JUDGMENT Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed under Section 117-A of The Patents Act, 1970 ( hereinafter "the Act" ) impugning the order dated 21st April, 2022 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents in Indian Patent Application No.201817014040 ( hereinafter "subject application" ) filed on 12th April, 2018 for the invention titled "Expression of Recombinant Proteins in Trichoplusia Ni Pupae" ( hereinafter "subject invention" ). BRIEF FACTS 2. Brief facts relevant to decide the present appeal are as follows: 2.1. The appellant had filed the subject application on 12th April, 2018 at the Patent Office, New Delhi. 2.2. Subsequently, a complete specification with claims was filed with the Patent Office. Along with the complete specification, the appellant also filed a duly filled Form 18 as the request for Examination of the subject application on 7th August, 2018. 2.3. The Patent Office issued a First Examination Report (FER) on 3rd November, 2020, in terms of which, objection was raised that the claims lack inventive step in view of the prior-art documents referred to as D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6 and therefore, do not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The FER also raised an objection under Section 3(b) and 3(j) of the Act stating that the subject matter claimed in claims 9-17 were non-patentable under Section 3(b) of the Act and claims 1-7 attracted Section 3(j) of the Act. Further, the respondent held that there was lack of unity of invention under Section 10(5) of the Act. Only claim 8 was allowed under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. 2.4. The appellant filed a formal request under Rule 24B (5) of the Patent Rules to extend the time for filing a response to FER. The due date for filing the FER was extended to 3rd August, 2021 2.5. A detailed response was filed on behalf of the appellant to the aforesaid FER on 17th June, 2021 and amended its claims. Subsequently, various hearing notices were issued by the Patent Office to the appellant, wherein once again an objection was taken with regard to lack of inventive steps in view of the prior art documents, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 and a new prior art document, D7. Subsequently, various hearing notices were issued by the Patent Office to the appellant, wherein once again an objection was taken with regard to lack of inventive steps in view of the prior art documents, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 and a new prior art document, D7. In the hearing notice dated 9th November, 2021, the Assistant Controller of Patents maintained the objection relating to clarity and conciseness, lack of `inventive step' and non-patentability in terms of Section 3(b), 3(i) and 3(k) of the Act. 2.6. The appellant filed written submissions on 14th January, 2022 dealing with the prior art cited by the Patent Office and patentability of the subject invention. 3. The impugned order was passed by the Patent Office on 21st April, 2022 rejecting the subject application holding that the amended claims are not patentable under Section 3(b) the Act. The relevant observations of the impugned order are set out below: "Applicant agent's arguments have been considered but not found persuasive in view of above claims. Section 3(b) states an invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment is not patentable. Amended claims (1-07) on record attract section 3(b) of Indian Patent Act 1970. The method of producing recombinant proteins by destruction of pupa still attracts section 3(b) of Indian Patent Act 1970. The amended claims (1 07) are not eligible for patent protection as per Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970." SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that detailed submissions were made on behalf of the appellant in response to the FER as well as in the written submissions, wherein the subject invention has been distinguished from the prior art cited by the Patent Office and patentability of the subject invention has been detailed. However, the Patent Office has passed a cryptic order without dealing with any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. 6. However, the Patent Office has passed a cryptic order without dealing with any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. 6. At the outset, reference may be made to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940 and the judgment dated 27th September, 2022 in C.A.(COMM-IPD-PAT) 8/2022 titled Auckland Uniservices Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs . The relevant observations of this Court in Agriboard International (supra), are set out below: "23. The said reasoning has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 13 SCC 14 : AIR 2013 SC 681 wherein it has been categorically observed that application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. There can be no doubt that scrupulous adherence to these principles would be required while rejecting patent applications . 24. In the opinion of this Court, while rejecting an invention for lack of inventive step, the Controller has to consider three elements- the invention disclosed in the prior art, the invention disclosed in the application under consideration, and the manner in which subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. 25. Without a discussion on these three elements, arriving at a bare conclusion that the subject invention is lacking inventive step would not be permissible, unless it is a case where the same is absolutely clear. Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act defines `inventive step' as under: (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 . 26. Thus, the Controller has to analyse as to what is the existing knowledge and how the person skilled in the art would move from the existing knowledge to the subject invention, captured in the application under consideration. Without such an analysis, the rejection of the patent application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act would be contrary to the provision itself . The remaining prior arts which are cited by ld. Without such an analysis, the rejection of the patent application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act would be contrary to the provision itself . The remaining prior arts which are cited by ld. Counsel having not been considered in the impugned order, the Court does not wish to render any opinion in this regard." 7. The judgment in Agriboard International (supra) has been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Auckland Uniservices (supra) and also by me in N.V. Satheesh Madhav and Anr v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4568. 8. In the present case, detailed submissions were filed on behalf of the appellant in response to the objections in the hearing notice, showing how the subject invention did not fall under Section 3(b) of the Act. 9. Despite the above submissions seeking to establish how the subject invention is patentable, the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic manner without going into the explanation offered on behalf of the appellant with regard to the patentability of the subject patent. The impugned order simply runs to a conclusion that the subject invention is not eligible for patent protection under Section 3(b) of the Act. However, there is no discussion as to why the subject invention is non-patentable. When viewed in light of the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the impugned order is completely cryptic and does not give any reasoning or justification to arrive at the finding that the claims of the appellant are non-patentable. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21st April, 2022 rejecting the patent application of the appellant is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. The Patent Office shall issue a fresh hearing notice, raising all the pending objections. The appellant shall address the objections raised by the Patent Office and if required, file fresh written submissions. 11. The Controller shall endeavor to pass a reasoned order after taking into account all the relevant considerations within four months. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of. 13. Nothing stated in the impugned order or in the present order would bind the Controller on the merits of the objections. 14. 11. The Controller shall endeavor to pass a reasoned order after taking into account all the relevant considerations within four months. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of. 13. Nothing stated in the impugned order or in the present order would bind the Controller on the merits of the objections. 14. The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the present order to the Office of the CGPDTM on the e-mail ID - llc-ipo@gov.in for compliance.