The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has clarified that artificial intelligence systems, categorized as “non-human entities,” cannot be designated as inventors in patent applications. The move comes after a series of public hearings to gather feedback on the evolving role of AI in innovation.
Disclosure Mandate for AI-Assisted Creations
The latest guidance emphasizes that while AI systems cannot be inventors, individuals using AI tools in the creation of patented inventions must disclose this information. The disclosure mandate aligns with the USPTO’s policy requiring all applicants to provide comprehensive information relevant to the decision-making process.
Substantive Contribution Required for Patent Registration
To be eligible for patent registration, individuals utilizing AI must demonstrate a substantial contribution to the development of the invention concept. The guidance explicitly states that merely instructing an AI system to generate a solution without active involvement does not qualify one as an inventor. Applicants must exhibit significant input, such as crafting a problem statement that guides the AI system toward a specific solution.
Intellectual Dominance Alone Does Not Suffice
The USPTO dismisses the notion that merely maintaining “intellectual dominance” over an AI system qualifies an individual as an inventor. Supervising or owning AI systems that autonomously generate inventions doesn’t confer patent eligibility. This stance reinforces the emphasis on meaningful human contribution in the inventive process.
Historical Precedent and the DABUS Case
This ruling builds upon the 2020 decision where the USPTO declared that only “natural humans” could apply for patents. The rejection of researcher Steven Thaler’s petition, involving the inclusion of his AI creation DABUS as an inventor, set the precedent. Despite Thaler’s legal challenge, the federal court upheld the USPTO’s decision, reinforcing the agency’s commitment to recognizing human inventors in the patent system.
Limitations on AI Copyrights
In a parallel development, a federal court ruled that AI systems cannot be copyrighted. This decision, prompted by Thaler’s separate application for copyright on an image generated by AI, further underscores the legal boundaries surrounding AI-generated content.
As the frontier of AI and intellectual property law evolves, the USPTO’s latest guidance establishes a framework that balances innovation facilitated by AI tools while preserving the fundamental role of human inventors in the patent system.
