While the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) once again clarified that generative artificial intelligence systems will not be considered inventors in patent applications, it announced new guidelines on how these technologies can be used in the invention process. According to the statement shared by Reuters, USPTO Director John Squires stated that AI systems are among the tools that human inventors use in the invention process, just like laboratory equipment, software or research databases.
“Artificial intelligence systems are tools used by human inventors, including generative AI and other computational models,” Squires said in the statement. Stating that these systems can provide services and generate ideas, Squires emphasized that the brainchild of a claimed invention must belong to humans. In this context, AI only plays a supporting role.
New guidelines clarify evaluation process for AI-powered inventions
According to the new USPTO declaration, which is planned to be published in the Official Gazette of the USA on November 28, a separate evaluation process will not be created for an invention developed with the help of artificial intelligence. If more than one person develops an invention with the support of artificial intelligence, existing joint invention rules will continue to apply. This approach aims to clarify the role of artificial intelligence in the invention process without going beyond the existing legal framework.
According to previous decisions of the US Federal Court of Appeals, it is not possible for artificial intelligence systems to be named as inventors in patent applications and only natural persons can be accepted as inventors. The USPTO’s new guidelines do not change this fundamental decision. However, the latest regulations largely eliminate the uncertainties about whether new drugs or technologies developed with generative artificial intelligence can be patented.
Meanwhile, it is known that patent offices around the world face similar questions. Institutions such as the European Patent Office (EPO) and the UK Intellectual Property Office impose similar restrictions on the place of AI in the invention process. These developments point out that the ethical, legal and intellectual property dimensions of technology need to be discussed more comprehensively.
Despite this, the increase in artificial intelligence-supported innovations raises the question of how existing patent systems will adapt to these developments. Lawyers, academics and technology developers point out that how to determine the limits of human contribution and measure the extent to which productive artificial intelligence plays a “creative” role will be discussed more in the coming years.