination have stated at para 87-88 that: “87.…Taking into consideration the judgements given by various Courts, and the guidance given in the Manual, I have deemed it appropriate to develop a step-wise approach for determination of novelty. 88. When assessing the novelty of an invention, a Judge or even a patent examiner ought to follow a systematic approach to ensure a thorough and unbiased analysis of the invention claimed and the prior art cited. Another important aspect of the test for assessment of novelty in an invention is to maintain a distinction between the test of novelty and test for inventive step or lack of obviousness. I am of the view that the following steps, which may be referred to as the 'Seven Stambhas Approach' serve as guiding Stambhas are referred to as columns or pillars in Indian Architecture principles and provide a clear framework for assessing novelty, reflecting the distinction between novelty and non-obviousness: (i) Understanding of the Claims of the Invention • The determination of lack of novelty should begin with the understanding of the Claims of the invention as it is the Claims that define the boundaries of the invention and what the applicant considers as their novel contribution. Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd [CS(COMM) 65/2016]

Page 16 of 63 (ii) Identify Relevant Prior Art • Collecting the prior art, including any public disclosure, publication, patent, or patent application that predates the filing date of the patent application which is relevant to the Claims of the patent. (iii) Analyse the Prior Art • Conducting a detailed analysis of the identified prior art to ascertain its relevance to the Claims of the invention. This step involves searching and documenting both the similarities and the differences, if any, between the Claims of the invention and the text of the prior art. This step requires comparing the technical details and features of the prior art against those claimed in the invention. (iv) Determine Explicit and Implicit Disclosures • Examining whether the prior art explicitly or implicitly discloses the same invention. Explicit disclosure means the prior art directly describes the invention claimed. Implicit disclosure refers to whether the prior art describes elements or aspects so similar to the claimed invention that a direct link can be drawn. (v) Assessment material differences while considering the entire scope of the Claims • Identifying the material differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, if any, such that a material difference would indicate that the claimed invention has not been disclosed in the prior art and, therefore, the invention, is novel. (vi) Verifying Novelty in light of Comprehensive Scope and Specific Combination of Claimed Elements • Evaluation of novelty of the invention is carried out in light of the comprehensive scope of its claims, not just individual elements. • The invention is novel only if the combination of claimed elements as a whole has not been previously disclosed. (vii) Documentation of the Analysis and Novelty Determination • Specify the finding of the examination of novelty, while providing a clear rationale for the said determination. The specific documentation must include references to specific sections of the prior art examined and a reasoning as to how the section affects the novelty of the claims and the inventive concept of the invention.” [Emphasis added] Apart from the above, the novelty criterion is judged under various provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and also based on the procedures laid out in chapter 09.03.02 of the Manual. 4.2 Inventive step Inventive step is decided in accordance with the provisions of section 2(1) (ja) of the Act. The determination of inventive step with regard to CRIs is carried out in like manner as in other categories of inventions.

Page 17 of 63 As per 2(1) (ja), "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art; Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on inventive step: In Biswanath Prasad RadheyShyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd it was held that “…The 'obviousness' has to be strictly and objectively judged. For this determination several forms of the question have been suggested. The one suggested by Salmond L. J. in Rado v. John Tye& Son Ltd. is apposite. It is: "Whether the alleged discovery lies so much out of the Track of what was known before as not naturally to suggest itself to a person thinking on the subject, it must not be the obvious or natural suggestion of what was previously known…" “…Another test of whether a document is a publication which would negative existence of novelty or an "inventive step" is suggested, as under:" Had the document been placed in the hands of a competent craftsman (or engineer as distinguished from a mere artisan), endowed with the common general knowledge at the 'priority date',who was faced with the problem solved by the patentee but without knowledge of the patented invention, would he have said, "this gives me what I want?" (Encyclopedia Britannica; ibid). To put it in another form: "Was it for practical purposes obvious to a skilled worker, in the field concerned, in the state of knowledge existing at the date of the patent to be found in the literature then available to him, that he would or should make the invention the subject of the claim concerned?..." In the F. Hoffman la Roche v Cipla case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had observed that the obviousness test is what is laid down in Biswanath Prasad RadheyShyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR 1982 SC 1444)and that “Such observations made in the foreign judgments are not the guiding factors in the true sense of the term as to what qualities that person skilled in the art should possess. The reading of the said qualities would mean qualifying the said statement and the test laid down by the Supreme Court.” Hon’ble High Court further added “From the bare reading of the afore quoted observations of Supreme Court, it is manifest that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test for the purposes of ascertaining as to what constitutes an inventive step which is to be seen from the standpoint of technological advancement as well as obviousness to a person who is skilled in the art. It is to be emphasized that what is required to be seen is that the invention should not be obvious to the person skilled in art. These are exactly the wordings of New Patents Act, 2005 u/s Section 2(ja) as seen above. Therefore, the same cannot be read to mean that there has to exist other qualities in the said person like unimaginary nature of the person or any other kind of person having distinct qualities……. Normal and grammatical meaning of the said person who is skilled in art would presuppose that the said person would have the knowledge and the skill in the said field of art and will not be unknown to a particular field of art and it is from that angle one has to see that if the said document which is prior patent if placed in the hands Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR 1982 SC 1444) F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central, ... on 7 September, 2012

Page 18 of 63 of the said person skilled in art whether he will be able to work upon the same in the workshop and achieve the desired result leading to patent which is under challenge. If the answer comes in affirmative, then certainly the said invention under challenge is anticipated by the prior art or in other words, obvious to the person skilled in art as a mere workshop result and otherwise it is not. The said view propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biswanath Prasad (supra) holds the field till date and has been followed from time to time by this Court till recently without any variance…. Therefore, it is proper and legally warranted to apply the same very test for testing the patent; be it any kind of patent. It would be improper to import any further doctrinal approach by making the test modified or qualified what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Biswanath Prasad (supra).” The “obviousness” must be strictly and objectively judged. While determining inventive step, it is important to look at the invention as a whole. Accordingly, the following points need to be objectively judged to ascertain whether, looking at the invention as a whole, the invention does have inventive step or not: 1. Identify the "person skilled in the art", i.e., competent craftsman or engineer as distinguished from a mere artisan; 2. Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person at the priority date; 3. Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it; 4. Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed; 5. Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of inventive ingenuity? Recently, in Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd on 28 th March, 2024, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has further emphasised on the above mentioned 5-step analysis approach for Inventive Step determination. 4.3 Industrial Applicability: Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR 1982 SC 1444) Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) vs Lava International Ltd [CS(COMM) 65/2016]

Page 19 of 63 Inpatent law, industrial applicability or industrial application is a patentability requirement according to which a patent can only be granted for an invention which is capable of industrial application, i.e. for an invention which can be made or used in some kind of industry. It has been defined in section 2(1) (ac) of the Act as follows: "capable of industrial application", in relation to an invention, means that the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry; The requirement of workability and usefulness are both connected to the requirement of industrial applicability. If an invention is not workable, it means that it is also not industrially applicable. The patent specification must disclose a practical application and industrial use for the claimed invention wherein a concrete benefit must be derivable directly from the description coupled with common general knowledge. Mere speculative use or vague and speculative indication of possible objective will not suffice. 4.4 Sufficiency of Disclosure: Grant of patents is quid pro quo to disclosure. It is for the disclosure of invention by the applicant that the patent rights are granted to him for a limited period of time, if all criteria of patentability are fulfilled. The requirement of “Sufficiency of Disclosure” is essential to determine whether the application is sufficiently clear, informative, and meets statutory requirements for disclosure. These requirements aim to ensure that the invention can be understood, replicated, and practically applied by a person skilled in the relevant technical field. This requirement ensures that patent fulfils its purpose as tool for technological advancement, fair competition, and public benefit and fosters a balanced and effective patent system by supporting innovation while safeguarding public access to technological knowledge. The requirement for "sufficiency of disclosure" under the Act is established in Section 10 of the Act, under the section titled "Content of Specification". Specifically, Section 10 (4) of the Act provides that any Complete Specification shall: a) fully and particularly describe the invention and its operation or use and the method by which it is to be performed; b) disclose the best method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim protection; c) end with a claim or claims defining the scope of the invention for which protection is claimed; d) be accompanied by an abstract to provide technical information on the invention." something for something" or "this for that" in Latin

Page 20 of 63 The Act requires the applicant to specify “what” the invention is and “how” to perform it. The invention shall be described fully and particularly to satisfy the “what” requirement and further the best method of performing the invention known to the applicant to satisfy the “how” requirement. The Complete Specification should therefore disclose the invention fully and particularly to meet the requirement of the Act and should also enable a person skilled in the art to work the invention without any assistance of the patentee or any further undue experimentation. The description must be unambiguous, clear, correct and accurate. It must not contain any statements which may mislead the person skilled in the art to whom the specification is addressed. While the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure is considered generally in all fields of invention; in cases of patent application concerning CRIs, these requirements are considered as fulfilled if the specification addresses the “What” and “How” requirements. Fully and particularly (What): If the patent application relates to apparatus/system/device, i.e., hardware-based inventions, each and every feature of the invention shall be described with suitable illustrative drawings. If the invention relates to “method”, the necessary sequence of steps shall clearly be described so as to distinguish the invention from the prior art with the help of the flowcharts and other information required to perform the invention along with their implementing mechanism. The specification shall describe the working relationship of different components together with connectivity. It shall also describe the desired result/output or the outcome of the invention as envisaged and any intermediate applicable components/steps. Best Method of performing the invention (How): The best mode of performing and/or use of the invention shall be described with suitable illustrations. The specification should not limit the description of the invention only to its functionality rather it should specifically and clearly describe the implementation of the invention. In field of Computer Related Inventions, one peculiar issue is that many times the problem statements or prospective use case scenario of a particular technology itself may be extrapolated and camouflaged as a proposed solution and filed as patent application, therefore, the disclosure requirements are critical and need to be specific and particular to the invention. It is important that the aspect that is claimed as the novel and inventive solution, must be disclosed fully and particularly. 4.4.1 Claims: 1. The claims should clearly define the scope of the invention and should take care of unity of invention requirements as defined under section 10(5) of the Act.

Page 21 of 63 2. The claim(s) of a Complete Specification should be clear and succinct and should be fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification. 3. The claims in the field of CRIs need to be construed to ascertain the substance of the claim without wholly relying on the forms and types of the claims. 4.4.2 Form and substance: Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms from patentability. While the judgment of mathematical methods or business methods is comparatively easier, it is the computer programme per se or algorithms related inventions that require careful consideration of the Examiner. Computer programmes are often claimed in the form of method claims or system claims with some “means” indicating the functions of flow charts or process steps. The algorithm related claims are even wider than the computer programmes claimed by themselves as a single algorithm can be implemented through different programmes in different computer languages. If, in substance, claims in any form such as method/process, apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable medium belong to the said excluded categories, they would not be patentable. Even when the issue is related to hardware/software relation, the expression of the functionality as a “method” is to be judged on its substance. It is well-established that, in patentability cases, the focus should be on the underlying substance of the invention, not the particular form in which it is claimed. The Act clearly excludes computer programmes per se and the exclusion should not be allowed to be avoided merely by camouflaging the substance of the claim by its wording. It is important to note that section 3(k) does not limit that only system or only method claims are to be granted in a computer related patent application. If the specification has descriptional support, both set of method as well as system claims may be allowed even if they are claimed as independent claims; there is no bar on that aspect.Further,anon-exhaustive indicative list of examples pertaining to allowable/non-allowable method as well as system claims vis-à-vis section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 has been annexed as ANNEXURE-I. 4.4.3 Means plus Function: The claims concerning CRIs are often phrased in means for performing some function such as means for converting digital to analog signal etc. These types of claims are termed as means plus function format. The “means” mentioned in the claims shall clearly be defined with the help of structural features and their reference numerals to enhance the intelligibility of the claims. The claims in means plus function form shall not be allowed if the structural features of those means are not disclosed in the specification. “Means” in the means plus function claims shall be limited to the means

Page 22 of 63 disclosed in the specification. The specification must disclose the corresponding structure that performs the function, wherein, the structure may be the specific hardware, firmware, or software module disclosed in the specification and drawings that implements the claimed function. 4.5 Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs: Along with determining the merit of invention as envisaged under Sections 2(1)(j), (ja) and (ac), the Examiner should also determine whether or not they are patentable inventions under Section 3 of the Act. The sub-section 3(k) excludes mathematical methods or business methods or computer programme per se or algorithms from patentability. Computer programmes are often claimed in the form of algorithms as method claims or system claims with some “means” indicating the functions of flow charts or process steps. It is well-established that, while establishing patentability, the focus should be on the underlying substance of the invention and not on the particular form in which it is claimed. What is important is to judge the substance of claims taking whole of the claim together. If any claim in any form such as method/process, apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable medium falls under the said excluded categories, such a claim would not be patentable. However, if in substance, the claim, taken as whole, does not fall in any of the excluded categories, the patent should not be denied. Based on the legislative provisions and the jurisprudence in the recent times,the determination of whether subject matter of the claimed invention is patentable or non- patentable with regard to the four limbs of section 3(k) may be determined in the following manner: 4.5.1 “Mathematical Method”: Mathematical methods are a particular example of the principle that purely abstract or intellectual methods are not patentable. Mathematical methods like method of calculation, formulation of equations, finding square roots, cube roots and all other similar acts of mental skill are therefore, not patentable. Similarly mere manipulations of abstract idea or solving purely mathematical problem/equations without specifying a practical application also attract the exclusion under this category. However, mere presence of a mathematical formula in a claim, to clearly specify the scope of protection being sought in an invention, may not necessarily render it to be a “mathematical method” claim. Also, such exclusions may not apply to inventions that include mathematical formulae and resulting in systems for encoding, reducing noise in communications/ electrical/electronic systems or encrypting/ decrypting electronic communications.

Page 23 of 63 4.5.1.1 Assessing whether the claimed invention is a mathematical method: 1. Construe the substance of claimed invention: Understanding the claimed invention in its entirety to capture its primary underlying objective andthe solution it aims to provide. 2. Determination regarding the identified solution: The identified solution in Step 1 shall be assessed to determine: a) Whether the solution, in its essence, lies in abstract mathematical processing by inherently showing only operations/functions of equations, statistical models, mathematical computations or alike, only to define any output. OR b) Whether the mathematical processing is not the primary objective but part of a larger technical process, where the output calculation is not the main aim rather it contributes to achieving a broader technical objective 3. If the determination in step 2 matches with 2(a), then the claimed subject matter falls under exclusion of “Mathematical Method”; else if the determination matches with 2(b), then the claimed subject matter does NOT fall under exclusion of “Mathematical Method”. 4.5.1.2 Understanding assessment of Mathematical Method exclusions through hypothetical examples: Example 1: System for data compatibility index calculation Claim: A data processing system for determining the compatibility between two datasets, the system comprising: a) a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, storing instructions and data; b) and a compatibility analysis module stored in the memory and executable by the processor, the compatibility analysis module configured to: receive a first dataset and a second dataset; c) apply a predefined mathematical formula to the first and second datasets to calculate a compatibility index. d) and output the compatibility index. Analysis of Example 1: Step 1- Construing the substance of claimed invention: Based on a substance analysis, the core objective and concept of the above claimliesin the application of a predefined mathematical formula to two datasets to calculate a compatibility index.

Page 24 of 63 Step 2- Determination regarding the identified solution:The core functionality is the application of a predefined mathematical formula, which is inherently a mathematical operation. The output-the compatibility index is directly the result of this mathematical computation, with this calculation as the core objective of the claimed invention. The essence of the invention is the mathematical calculation itself and the numerical result it produces. The compatibility index is defined by the formula, and the system is merely used as a tool to perform this mathematical operation. Step 3: Since the invention’s essence is the mathematical computation itself, and it does not contribute to a larger technical process, it satisfies the conditions of step2(a) and is considered as falling under mathematical method exclusion of section 3(k). Example 2: Method for controlling a robotic arm. Claim: A method for controlling a robotic arm to position its end effector at a specified target location in a three-dimensional workspace, the method comprising: a) Receiving input parameters defining a target position for the end effector of the robotic arm, the parameters including three-dimensional coordinates (x, y, z) and optionally orientation data (pitch, yaw, roll) to specify the position and alignment of the end effector relative to a reference frame; b) calculating the required joint angles for the robotic arm using inverse kinematics equations, based on the input parameters, the arm’s kinematic model (including segment lengths and joint types), and constraints such as joint angle limits and collision avoidance, to determine the precise angles for each joint to position the end effector at the target location; c) generating control signals based on the calculated joint angles and transmitting the signals to actuators of the robotic arm to move its joints to the calculated angles, using feedback from sensors to ensure accurate positioning, thereby positioning the end effector at the specified target position. Analysis of Example 2: Step 1- Construing the substance of claimed invention:The primary objective is to control a robotic arm to achieve precise positioning of its end effector in a physical workspace enabling tasks. The method uses inverse kinematics equations to determine the angles for each joint of the robotic arm (e.g., shoulder, elbow, wrist) required to place the end effector at the target position. This calculation accounts for the arm’s physical structure (lengths of segments, joint types) and constraints (e.g., maximum joint angles, avoiding collisions with obstacles). The calculated joint angles are translated into control signals that drive the arm’s actuators. Step 2- Determination regarding the identified solution: The identified solution involves mathematical calculations like calculating joint angles using inverse kinematics equations, solving a system of nonlinear equations based on the arm’s kinematic chain (the geometric relationship between its joints and segments). It allows to translate a desired end effector position into physical arm movement. It combines data input,

Page 25 of 63 mathematical computation, and mechanical actuation to achieve the movement of the robotic arm to perform a task in the real world. The calculation is not the core goal but a necessary intermediate step. The equations are solved to determine how to configure the arm’s joints. The method starts with a practical input (target coordinates) and ends with a physical action (moving the arm). The mathematical steps serve a broader technical process of controlling the arm’s movement. The output of the calculation (joint angles) is not the final product but it is used to generate control signals that drive physical actuators. Step 3: The mathematical processing is not the primary objective but a part of a larger technical process aimed at achieving precise control of a robotic arm’s physical movement. The output of the calculation (joint angles) contributes to a broader technical objective (positioning the end effector). Thus, the solution satisfies the conditions of step 2(b) and is considered as NOT falling under mathematical method exclusion of section 3(k). 4.5.2 “Business Method”: The term “Business Method” involves whole gamut of activities in a commercial or industrial enterprise relating to transaction of goods or services. It is important to note that mere presence of the words such as “enterprise”, “business”, “business rules”, “supply-chain”, “order”, “sales”, “transactions”, “commerce”, “payment” etc. or a business context such as “profile matching”, “relationship matching”, “event planning”, “credit providing”, “employee scheduling”, “customer feedback analysis”, “customer relationship management” etc. in the claims may not lead to the conclusion of the claimed invention being a “Business Method”. The decision regarding allowability/non-allowability under Business method lies in evaluating the substance of the claimed invention and where the core of invention lies. It is to be determined whether the claim’s primary function is an organized administrative or commercial strategy or a pure business strategy. In case the claimed subject matter is essentially about carrying out business/ trade/ financial activity/ transaction and/or a method of buying/selling goods through web, it should be treated as business method and shall not be patentable. If the invention's core contribution is a method of conducting business, such as a financial scheme, a marketing strategy, or an administrative process, then even if implemented using technology, if the core idea resides purely in the commercial rules or organizational approach, it shall not be patentable. However, if the core of invention has technical characteristic to the underlying system or process, addressing how something is done from a technical perspective and provides technical solution to a technical problem through technical means, then it is more likely to be considered a technical invention, even if applied in a business context.

Page 26 of 63 Therefore, the guiding factor in assessing these claims is to look beyond the surface application and identify whether the invention lies in a commercial strategy or a technical solution to a technical problem through technical means. It is important to assess if the claimed invention focuses on a technical improvement/solution to an underlying system or process, aimed at refining operational framework or infrastructure, and using business context only as a constraint to define the scope of the invention, then it is not considered to be a business method. For example, a claim that describes a method for a bank to calculate and apply a tiered service fee structure based on a customer's account balance and transaction volume would, in its substance, be a business method because the core of the invention is a scheme for revenue generation and customer management-an organized administrative and financial strategy. It dictates how the business (the bank) interacts commercially with its customers and charges for services. Conversely, if a claim describes a new cryptographic technique to secure data transmission during online banking, or technical process that significantly speeds up the transaction processing time within the bank's server architecture by optimizing data handling at a technical level, this would likely not be considered a business method as the substance is a technical improvement to the underlying financial transaction engine or infrastructure, rather than defining a method of doing financial business. Another example could be a claim directed towards a method for optimizing customer engagement through a loyalty rewards program. If the claim outlines steps such as awarding points based on purchase frequency and value, offering multiple membership levels with varying benefits, and providing exclusive discounts to higher-tier members, this would, in substance, be a business method. The core of such a claim is a strategic marketing and customer retention plan, which is an organized administrative approach to encourage repeated business and enhance customer loyalty. It defines a commercial strategy. Even if this method is implemented using a computer system for tracking points and managing memberships, the invention lies in the business strategy itself (how to structure and operate a loyalty program), not in any technical functionality of the system beyond its standard data processing capabilities. 4.5.2.1 Steps for assessing whether the claimed invention falls under the exclusion under “Business method” or not: 1. Construe the substance of claimed invention: Understanding the claimed invention in its entirety to capture its primary underlying objective and the solution it aims to provide. It includes evaluating the substance of claimed invention and determining where the core of claimed invention lies.

Page 27 of 63 2. Determination regarding the identified core of the claimed invention: The identified core in Step 1 shall be assessed to determine – a) Whether the core of claimed invention, in its essence, is primarily an administrative/commercial/business strategy like financial schemes, marketing strategies, administrative processes outlining rules or strategies for revenue generation, customer management or financial transactions. OR b) Whether the core of claimed invention, in its essence, is technical improvement/ solution to an underlying system or process, aimed at refining operational framework or infrastructure, and using business context only as a constraint to define the scope of the invention. 3. If the determination in step 2 matches with 2(a), then the claimed subject matter falls under exclusion of “Business Method”; else if the determination matches with 2(b), then the claimed subject matter does NOT fall under exclusion of “Business Method”. 4.5.2.2 Understanding assessment of Business Method exclusions through hypothetical examples: Example 3: System for dynamic pricing of online advertisements Claim: A networked system for managing dynamic pricing of online advertisements, the system comprising: a) a server computer with a processor and memory; b) a database storing financial data and advertisement performance data; and a pricing engine module stored in the memory and executable by the processor, configured to: c) receive real-time bid data from a plurality of advertisers; d) retrieve historical performance data for a plurality of advertisement slots; e) apply a set of business rules to the real-time bid data and historical performance data to calculate a dynamic price for an advertisement slot; and f) instruct a display module to display the advertisement associated with the calculated dynamic price in the advertisement slot. Analysis of Example 3: Step 1-Construing the substance of claimed invention: The objective of claimed invention is to facilitate the dynamic pricing and placement of online advertisements through a networked system that optimizes revenue generation. The system uses a server computer, a database storing financial and advertisement performance data, and

Page 28 of 63 a pricing engine module to achieve this goal. Specifically, it receives real-time bid data from multiple advertisers, retrieves historical performance metrics for advertisement slots, and applies predefined business rules to these datasets to calculate an optimal, dynamic price for each advertisement slot. The calculated price determines which advertisement is displayed in a given slot, aiming to maximize the effectiveness of ad placements and the financial return for the platform. The focus is on automating and optimizing the commercial process of advertisement pricing and allocation, ensuring that the system responds dynamically to market demand and historical trends to enhance revenue outcomes. Step 2- Determination regarding the identified substance of the claimed invention: The invention primarily focuses on calculating dynamic prices for advertisement slots by applying business rules to real-time bid data and historical performance data. This process involves strategic commercial decisions related to pricing and advertisement placement, which are core aspects of a business method, specifically a marketing or revenue-generation strategy. The use of a server, database, and pricing engine module serves as a computational framework to implement these business rules, but the primary objective is to optimize financial outcomes in advertising, which aligns with a method of doing business. Step 3:The claimed invention is a business method, as its primary objective is to implement a strategic commercial approach for dynamically pricing online advertisements, focusing on revenue optimization rather than a technical improvement to the underlying system or infrastructure, it satisfies the conditions of step 2(a) and is considered as falling under business method exclusion of section 3(k). Example 4- Method for enhancing cashless payment transactions at a point-of- sale (POS) Claim: A method for enhancing cashless payment transactions at a point-of-sale (POS) system by incorporating a tap-and-pay card feature, the method comprising: a) Configuring the POS system to include a near-field communication (NFC) reader capable of detecting and communicating with a contactless payment card; b) Receiving, via the NFC reader, payment data from a contactless payment card when the card is tapped or placed in proximity to the NFC reader; c) Processing the payment data using a secure payment protocol to authenticate the transaction and verify the card’s validity with a payment network; d) Transmitting the processed payment data to a financial institution for authorization; Receiving an authorization response from the financial institution; and e) Completing the transaction by updating the POS system to reflect the authorized payment and providing a confirmation to the user. Analysis of Example 4:

Page 29 of 63 Step 1-Construing the substance of claimed invention: The objective of claimed invention is to enhance the technical capability of a point-of-sale (POS) system to support secure and efficient cashless transactions through the integration of near-field communication (NFC) technology for tap-and-pay card payments. The method involves configuring the POS system with an NFC reader to detect and communicate with contactless payment cards when they are tapped or placed in proximity. It further encompasses receiving payment data via the NFC reader, processing it using a secure payment protocol to authenticate the transaction and verify the card’s validity with a payment network, transmitting the data to a financial institution for authorization, and updating the POS system to reflect the authorized payment while providing user confirmation. Step 2- Determination regarding the identified substance of the claimed invention: The focus of the claimed invention is on improving the operational infrastructure of the POS system by enabling secure, contactless payment processing, with the financial transaction context serving as a framework for the technical implementation.The claimed method addresses technical challenges, such as detecting and communicating with a contactless card, securely processing payment data, and ensuring compatibility with a payment network for authentication and authorization. These steps refine the operational framework of the POS system, enhancing its functionality and security for cashless transactions. The business context (payment processing) is a constraint that defines the scope of the technical implementation, rather than the primary objective. Step 3:The claimed invention is not a business method but a technical solution, as its primary objective is to enhance the technical functionality of a POS system through NFC technology and secure payment processing, with the business context of payments serving as a constraint rather than the focus, it satisfies the conditions of step 2(b) and is considered as not falling under business method exclusion of section 3(k). 4.5.3 “Algorithm”: Algorithms in all forms including but not limited to, a set of rules or procedures, any sequence of steps or any method expressed by way of a finite list of defined instructions, whether for whether for solving a problem or otherwise, and whether employing a logical, arithmetical or computational method, recursive or otherwise, are excluded from patentability. The algorithm claims are to be assessed due to their potential to be classified as abstract concepts. A claim is typically deemed abstract if it merely presents a sequence of procedural steps without sufficient technical implementation details, effectively leaving the algorithm as an isolated concept detached from practical application. For instance, consider a claim for a sorting algorithm, such as quicksort or merge sort: if the patent application only lists the steps (e.g., "partition the array, recursively sort sub-arrays") without specifying how these steps are technically applied in a specific context like optimizing database query performance in a cloud computing system or managing real- time data streams in a 5G network, or if a claim directed as a cryptographic algorithm only describes the mathematical steps (e.g. generate a key, encrypt the data) without

Page 30 of 63 explaining how it is implemented in a payment system/framework to make it more secure such as integrating with the payment card’s firmware or handling real-time transaction validation, it might be seen as an abstract idea camouflaged as a technical invention. Therefore, the claimed invention must provide specific enabling details to solve a real- life problem, transforming it into a practical innovation rather than a hypothetical sequence. This means including not just the algorithm’s logical flow but also its technical realization or application in a technical framework to provide a technical solution to a real-world problem. 4.5.3.1 Steps for assessing whether the claimed invention falls under the exclusion under “Algorithm” or not: 1. Construe the substance of claimed invention and thereby Identification of series of Steps: Understanding the claimed invention in its entirety to capture where the core of claimed invention lies, and then assess it to identify a series of steps outlining a sequential process. 2. Determination of Enablement/Abstractness: The identified series of steps in Step 1 shall be assessed to determine – a) Whether the identified series of steps have a level of abstractness devoid of technical specifics or components needed to implement those steps, OR b) Whether the identified series of steps are enabled in the sense that they have the technical specifics/components needed to implement those steps, detailing the technical implementation and if this results in a technical solution to a real-world problem. 3. If the determination in step 2 matches with 2(a), then the claimed subject matter falls under exclusion of “Algorithm”; else if the determination matches with 2(b), then the claimed subject matter does NOT fall under exclusion of “Algorithm”. 4.5.3.2 Understanding assessment of Algorithm exclusions through hypothetical examples: Example 5: Method for cryptographic key generation Claim: A method for generating pseudo-random numbers, comprising: a) an input module configured to receive a seed value;

Page 31 of 63 b) a permutation engine configured to apply a series of permutations to the seed value; and c) an output module configured to output a sequence of pseudo-random numbers derived from the permuted seed value. Analysis of Example 5: Step 1 - Construe the substance of claimed invention and thereby Identification of series of Steps: The claimed invention describes a method for generating pseudo- random numbers through steps of receiving a seed, applying permutations, and outputting numbers. It outlines a flow for processing a seed value (input) to produce pseudo-random numbers (outputs). Step 2 - Determination of Enablement/Abstractness: The steps - "receive a seed value", "apply a series of permutations" and "output a sequence of pseudo-random numbers" are highly abstract in nature. They don't specify how the seed is received, what specific permutations are applied (e.g. how they are chosen or executed), or how the output sequence is derived. The "permutation engine" is a conceptual component without specific technical implementational details lacking enablement. Further, the claim's objective to "generate pseudo-random numbers" is a fundamental building block for any specific field. However, the claim itself does not detail how its technical implementation results in a technical solution to a real-world problem. It doesn't explain how these generated numbers are used to solve a problem (say-secure communication, simulation, or statistical sampling). It simply generates numbers without connecting that generation to a concrete technical application or improvement in a specific context. Step 3 - The claimed subject matter describes a sequential process with high level of abstractness and fails to detail the specific technical implementation that results in a concrete technical solution to a real-world problem. Hence, it satisfies the conditions of step 2(a) and is considered as falling under Algorithm exclusion of section 3(k). Example 6: Method for encrypting and transmitting data securely using permutation-based pseudo-random number generation Claim: A method for encrypting and transmitting data securely using permutation-based pseudo- random number generation, the method comprising: a) receiving, by a hardware security module (HSM) integrated into a network interface card (NIC), a cryptographic seed derived from true random entropy sources within the HSM; b) generating, by permutation unit within the HSM a stream of 128-bit pseudo- random numbers (PRNs) by iteratively applying a permutation algorithm to the cryptographic seed and storing intermediate states in a high-speed volatile memory buffer;

Page 32 of 63 c) retrieving, by a cryptographic processor within the NIC, successive 128-bit PRNs from the volatile memory buffer; d) encrypting, by the cryptographic processor using an AES-GCM encryption engine, a block of plaintext data using a retrieved 128-bit PRN as a session key and a unique initialization vector (IV) generated by a timestamp counter; e) encapsulating, by the NIC's packetization engine, the encrypted data and the IV into a data packet frame; and f) transmitting, the frame to a receiving device. Analysis of Example 6: Step 1 - Construe the substance of claimed invention and thereby Identification of series of Steps: The claimed invention describes a structured and a sequential process involving seed reception, pseudo-random number generation, retrieval, encryption, encapsulation, and transmission. It outlines a series of steps forming a sequential flow for processing a seed and plaintext data to produce a secure, encrypted data stream. Step 2 - Determination of Enablement/Abstractness: The steps have substantial technical specifics detailing how the random numbers are generated and how they are used to achieve encryption and transmission using specific components and cryptographic standards. The real-world problem is insecure data transmission and vulnerability to cryptographic attacks. The claimed invention explicitly details how this technical implementation results in a technical solution-establishing a secure and verifiable data link with enhanced resistance to cryptographic attacks due to the high entropy and rapid generation of permutation derived session keys. This is a concrete, tangible improvement in data security and reliability, achieved through the specific interaction of hardware components and cryptographic algorithms. Step 3 – The claim goes beyond abstractness by detailing how the steps are implemented and by what mean viz. the specific technical means like HSM, permutation unit, AES-GCM, NIC, data frame, etc... This detailed technical implementation allowing enablement directly leads to a technical solution to the real-world problem of secure data transmission by providing enhanced resistance to cryptographic attacks through specific components and cryptographic mechanisms. Hence, it satisfies the conditions of step 2(b) and is considered as NOT falling under Algorithm exclusion of section 3(k). 4.5.4 “Computer Programmeper se” Claims which are aimed to protect only the following subject matters are excluded from patentability, like: - Claims only about computer programmes/ set of instructions/ Routines and/or Sub-routines.

Page 33 of 63 - Claims only about “computer programme products” / “Storage Medium having instructions”/ “Database” / “Computer Memory with instruction” stored in a computer readable medium. It is important to note that qualification of the term Computer Programme with the suffix per se means that the legislative intent for the exclusion under section 3(k) is not absolute with regard to all computer programme led inventions, rather it leaves scope for allowability of certain other things, ancillary thereto or developed thereon. There have been many tests, multiple phrases and various approaches used to determine what this phrase certain other things, ancillary thereto or developed thereon implies to and thereby what is the extent of exclusion in software led inventions. The term has been progressively interpreted by the Indian Patent Office, Stakeholders and Indian Courts while adjudicating various matters related to Computer Related Inventions. One thing is emphatically clear that allowability under section 3(k) does not necessitate presence of “Novel Hardware”. Rather presence of technical solution to technical problem through technical means and thereby achieving certain technical effects, which are beyond mere incidental effects, even when the same is achieved by implementation of computer programme, may lead the claimed invention to overcome exclusion under computer programme per se of section 3(k). Guided by the Indian legislative provisions, legislative intent and recent jurisprudence in the field, the following is to be used to assess the exclusion/non-exclusion under computer programme per se provision of section 3(k). 4.5.4.1 Steps for Assessing whether the claimed invention falls under the exclusion of computer programmeper se or Not: 1. Construing the substance of claimed invention as a whole and identifying the essential technical features - understanding the claimed invention holistically, looking beyond the specific wording or form of the claims to understand the actual underlying objective and concept of the invention to capture claimed invention’s actual technical contribution.Further,pinpointing the core technical components and/or functionalities that are indispensable building blocks of the claimed invention and are vital for its operation and achieving the claimed purpose. 2. Identifying the core problem addressed by the invention and the solution it proposes and thereby determining the technicality. 3. Determining whether the identified technicality results in a technical effect- which is beyond a mere incidental effect. 4. If the determination in step 3 results into affirmation, then the claimed subject matter does NOT fall under the exclusion of “Computer Programme per se”; else the claimed subject matter is excluded under “Computer Programme per se” of section 3(k).

Page 34 of 63 To elaborate further on which aspect may constitute exclusion under “computer programme per se” and which takes it away from the exclusion, a non-exhaustive list is enclosed below. It is important to note the given listis only indicative and there may be many other scenarios that shall be judged on case-to-case basis applying the above- mentioned principles and legislative provisions. 4.5.4.2 Understanding assessment of Computer Programme per se exclusions through hypothetical examples Example 7: A system for recipe management Claim: A system for managing culinary recipes, the system comprising: a) a computing device including a processor and memory; b) a recipe data storage configured to store recipe information; c) a recipe input module configured to receive and store new recipe entries; d) a recipe search and display module configured to search stored recipes and present results to a user; e) an ingredient scaling module configured to automatically adjust ingredient quantities based on desired serving sizes. f) a shopping list generation module configured to create consolidated shopping lists from selected recipes Analysis of Example 7: Step–1: Construing the substance of claimed invention as a whole and identifying the essential technical features - The claimed invention is about organizing and managing culinary recipes for a user, helping with meal planning and grocery shopping. Its core purpose is information management and presentation for personal convenience. The identified essential technical features are a computer system that allows users to store recipes, search them by ingredients, scale serving sizes and create shopping lists based on selected recipes having a database (stores recipe data), software modules (a search function, a scaling algorithm, a list generator, a user interface), input/output devices (keyboard, screen). Step –2: Identifying the core problem addressed by the invention and the solution it proposes and thereby determining the technicality: Problem: managing disorganized recipes, difficulty in scaling ingredients and manual grocery list creation. Solution: computer system that allows users to store recipes, search them by ingredients, scale serving sizes and create shopping lists based on selected recipes through database storage, search functions, and algorithms to manage and present this information.

Page 35 of 63 Step–3:Determining whether the identified technicality results in a technical effect which is beyond a mere incidental effect: The problem is a non-technical problem – it's a problem of personal/ information management and convenience and the solution lacks technical effect. There is no impact that the solution makes the computer itself run faster, use less memory for its internal operations, improve data transmission speed, or control any physical device or provide any enhanced real-world outcome. Its "effect" is simply to organize information, which is a functional effect for the user's convenience or administrative purpose, not a technical effect on the underlying computer system or related physical world. Step-4: The claimed invention falls under the exclusion of computer programme per se of section 3(k) as its substance lies in the idea of organizing recipes, which is implemented using standard programming techniques on general purpose computer, without providing a technicality beyond the incidental effect of making user choices recipe choices easy. Example 8: Adaptive network optimizer Claim: A system for dynamically optimizing data transmission performance within a communication network, the system comprising: a) a network monitoring unit configured to acquire real-time environmental data indicative of network conditions, including signal interference and traffic load; b) at least one network interface controller (NIC), characterized by its dynamic parameter adjustment capabilities to actively modify data transmission parameters (such as power, frequency, or routing) in real-time; c) a processing unit communicatively coupled to the network monitoring unit and the at least one NIC; d) a memory storing executable instructions for an adaptive network optimization module; e) the processing unit, upon executing said instructions, being configured to: ● analyze the acquired real-time network environment data; ● determine optimal data transmission parameters based on said analysis to counteract identified network degradations; and ● transmit control commands to the at least one network interface controller to dynamically implement the determined optimal parameters, thereby maintaining a predetermined data throughput and reducing communication latency across the network amidst fluctuating conditions. Analysis of Example 8:

Page 36 of 63 Step–1: Construing the substance of claimed invention as a whole and identifying the essential technical features – The clamed invention aims to provide highly reliable and efficient data communication over a network by intelligently adapting to environmental challenges, ensuring smooth data flow without manual intervention or pre-set fixed configurations. Its core purpose is to optimize network performance. The claimed invention provides a system that dynamically adjusts network data transmission parameters (like signal strength, frequency, or routing) in real-time to maintain optimal data throughput and reduce latency, even in fluctuating network conditions (e.g., due to interference or changing user load). It utilizesNetwork Interface Controllers (NICs) with dynamic signal processing capabilities with real-time parameter adjustment, multiple, diverse sensing units (dedicated interference detectors, signal-to- noise ratio monitors, network traffic analyzers) distributed across the network, a centralized processing unit (server/controller) for complex, real-time data analysis, an adaptive optimization algorithm (software) designed to correlate sensor data with network performance metrics and derive optimal transmission parameters, and actuator modules (software/firmware) for sending commands to the NICs to implement the dynamically adjusted parameters. Step–2: Identifying the core problem addressed by the invention and the solution it proposes and thereby determining the technicality: Problem: Maintaining consistent, high-performance data throughput and low latency in dynamic and unpredictable network environments where interference, congestion, or physical obstacles constantly change signal quality and data flow. This is a technical problem inherent to telecommunications and data networking, dealing with physical phenomena like electromagnetic interference and technical constraints like bandwidth and processing power. Solution: The system continuously monitors network conditions using specialized sensors, analyzes this technical data in real-time via a complex optimization algorithm, and then dynamically adjusts fundamental network transmission parameters (e.g., modulating power, selecting frequencies, re-routing data packets) through the network interface controllers to counteract adverse conditions. The problem is technical (network performance, interference mitigation). The solution involves a real-time technical process that directly manipulates underlying technical characteristics of data transmission and leverages specific hardware capabilities to overcome these technical challenges. The technicality can be seen in- combination and interaction of these elements (sensors, NICs, and the adaptive algorithm) to create a closed-loop control mechanism that directly manipulates the physical aspects of data transmission. Step–3: Determining whether the identified technicality results in a technical effect: From the identified technicality in the last step, it can be seen that the invention provides demonstrable, real-time, and realizable improvement in the technical system (the network) viz.: i) Higher data throughput: the network can transmit more data in a given time, a key performance metric; ii) reduced communication latency: data travels across the network faster, another crucial performance metric; iii) Enhanced robustness

Page 37 of 63 and reliability: the network maintains its performance even when faced with interference or changing traffic patterns, making it more dependable; iv) Efficient use of network resources: by dynamically adapting to conditions, the system avoids wasting bandwidth or energy on suboptimal transmission settings. This is a clear technical effect on the fundamental operation of the network, resulting directly from the identified technicality. Step -4: The claimed invention does NOT fall under the exclusion of computer programme per se of section 3(k) as its substance lies in the idea of enhancing network using a specific technical architecture, providing a technicality resulting in a result which is beyond the incidental effect of a computer programme running on a computer. Table 1: Non-Exhaustive List of the aspects of aninventiondue to which it may NOT fall under the exclusion of computer programme per se Broad Category Examples Boosting internal system efficiency/functionality i. Method/System for achieving faster data processing through technical implementation of innovative algorithms or system architecture interaction (e.g., enhancing the computational ability of the processor for more efficient processing; enabling hardware to process the output faster) ii. Creating a more efficient storage system- using techniques to reduce data access time from storage (e.g., improved caching methodologies, optimised disc I/O scheduling). iii. Optimising computer memory utilisation or management (e.g., reducing the use of memory space in the system and augmenting efficiency). iv. Technical implementation of efficient searching, indexing, or retrieving data from databases that improve overall system performance. v. Creating more effective data compression techniques using advanced techniques for lossless or lossy data compression/expansion offering better rates or speeds. vi. Improved security of the authentication process; enhanced

Page 38 of 63 encryption/decryption techniques - Concrete technical methods/systems to improve data security, encryption, or user privacy (e.g., cryptographic implementation, intrusion detection systems analysing network traffic patterns). vii. Technical implementation of enhanced management or allocation of computational resources such as CPU, network bandwidth, cloud resources etc. (e.g., reducing the time period in scheduling job execution in HPC). viii. Improved error detection and correction within data storage or transmission. Governing external devices or physical processes i. Precise, improved, or adaptive control over machinery (robots, industrial units, 3D printers) (e.g. better control of robotic arms for more efficient arm manoeuvring, accurate positioning and intricate movements). ii. Improved reception/transmission of radio/electromagnetic/communication signals- improved handling (receiving, processing, sending) of electronic signals (e.g., enhanced noise filtering, better signal modulation/demodulation). iii. real- time monitoring and control of devices leading to technical solutions -using sensor data processing (e.g., from IoT devices, medical sensors) to enhance the operation, monitoring, or control of physical equipment or environments. iv. Embedded code dictating specific and advantageous actions of a hardware device (e.g., optimizing power consumption in an IoT device based on usage patterns). v. Technical implementation ofgenerating control signals for autonomous vehicles or drones based on real-time sensor data processing. Concrete technical implementations i. Technical implementation of medical image analysis using inventive algorithms to detect anomalies or enhance image quality leading to better technical outcome. ii. Implementation of technically optimizing data synchronization, consistency, or fault tolerance in distributed systems or cloud environments. iii. Technical implementation of simulation of complex technical/physical systems accurately (e.g., fluid dynamics, protein folding) to predict behavior, enable control, or facilitate

Page 39 of 63 design, iv. Technical implementation of efficient training for machine learning models or inventive neural network architectures that improve performance/reduce computational cost for a specific technical task. v. Technical implementation of efficient signal processing techniques to solve a technical problem. Table 2: Non-Exhaustive List of the aspects of an invention due to which it falls under the exclusion of computer programme per se Broad Category Examples Core exclusion Computer instructions/code in isolation/Computer Program/Computer Program Product Form of claim/other issues i. Claims defining software merely by its storage medium (e.g., "program on a disk", "computer-readable medium storing instructions"). a) e.g. "A computer-readable medium storing instructions for data processing..." ii. Data organization methods (structures) detached from a technical process or system that produces a technical result. a) e.g. a new file format without improving efficiency b) e.g. a hierarchical data structure for organizational charts. Lack of technical effect i. Simple conversion of manual tasks (like record keeping, scheduling) to computer execution without additional technical gain beyond inherent computer speed/efficiency: a) e.g. automating bookkeeping or accounting processes without improving data processing efficiency. b) e.g. software for managing employee schedules using standard database operations. ii. Claimed invention whose main function is presenting data

Page 40 of 63 visually or textually (e.g., generating standard business reports, dashboards) without a technical solution in data handling or display. a) e.g. a new layout for displaying weather information without technical innovation. b) e.g. generating business charts with standard tools. iii. Claimed Invention embodying rules for games or processes for mental exercises (e.g., teaching methods, puzzle-solving strategies). a) e.g. a program implementing a new chess variant. b) e.g. software for solving Sudoku puzzles. iv. Claimed invention that mimics human reasoning or decision- making without providing a specific technical implementation leading to a technical effect. a) e.g. a basic expert system for legal advice using if-then rules. b) e.g. software diagnosing diseases by symptom matching without technical innovation. v. Claimed Invention primarily concerned with aesthetics or artistic creation (protected by copyright). a) e.g. a program for generating digital art or music compositions. b) e.g. software for designing fashion layouts. vi. Methods/System for performing medical diagn osis based only on symptom correlation or rule-based logic mimicking a doctor's mental process. a) e.g. a decision tree for medical diagnosis without technical processing. b) e.g. correlating symptoms to a database without innovation. vii. Claimed invention for simple information retrieval or database lookups based on standard query methods- Customized playlist generation based solely on user preferences or listening history (lacks technical effect on the system). a) e.g. a search engine using standard keyword matching. b) e.g. cataloging library books with basic queries. viii. Customized playlist generation based solely on user preferences or listening history (lacks technical effect on the system). a) e.g. suggesting songs based on genre preferences

Page 41 of 63 without any innovation. b) e.g. a recommendation system using basic user profiling. 4.5.5 Flow charts showing procedures of examination of CRIs: 1. Mathematical Method:

Page 42 of 63 2. Business Method:

Page 43 of 63 3. Algorithm:

Page 44 of 63 4. Computer Programme per se:

Page 45 of 63 5. Examination of Inventions related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), Blockchain, Quantum Computing 5.1. Introduction: Technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning and Deep Learning (ML/DL), Blockchain, Quantum Computing etc. harness computational architectures and algorithmic techniques to tackle complex tasks such as pattern classification, data segmentation, binary classification, linear and logistic regression, predictive analytics, feature space optimization and faster computation. These technologies, while powerful, are fundamentally built upon mathematical models, learning algorithms, computational models and abstract principles. For instance, blockchain technology relies on cryptographic principles to create a distributed, immutable ledger. Similarly, quantum computing harnesses the concepts of quantum mechanics, such as superposition and entanglement to perform complex calculations. Further, their sheer potential and immense futuristic possibilities, both realistic as well as unrealistic, have been envisioned in various academic pursuits as possible user scenarios and use cases. As a result, examination of inventions related to AI/ML/DL, Blockchain, Quantum Computing pose unique challenges to traditional patent frameworks especially with regard to fulfilment of the requirements of Sufficiency of Disclosure and their evaluation for exclusion/non- exclusion vis-à-vis section 3(k). The core question for patentability is whether the claimed invention leverages the theoretical constructs to provide an implementable technical solution or it remains in the realm of abstract theory. Therefore, the focus of the examination is to distinguish between the theoretical construct based on documented possibilities laid out in the complete specification, against its practical implementable application that offers technical solution to a problem through technical means with sufficient details for a person skilled in the art to be able to reproduce it without undue experimentation. 5.2. Dealing with AI/ML/DL related inventions: AI/ML related inventions generally include deep learning constructs like Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), Spiking Neural Network (SNN), Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and transformers, alongside traditional Machine Learning (ML) methods such as Random Forests, Decision Tree, Bayesian Networks, expectation- maximization for clustering, and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t- SNE) for dimensionality reduction. Deep learning-specific mechanisms, such as

Page 46 of 63 backpropagation, gradient descent optimization, attention mechanisms, further enable models to learn intricate representations from vast datasets. These computational systems and algorithms, whether leveraging supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement learning paradigms, are inherently abstract mathematical entities, defined by their logical structure. As such, their theoretical foundations remain independent of empirical training processes. An abstract idea, such as a mathematical formula or a theoretical construct of Artificial intelligence/Machine learning/ Deep learning, is not patentable, as it lacks practical application. However, when an AI/ML/DL innovation transforms abstract principles into a real-world tangible application, it may become a patentable subject matter. 5.2.1 Inventorship in AI related inventions: AI related inventions can be categorised in two broad categories like AI-generated inventions and AI-assisted inventions. AI-generated inventions refer to inventions created by AI systems autonomously, or with very limited human intervention. Such AI-generated inventions are not patentable as AI cannot be termed as a “Person” claiming to be the true and first inventor of an invention under section 6 of the Patents Act, 1970. AI-assisted inventions are Inventions made using AI as a tool in the inventive process. AI-assisted inventions are not categorically non-patentable under section 3(k) of the Patents Act provided they meet the patentability criteria and demonstrate technical effect through their tangible inventive applications. 5.2.2 Fulfilment of requirements of Sufficiency of Disclosure: Rapid transformative research with published future vision statements; few realised and many unrealised potential and possibilities; theoretical, mathematical and algorithmic nature of the AI/ML/DL related inventions sometimes make it possible for prospective use-case scenarios being extrapolated and camouflaged as a solution to certain problems without necessary specific details. Since the basic premise of patenting regime is Quid-pro-Quo, the disclosure requirements are critical and need to be disclosed fully and particularly with regard to the aspect of the claimed invention.In this regard, it is important to note that in the matter of Caleb Suresh Motupalli vs Controller Of Patents on 29 th January, 2025 at para 21, 23-24, 26, 30-32, Hon’ble Madras High Court stated that: “…21. The claimed invention proposes to solve the problem of loss of agency and control by humans as a result of increased AI capabilities, by creating a super-augmented persona. To this end, independent Claim Nos. 14, 20 and 25 provide for, inter alia, an user interface comprising a persona- extender, persona-augmenter, ecosystem indicia which provide for an Caleb Suresh Motupalli vs Controller Of Patents [C.M.A. (PT) No. 2 of 2024]

Page 47 of 63 integration technology for integrating the extended persona with plurality of objects, other extended persona of other actors; a delegated processing unit indicium which provides for the actor to non-invasively delegate grunt work or low level processing to delegated processing unit. The metaphor environment performs a black-box modernization technique to provide persona extender or persona augmenter to the actor…” “…23. For determining whether the teachings in the complete specification support these claims, the court must assume the mantle of a notional PSITA. The PSITA can be one technical expert or a team consisting of multiple experts depending on the nature of the invention. The appellant argued that the multifaceted interdisciplinary nature of the claimed invention necessitates that the invention be examined by a PSITA team consisting of relevant experts. Without doubt, the claimed invention pertains to the field of AI, more particularly, Augmented Reality and Mixed Reality. Therefore, the PSITA is a software engineer with expertise in AI and allied fields or a team having experts well-versed in AI, black- box modernization techniques, Object Oriented Analysis and Design techniques…” “…24. On perusal of the complete specification by assuming the mantle of the said PSITA team, I find that the disclosures therein do not sufficiently enable the product, method or means claims. The perceived problem of loss of human control is proposed to be solved using the necktie persona- extender/environment integrator… the complete specification teach that through the black-box modernization technique, the computer works towards extending human minds and bodies beyond their conventional boundaries; the computer is recast as the necktie persona- extender/integrator; the hardware of the extender/integrator consists of the pocket data processing device connected to a global network with handwriting, speech, gesture and image synthesizing/processing software, a camera on the forehead, earphone with microphone and a projector. Distributed Object Technology (DOT) and its middleware provide the necessary integration technology whereas the browser and the web provide for the extension technology.… …26. On carefully examining the complete specification and the relevant prior art documents, I find that the appellant has merely coalesced the disclosures and discussions in the patent and non-patent literature, which largely relate to harnessing AI capabilities for advancing human operations, to arrive at the claimed invention. Significantly, black-box modernization, DOT, object oriented analysis and design techniques, which lie at the heart of the claimed invention and form the bedrock for enabling the claimed technical features, persona extension and augmentation, are disclosed in the prior art document D3 for modernizing outdated information systems. The teachings in the complete specification of the

Page 48 of 63 claimed invention do not provide any directions for the adoption of these technologies for persona extension and augmentation. In order to meet enablement requirements, undue levels of experimentation entailing the deployment of inventive faculty should not be required to work the invention. A fair reading of the complete specification does not lay bare the purported working and usage of the aforementioned techniques…Absent such teachings and the techniques not being common general knowledge for persona extension and augmentation, in my view, undue experimentation requiring the use of inventive faculty is necessary to achieve the promised result.……30. Upon a fair reading of the specification, I find that it does not contain any details as regards the conventional information processing and user interface design techniques to mitigate n- entropy as claimed in Claim…nor the conventional wired or wireless integration or interfacing techniques used for layering of the cyberspace over the meatspace to form the labourspace as claimed…As for the working of the CNSOA…the complete specification in Page 14, merely mentions the usage of standard "Object Oriented Analysis and Design" techniques for integration but glaringly lacks any teachings or working examples regarding its usage in achieving the integration as claimed…the complete specification contains an elaboration of the proposed decussation and biblical and natural element analogy but is devoid of any technological enablement of the features in the claim. For the aforementioned lack of technical criteria in the complete specification to work the claims for achieving the intended result, the claimed invention fails the enablement test under Section 10(4)(a) of the Patents Act…” “…31. Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act requires the complete specification to disclose the "best method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim protection." While grappling with the question of whether the patent-in- suit relating to “improvements in or relating to soil cultivating implements” discloses the best mode of performing the invention, Lord Justice Nicholls in C Van Der Lely NV v. Ruston's Engineering Co. Ltd. ('Van Der Lely') [1993] RPC 45 propounded that the standard for ascertaining whether the claimed invention discloses its best mode of performance is to be determined as per practice and not in theory…the complete specification is bereft of a) any teachings to use the object oriented analysis technique to achieve the promised integration and b) any technical feature to result in the decussation of the pyramids hosting the actors. Therefore, the claimed invention fails under section 10(4)(b) as it does not disclose any workable criteria to arrive at the intended result, let alone the best mode of performing the invention……32. Section 10(5) of the Patents Act requires the claims of the invention to be clear and succinct and to be fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification. Elucidating the rule of clarity and succinctness, the UK Court of Appeal in The General Tire

Page 49 of 63 & Rubber Company v. The FirestoneType and Rubber Company Limited and Others [1972] R.P.C. 457, posited that the rule requires the patentee to provide "as clear a definition as the subject matter admits of" and the question of definition has to be decided as a "practical matter" and the puzzles set out at the edge of the claim carry little weight. The principle underlying the second part of the provision, the fair basing rule, was formulated in Biogen Inc v Medava Plc, [1997] R.P.C. 1. The rule requires that the specification must enable the invention to be performed to the full extent of the monopoly claimed. Further, in Van Der Lely, it was held that a claim covering an unimplementable or an unworkable embodiment is not fairly based on the specification…”[Emphasis Added] From above, it is evident that the nature of disclosure shall be such that it enables reproducibility without undue experimentation by a person skill in the art. 5.2.3 Non-exhaustive illustrative scenarios vis-à-vis AI/ML/DL applications:To elaborate on the above discussions, the following non-exhaustive illustrative scenarios vis-à-vis AI/ML/DL applications have been provided. Scenario-1: In AI systems, while the inputs and outputs are typically known, the logic that transforms the input into output may be complex or abstract or derived on the go. If the claimed invention is mainly focused on getting monopolistic rights over this input/output transformation, then thespecification should aim to clarify this transformation in compliance with the statutory requirements for a complete and enabling disclosure, by detailing known processes and variables withsufficient specificity and clarity for a person skilled in the art to reproduce the transformation. If test results or other forms of evidences, validate the accuracy of the model’s output, these should be included, especially when the AI is used for precise applications where reliability is essential such as but not limited to - providing concrete, unambiguous evidence of output consistency (e.g., identical diagnoses for the same medical image across multiple runs), accuracy under varying but expected conditions (e.g., autonomous vehicle braking functioning reliably in diverse weather conditions), robustness to minor input perturbations (e.g., fraud detection unaffected by minor data formatting changes), and a demonstrably low rate of critical errors (e.g., precisely quantified false positive and false negative rates in fault detection for critical machinery). Example-9 (Hypothetical): An invention relating to system/method for translating handwritten medical prescriptions into structured electronic medical records using deep learning, comprises a neural network system where the input is a scanned image of a handwritten medical prescription and the output is a

Page 50 of 63 structured digital format, such as a JSON object containing patient instructions, drug names, and dosages; wherein a CNN (e.g., ResNet) is used to extract features from image pixels; a Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence decoder maps image embeddings to text; andthe pre-processing includes image binarization, noise filtering, and size normalization. The invention’s training data includes 1 million labelled prescriptions annotated by pharmacists and the validation results show higher field-level extraction accuracy on a separate 10,000-image test set. i. The neural network architecture (CNN and Transformer-based decoder) should be disclosed with sufficient structural detail: layer types, depth, and activation functions. ii. The dataset used (1 million labelled prescriptions) should be adequately characterized, including handwriting variability and structure of the digital output and how the prescriptions were labeled or annotated. iii. Pre-processing steps (image cleaning, size normalization, image filtering, image enhancement, noise removal, segmentation etc.) should be described with implementation logic. iv. Training details (loss functions, optimizer settings, training epochs) should be provided. v. Validation metrics and real-world test results (accuracy, recall) support that the model generalizes well, should be disclosed. 3(k): The claimed invention automates the digitization of complex and often illegible handwritten prescriptions, reduces human transcription errors, ensures prescription safety, and improves processing speed in clinical workflows. Scenario – 2: When the claimed invention is primarily based on an already trained AI model, clearly defining the correlation between input and output data is critical. For describing this correlation between the AI model's learned behavior and its intended technical function clearly: • The training data used for the model should be explicitly identified (its nature, any unique characteristics, etc.), • A clear link between the training data's characteristics and the specific technical problem the invention addresses should be established, explaining why that data is suitable for solving the problem,

Page 51 of 63 • The specific learning model (e.g., neural network architecture, algorithm type) and the training methodology (e.g., hyperparameters, optimization techniques, training duration, any pre-processing steps) should be comprehensively described and • The model, when trained, should be shown to effectively address the technical problem with predictable and reliable results, typically supported by validation metrics and real-world test outcomes. Example-10 (Hypothetical): An invention relating to failure prediction systems for industrial machines using recurrent neural networks (RNN) trained on historical sensor data; wherein the system uses Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) layers to analyze multivariate time-series sensor data (temperature, vibration, speed) collected at certain time intervals; LSTM network architecture includes three stacked layers, with dropout and batch normalization; Input is Sensor logs from turbines (Wind Turbine SCADA Dataset: a public labelled dataset i.e.Kaggle dataset which contains data such as wind speed, direction, and power output.); Output is Binary label indicating whether a failure will occur within certain time period. The training methodology includes Adam optimizer, learning rate scheduling, binary cross-entropy loss. The trained model achieves very high prediction accuracy across five cross-validation folds. i. Training dataset (Wind Turbine SCADA) should be explicitly identified, with details of sensors (type, frequency, duration of collection) and data labelling methodology. ii. Correlation between the dataset and the technical task (i.e., time-series prediction of mechanical failure) should be explained. It should be defined how the features of time series dataset are being processed; whether the parameters like stationarity, seasonality, trends etc. have been properly tested, if yes, then the information of these steps should be explained. iii. Architectural details of the LSTM (number of layers, time window, dropout rates) should be clearly provided. iv. The training process (loss function, learning rate, regularization)should be clearly explained. v. Performance results should be provided to demonstrate that the model solves the technical problem predictably. 3(k): The claimed invention provides early and accurate detection of mechanical anomalies, thereby reducing unplanned outages, optimizing maintenance scheduling, and increasing operational efficiency of wind farms.

Page 52 of 63 Scenario – 3: If in the claimed invention, data pre-processing plays a key role, all steps and functions of pre-processing should be disclosed, along with how they correlate to the end model. If this correlation isn’t clearly described,and a person skilled in the art struggles to understand the link between raw data and processed learning data, the claimed inventionrisks failing to meet the enablement requirement. Example-11 (Hypothetical): An invention relating to remote sensing and agricultural monitoring, particularly in classifying crop types using satellite imagery and deep learning. The raw satellite data undergoes multiple pre- processing stages prior to classification: Sen2Cor algorithm is used for Atmospheric correction, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) calculation, Image segmentation Based on vegetation indices and texture filters. The processed images are classified using a CNN (EfficientNet) trained on labelled plots with crop type annotations. The model achieves X% classification accuracy, with pre-processing contributing to a Y% performance boost compared to using raw imagery. i. A step-by-step pre-processing pipeline should be described including details such as: atmospheric correction (name algorithm), NDVI calculation, and segmentation logic. ii. A clear explanation of how pre-processed data improves classification performance over raw imagery should be provided. iii. Different implementational parameters and their inter-relationship used in the CNN model structure (EfficientNet) mentioned should be iv. The training dataset characteristics (especially that are relevant to the pre-processing challenges) andlabelling methodology should be v. A comparative performance benchmark which shows the material effect of pre-processing should be disclosed. 3(k): The claimed invention enables large-scale, high-accuracy crop classification which enhances land use management, precision agriculture, and food security planning. Scenario–4: If the claimed invention is based onreinforcement learning, it must specify how the system interacts with its environment, including- agent interactions, states,

Page 53 of 63 actions, and rewards.This includes detailed descriptions of agent interactions, clearly outlining how the learning agent observes and influences its surroundings. Furthermore, the states, actions, and rewards must be comprehensively defined, detailing the observable characteristics of the environment the agent perceives, the set of possible moves or decisions it can make, and the mechanism and values by which it receives feedback to guide its learning. Omitting these details or failing to describe them in a way that a person skilled in the art can deduce, could result in a non-enabled disclosure. Example-12 (Hypothetical): An invention relating to "Adaptive Urban Traffic Optimizer" (AUTO) which is a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) system for real- time traffic signal control. AUTO employs a Deep Q-Network (DQN) with convolutional neural networks to process traffic camera feeds, defining states as vehicle density and queue lengths. Actions include adjusting signal timings (green/red durations). The advantages are calculated as reduced average vehicle wait times, weighted by traffic flow. The agent, a centralized server, interacts with traffic signals via IoT protocols. Training uses simulated urban environments, with transfer learning for real-world deployment. AUTO optimizes traffic flow, reducing congestion and emissions. i. DQN architecture disclosure should be provided, encompassing its input handling (e.g., raw camera feeds), state representation methodology (e.g., vehicle density, queue lengths, traffic flow rates), agent action space (e.g., discrete or continuous signal timing adjustments), and the precise advantage function calculation (e.g., optimization for wait time reduction). ii. IoT-based agent-environment interaction should be clearly described, including specific sensor types (e.g., smart cameras, vehicle detectors) for environmental observation and actuator mechanisms (e.g., smart traffic light controllers, road signage) for agent influence. iii. Training methodology should be disclosed clearlydetailing the simulation environment setup and parameters (e.g., traffic simulator used, scale) and the specifics of transfer learning application (e.g., pre- trained model used, fine-tuning strategy, source domain characteristics). 3(k): The claimed invention is optimizing urban traffic flow by reducing average vehicle wait times by dynamically adjusting signal timings based on real-time data. This leads to decreased traffic congestion, lower fuel consumption, and reduced CO2 emissions. By processing complex traffic patterns via convolutional

Page 54 of 63 neural networks, AUTO achieves scalability across diverse urban environments, enhancing transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability. Scenario–5: If the claimed invention is based on (allegedly) improving a computer’s internal structure or operations, it should describe how the underlying algorithm interacts with the hardware or systemarchitecture. This includes specifying how the model optimizes internal performance metrics like data storage, scheduling or processing speeds, offering the necessary technical context. Example-13 (Hypothetical): An invention relating to operating system (OS) kernel optimization, more specifically to a method for task scheduling using neural networks. The invention integrates a lightweight neural network model into the OS kernel to predict the most efficient CPU core for task execution based on Input features viz. Thread priority, cache hit rate, CPU utilization. Two-layer multi-layer perceptron Model architecture is trained on profiling data. The model replaces the default heuristic in the Linux Completely Fair Scheduler (CFS). Evaluation shows X% average latency reduction and Y% throughput improvement across benchmark tests. i. Precise definition of input features (thread priority, core stats) and rationale for selection should be provided to explain how the model perceives and leverages relevant system state(s) for its optimization decisions. ii. Architecture of the neural network (layers, activation, training method) should be described. iii. Integration with the Linux CFS should be explained at the system-call or kernel-hook level along with compatibility range with CPU configurations and OS. iv. Training data sources (if applicable) and pre-processing methodology should be disclosed. v. Performance results (latency and throughput) should be validated. 3(k): The claimed invention enhances OS-level task scheduling using intelligent learning-based prediction, leading to improved CPU resource utilization and system performance.

Page 55 of 63 Scenario–6: When the claimed invention’s inventiveness depends on specific traits of the training dataset, these traits must be disclosed unless a person skilled in the art could identify them without undue experimentation.This is because these data characteristics are essential to how the model functions and what problem it solves. Details such as whether the data is from a particular domain, its variety, its precise labeling methodology, or any unique inherent characteristics should be includedIn most cases, it’s sufficient to describe the data’s defining characteristics rather than the specific dataset itself which could bevoluminous or sensitive. Example-14 (Hypothetical): An invention for addressing the problem of facial recognition accuracy for elderly individuals, especially in healthcare and safety monitoring applications. A facial recognition model is trained specifically on a dataset comprising individuals aged 65–90, including various aging features such as wrinkles, loose skin, and common occlusions. Dataset attributes are viz. High diversity in lighting, poses, and accessories (e.g., glasses). Modified FaceNet architecture, a pre-trained deep convolutional neural network model, with age- aware embedding loss is used for facial recognition. The model achieves X% recognition accuracy for elderly subjects, compared to Y% (X>Y) for a baseline model trained on a general dataset (specific trait/characteristic of the dataset is the key innovation). i. A description of dataset traits critical to the effect (age distribution, facial characteristics of elderly subjects, occlusions) should be ii. Explanation of why generic face datasets would not suffice and how specific dataset traits impact model performance should be given. iii. Neural network architecture (FaceNet variant) should be given, with modifications (age-weighted loss) should be described. iv. Quantitative comparison with baseline models showing material improvement due to dataset selection should be provided. 3(k): The claimed invention provides reliable person identification in elderly care environments, reduces false negatives in safety monitoring, and enables automated fall detection and health event tracking.

Page 56 of 63 Scenario–7: If the claimed invention's inventiveness is in the implementation of new learning algorithm,then a comprehensive description of that specific algorithm, including its unique elements, mathematical foundations, and operational steps, is absolutely essential for sufficiency of disclosure. However, if the inventive core isn't in the algorithmic implementation itself, but rather in a new method of creating, curating, or specifically utilizing a dataset that enables even a standard or known algorithm to achieve a breakthrough result, then the focus of thedisclosure shifts to detailing the innovative data-centric processes, while the common algorithm merely serves as a tool to leverage that inventively prepared data. Scenario–7(a): Technical implementation of Algorithmic learning is the Invention: Example-15 (Hypothetical): The claimed invention discloses that the innovation lies in the function of a new deep learning algorithm for crop classification. This includes custom neural network architecture, such as a modified EfficientNet with additional attention mechanisms (e.g., Squeeze-and- Excitation blocks or Spatial Attention modules). This New neural architecture results in Improvements in learning temporal patterns from satellite data (e.g., incorporating a temporal convolution or Transformer layers to model seasonal changes). Model employs Optimization techniques that improve convergence, generalization, or resilience to noise (e.g., custom loss functions or training schedules). The claim is that no prior model effectively extracts high-resolution crop-type features across seasons from multispectral imagery with this level of accuracy or efficiency. The claimed invention must disclose following technical details of the algorithm/architecture to satisfy enablement requirements: i. Full architectural layout: layer-by-layer diagram; input dimensions and output structure; number of parameters, specific functions (e.g., ReLU, GELU), etc. ii. Training protocol:Loss function; Optimizer; Batch size, number of epochs, data augmentation strategies. iii. Benchmarking: Performance comparisons on known datasets. Scenario – 7 (b): Data engineering and its usage is the invention: Example-16 (Hypothetical): The claimed invention is an automated system for generating a high-fidelity, highly consistent, and uniquely harmonized multi-

Page 57 of 63 seasonal and multi-source satellite imagery dataset for crop type classification. This system addresses the inherent challenges of complex satellite data and inconsistent ground truth labels by implementing an inventive pipeline that includes dynamic cross-sensor calibration, intelligent temporal stacking and gap- filling algorithms, and novel AI-assisted label validation and conflict resolution techniques. This unique data creation and curation process, rather than the subsequent classification algorithm, directly enables unprecedented high- accuracy crop classification across diverse agricultural regions, significantly improving agricultural monitoring and decision-making systems. i. The claimed invention should disclose the data pipeline and usage context encompassing the sequence of data handling operations and the specific environment or application where the invention is deployed, while the algorithm can remain generic or lightly described. ii. Technical rationale as towhy these specific steps and techniques are innovative and necessary to achieve the desired data quality and characteristics should be provided in detail. iii. Demonstration of validation methodology(e.g., comparing against models trained on conventionally processed data) should be provided. Aspect(s) which may take inventions as discussed in 7a and 7b, out of the purview of exclusion under section 3(k): The claimed invention achieves high- accuracy and efficiency in extracting high-resolution crop-type features across seasons from multispectral satellite imagery. This directly enhances the technical performance of agricultural monitoring, resource management, and decision- making systems, enabling more precise land use mapping, yield estimation, and optimized agricultural practices. 5.3. Dealing with Quantum computing related inventions: Quantum computing utilizes key principles of quantum mechanics-superposition, entanglement, and Quantum tunnelling-to process information. Applications of quantum computing span across various fields, including quantum sensing, Quantum key distribution in cryptography (QKD), quantum simulation, quantum internet, and the development of advanced quantum materials and devices. Depending on their implementation, quantum computers may include various layers and components. These include qubit technologies, quantum gates and multipliers, quantum chips, and processors such as spin qubits or superconducting transmon qubits, dilution refrigerators, cryoperm shields, and qubit signal amplifiers. They may also incorporate quantum interference devices, compiler engines (optimizers, translators, and mappers), decoders, simulators, emulators,

Page 58 of 63 circuit visualization tools and error-correcting codes like Steane Code, Bacon-Shor, 3D color codes, and surface codes. One of the primary challenges in quantum computing lies in developing the physical hardware necessary to build operational quantum systems. Unlike classical computers that rely on mature technologies like transistors and silicon-based chips, quantum computers demand highly specialized and often still-experimental hardware. These systems must accurately manipulate qubits using platforms such as ion traps, superconducting circuits, or photonic technologies.An abstract idea, such as a mathematical formula or a theoretical concept such as quantum computing/mechanics principle, is not patentable, as it lacks practical application. However, when a quantum computing innovation transforms such abstract principles into a real-world, tangible application, such as a method for optimizing logistics using quantum algorithms or a specific hardware configuration for qubit control, it may become patentable. The key lies in demonstrating a concrete technical effect or improvement in a technological process. Thus, practical implementations of quantum computing that solve real-world problems can move beyond abstract ideas and qualify as patentable subject matter. 5.3.1. Non-exhaustive illustrative examples vis-à-vis Quantumcomputing Applications: Example 17: The claimed invention relates to ahybrid quantum-classical computing system that enables dynamic optimization on a superconducting qubit- based quantum processor, system comprises:a quantum processing unit (QPU) built using transmon qubits fabricated from high-coherence superconducting materials of niobium-titanium alloy with sapphire substrate; a classical control unit (CCU) integrating a machine learning (ML) algorithm for real-time feedback, calibration, and error mitigation during quantum circuit execution; a compiler that translates high-level quantum programming languages into low-level pulse sequences tailored to the specific qubit topology and noise model of the QPU; a cooling and shielding system that maintains the QPU at 10-15 milli-kelvin and isolates it from environmental electromagnetic interference; a synchronization module that coordinates quantum gate operations with classical post-processing steps to optimize hybrid computation. i. The materials, dimensions, and design of the superconducting transmon qubits should be disclosed. ii. The architecture of the classical machine learning control unit, including model parameters, training data types, and feedback protocols should be clearly defined.

Page 59 of 63 iii. A flow diagram for compiler-to-pulse translation, including timing sequences and qubit-specific error margins should be clearly defined. iv. Specifications of the cryogenic environment and electromagnetic shielding methods should be clearly disclosed. v. Block-level diagrams showing the integration of QPU, CCU, compiler, and synchronization modulesshould be clearly defined. 3(k): The invention allows for adaptive gate-level adjustments using ML during execution, enabling enhanced fidelity and minimizing incoherence, thereby increasing the effective performance of quantum computing technique. Example 18: The claimed invention relates to a chip-based photonic quantum computing device that uses reconfigurable optical circuits for executing linear optical quantum computing (LOQC) protocols, Device comprises:a silicon photonic chip with embedded waveguides, beam splitters, and phase shifters fabricated using CMOS-compatible techniques;single-photon sources, quantum dots, to inject qubits encoded in photon path; Thermo-optic tuning elements that dynamically alter waveguide paths via micro-heaters for on-chip re- configurability; superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs) for efficient on-chip photon detection; Optical delay lines and feedback mechanisms for performing multi-qubit interference experiments. i. The chip layout with detailed waveguide geometry, materials (e.g., silicon nitride, silica), and fabrication steps should be disclosed. ii. Control logic to implement universal single- and two-qubit gates should be disclosed. iii. Test data on insertion loss, extinction ratios, and phase tuning response should be disclosed. iv. Sample Technique execution using the LOQC protocol along with timing diagrams and expected output distributions should be 3(k): Invention discloses a reconfigurable, CMOS-compatible photonic quantum computing platform enables high-speed, low-noise operations with enhanced gate fidelity and scalability, leveraging thermal decoherence immunity, precise control, and miniaturized integration.

Page 60 of 63 5.4. Dealing with Blockchain related inventions: Blockchain is a Peer-to-Peer, distributed, immutable digital ledger that enables secure transactions, append only, updated only by consensus among peers and tracking assets across a network of computers/Nodes/block. It enables the secure tracking and trading of valuable assets on a distributed digital database shared across a computer network. Blockchain, also known as Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), uses independent nodes to record, share, and synchronize transactions in their respective electronic ledgers instead of keeping them in one centralized server. Blockchain uses several technologies like non-repudiation, digital signatures, distributed networks, encryption/ decryption methods, smart contracts written in the form of code and distributed ledger technology to enable blockchain applications. Transactions are recorded with an immutable cryptographic signature called a hash. Blockchain has real world application in different field of Technologies viz. Banking, Cyber Security, Supply chain management, Healthcare, Governance. An abstract idea, such as a mathematical formula or a theoretical concept such as Blockchain, is not patentable, as it lacks practical application. However, when a Blockchain innovation transforms such abstract principles into a real-world, tangible application, it may become patentable. The key lies in demonstrating a concrete technical effect or improvement in a technological process. Thus, practical implementations of Blockchain that solves real-world problems can move beyond abstract ideas and qualify as patentable subject matter. 5.4.1. Sufficiency of Disclosure Requirements vis-à-vis Blockchain applications: Blockchain patent applications are required to include comprehensive descriptions of the cryptographic techniques used, the specific data structures involved, the consensus mechanisms employed, and any interactions with hardware or network systems. These detailed disclosures enable a person skilled in the art to understand and replicate the functionality and innovation of the blockchain technology described. Blockchain patent applications must clearly define elements like distributed ledgers, smart contract(disclose only high-level functionality while keeping sensitive implementation details undisclosed if technical effect does not lies in Smart contract), consensus mechanisms (e.g., Proof of stake, Delegated Proof of Stake, proof of work, proof of burn, multi- signature, Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance, Proof of Deposit, Proof of Importance, Proof of Activity), cryptographic processes, and network configurations. Clear descriptions of consensus mechanisms and data layouts (e.g., block structures, linkages) are crucial for enablement.

Page 61 of 63 5.4.2. Non-exhaustive illustrative examples vis-à-vis Blockchain Applications: Example 19: The claimed invention relates to a computer-implemented method for executing a rental agreement over a blockchain network, the method comprising:deploying a smart contract to a distributed ledger, the smart contract including executable code defining rental terms and access control conditions; receiving, by a decentralized node, a rental request including a digital identity and payment data from a tenant device; verifying, by the smart contract, a crypto- currency payment transaction on the blockchain associated with the rental term; upon verification, generating a digital access token and transmitting the access token to a rental access control module; activating, via the access control module, a physical or virtual asset responsive to the access token; and recording rental events, including access timestamps and payment confirmation, immutably on the blockchain ledger. i. Smart Contract Logic and its parameter for auto-triggering conditionshould be clearly defined. ii. Protocol stack or interface for connecting smart contracts to IoT hardwareshould be disclosed. iii. What events are recorded immutably (e.g., transaction hashes, timestamps, user IDs)should be disclosed. iv. Explanation of fallback mechanisms (e.g., if smart contract fails to execute, manual override protocol, external oracle, handling failed payments, expired contracts, disputed access events)should be provided. 3(k): The invention enables automated enforcement of access and payment rights without centralized servers, reduces fraud and transaction latency using trust-less logic execution and Integrates physical IoT devices for secure and conditional access provisioning. Example 20: The claimed invention relates to a decentralized system for supply chain provenance tracking, comprising: a private/closed blockchain network with a consensus mechanism combining Proof of Authority (PoA) and Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT); smart contracts for registering product provenance, verifying sensor data against regulatory thresholds, and dynamically adjusting delivery routes where routing contract integrates external data via oracles to optimize delivery routes in real-time; an off-chain data anchoring mechanism using Merkle trees to store high-volume sensor data with on-chain integrity verification; wherein the Provenance Contract records product details (e.g., origin, batch number, timestamp) and updates ownership at each supply chain stage.

Page 62 of 63 i. For Blockchain Platform, setup instructions like node configuration, network permissions, and consensus parameters should be disclosed. ii. For Smart Contract, detailed functionality of each smart contract (e.g., Provenance Contract for recording product details, Compliance Contract for regulatory checks, Routing Contract for dynamic rerouting) should be iii. Explanation of the off-chain storage mechanism (e.g., Inter Planetary File System for sensor data) and on-chain anchoring (e.g., Merkle trees for integrity).Detail the hybrid PoA-PBFT consensus, including validator selection, fault tolerance (e.g., tolerating up to one-third faulty nodes), and transaction validation process should be provided. iv. Detailed oracle integration (e.g., ChainlinkAPI endpoints for weather or traffic data) and IoT sensor protocols (e.g., Message Queuing Telemetry Transport, i.e., MQTT for data transmission) should be disclosed. 3(k):The invention provides a technical solution with tangible effects in supply chain provenance tracking by integrating a private blockchain with a hybrid Proof of Authority (PoA) and Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) consensus mechanism, the system achieves low-latency transaction finality, enabling real-time tracking of product details such as origin and batch number, critical for perishable goods like vaccines. The use of off-chain storage on the Inter Planetary File System (IPFS) with Merkle tree anchoring reduces on-chain storage demands, enhancing scalability and lowering costs compared to traditional blockchain systems. Smart contracts automate provenance logging, regulatory compliance checks via IoT sensor data, and dynamic delivery route optimization using external oracle data, ensuring tamper-proof authentication and operational efficiency. The incorporation of IoT sensors with MQTT protocols facilitates secure, real-time environmental monitoring, further embedding hardware integration. These are measurable improvements in supply chain security and efficiency.

Page 63 of 63 6. Saving Clause of Provisions of Manual Chapter 09.03.05.10 of the Manual, containing provisions pertaining to section 3(k) of the Act shall stand deleted with coming into force of these Guidelines for examination of CRIs. 7. Applicability of Guidelines These Guidelines shall be applicable with immediate effect. -----------End of Document----------