The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has declared that artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as inventors in patent applications. However, individuals can utilize AI tools in the creation process, marking a pivotal shift in patent regulations.
The agency’s latest guidance, following extensive public hearings, clarifies that the use of AI by an individual does not disqualify them from being recognized as an inventor. While AI systems and other “non-human entities” are excluded from inventorship, users employing AI must disclose its involvement in the patent application.
To be eligible for patent registration, individuals must demonstrate a substantial contribution to the invention’s development. Mere observation of an AI system’s creative process without active input doesn’t confer inventor status. The USPTO emphasizes that presenting a problem to an AI system without meaningful input does not qualify for patent application.
The agency provides a pathway for individuals to establish significant contributions. Crafting a specific problem, building a hint, and guiding the AI system toward a solution showcases the necessary inventorship criteria.
However, the USPTO cautions that merely holding “intellectual dominance” over an AI system doesn’t automatically grant inventor status. Merely overseeing or owning an AI that generates inventions isn’t sufficient grounds for patent eligibility.
This decision comes in the wake of the 2020 ruling limiting patent applications to “natural humans.” The rejection of researcher Steven Thaler’s petition to include the AI system DABUS as an inventor set a precedent. Despite Thaler’s attempts to challenge this decision, the courts upheld the USPTO’s stance. Additionally, a separate ruling confirmed that AI systems cannot be copyrighted, marking a comprehensive regulatory stance on AI in intellectual property.