US Patent Office Explains: Only People, Not AI, Can Apply for Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an important announcement regarding the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the patent process. With AI's growing influence in innovation and scientific research, questions have emerged about how inventions created with AI's assistance should be treated under patent law. The USPTO's latest guidance offers clarity on this matter, emphasizing the importance of human involvement in the inventive process.

According to the USPTO, for an invention to be patentable, a real person must have played a significant role in its creation. This means that only humans can be recognized as inventors in a patent application, not AI systems. The guidance underscores the value of human creativity and sets expectations for how AI can contribute to, but not replace, the human element in inventing.

What counts as a "significant contribution" from a human inventor is somewhat open to interpretation and will likely evolve as these guidelines are applied. For instance, merely using an AI tool to solve a problem or design a component without direct human intellectual input would not qualify one as an inventor. However, if an individual can demonstrate that their unique input or direction to the AI tool led to a novel invention, they could be eligible for patent protection.

This approach is consistent with previous court decisions, such as the Thaler v. Vidal case, reinforcing the principle that inventors must be living individuals. The USPTO's stance is not only about maintaining traditional inventorship criteria but also about ensuring that patents remain a testament to human ingenuity.

The USPTO's guidance is a step towards balancing the benefits of AI in research and development with the need to protect and encourage genuine human contributions to science and technology.