1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a machine-based system that can generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions on the basis of input data and prompts. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is a type of AI that generates new content, such as text, images, audio, or video, by learning patterns from input data. With the rapid growth in the use of generative tools across different fields, it has become necessary to consider their use in patent examination as well. Patent examination is document-intensive, technically complex, legally evolving and time-sensitive. Scholarly work in the patent field shows that such tools can assist in suggesting search terms, retrieving and ranking relevant documents, visualizing content, and reducing the time and cost of screening large numbers of patents. More recent work has also begun to examine their use in novelty analysis.

Various policy documents issued by the Government of India support a structured and responsible approach to the use of AI technology in public functions. These documents recognise its utility in improving efficiency and public service delivery, while emphasising human oversight, accountability, safety, transparency, privacy, risk-based governance, and institutional safeguards.

It is in this background that the present Guidelines have been prepared. The purpose is to identify how the benefits of such tools may be appropriately used in patent examination procedures, while ensuring that the technical, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions of the Examiner and Controller do not get compromised or fail to achieve the intended results.

A non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples for different use-cases in these Guidelines was prepared with the aid of certain public Generative AI tools and certain private tools accessible to the Patent Office and given in Annexure-I. Since such tools are proprietary in nature, they have not been specifically identified in these Guidelines. As the technology continues to evolve rapidly, these Guidelines may require revision from time to time in light of further developments.

1.2 Objective

These Guidelines are intended to guide and regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent examination in a manner that supports efficiency and quality, while preserving confidentiality, accountability, consistency and the independent application of mind by the Examiner or Controller.

1.3 Scope

These Guidelines shall apply to the use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent examination tasks such as screening, classification, search, translation support, drafting support, technical comparison or knowledge retrieval.

3.2 Need for human oversight

The Indian policy material on use of Artificial Intelligence repeatedly emphasises the need for human oversight, verification and accountability. Artificial Intelligence is intended to assist, and not replace, the functions or the works of the Examiner or Controller. Any use of Artificial Intelligence that may influence search or examination shall be subject to manual review and validation. The Examiner or Controller shall remain fully responsible for every official act performed in the course of search and examination which involves the use of AI in any manner. The use of AI shall not dilute or transfer such responsibility. Any AI-assisted output used in examination shall be critically reviewed, assessed and adopted only after the officer is personally satisfied as to its correctness, relevance and appropriateness.

5. Prohibited Uses

The following uses are not permitted:

(a) Entering unpublished patent application contents, confidential office records, or internal deliberative material into public AI tools.

(b) Using Artificial Intelligence as a substitute for the Examiner's or Controller's application of mind on substantive matters including novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, sufficiency, clarity, or unity of invention.

(c) Issuing office actions, FERs, hearing notices, decisions or other official communications solely on the basis of AI-generated output without adequate human oversight.

(d) Citing case law, prior art, scientific literature, or other references suggested by Artificial Intelligence without independent source verification from authentic sources.

(e) Using AI-generated content in official communications without review, correction, and adoption by the concerned officer.

(f) Relying solely on Artificial Intelligence for decision-making affecting rights of applicants/patentees or third parties, especially in arriving at conclusions in cases where situations involve opposing parties, for instance, opposition proceedings.

6. Administrative Measures

1. The competent authority may prescribe that material use of Artificial Intelligence in specified functions shall be recorded. Such records may include the name of the tool, the nature of the use, the date of use, and any other information considered necessary for supervision, audit, or quality review. The disclosure may be available to the stakeholders to improve the confidence in the examination process.

2. The competent authority may establish a dedicated committee for governance of use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Office functions. Such committee may be entrusted with: a. review and approval of tools; b. categorisation of uses into permitted and prohibited classes; c. prescription of safeguards and approval conditions; d. pilot studies on the use of AI in the examination process; e. review of quality, errors, complaints, or policy breaches; f. periodic revision of these Guidelines; and g. holding consultations with relevant stakeholders and AI experts possessing demonstrable technical expertise in machine learning, natural language processing, or large language model systems. The AI Governance Committee of the O/o CGPDTM shall comprise examiner(s) and controller(s) from the Examination Division of the Patent Office, officer(s) from the IT Office and from the QMS Division. The officers shall be nominated so as to cover the different technology groups in the patent office.

3. The competent authority may take steps for training and capacity building of officers to cover: a. functionalities and limitations of Artificial Intelligence; b. confidentiality risks and prompt discipline; c. verification of AI-assisted outputs; d. responsible use in public service; e. identification of hallucinations, unsupported claims, and fabricated citations; f. permitted and prohibited uses under these Guidelines.

4. Where appropriate, the competent authority may also provide for independent audit, impact assessment, feedback mechanisms, and incident reporting systems.

The Guidelines further contain Section 2 (Terminologies), Section 3.1 (Limitations and Risks), Section 4 (Typical uses of AI in patent examination, potential risks and associated safeguards), Annexure-I (a non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of use of Artificial Intelligence in patent examination) and Annexure-II (checklist and declaration). The full text is available in the Guidelines (PDF).

Source: Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), India, 7 August 2026. Original: https://ipindia.gov.in/dynamic/news-details/119