The guidance also states that a human must significantly contribute to the invention to be named as the inventor. Simply owning or overseeing an AI system used in the creation of an invention does not make a person an inventor. The USPTO clarified that it is not attempting to define or limit what AI does or is, but applying existing statute and precedent to a new technology.
Key takeaways:
- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has declared that only a person can receive its official protections, meaning AI cannot be awarded patents.
- While AI-assisted inventions are not “categorically unpatentable,” AI systems themselves are not individuals and therefore cannot be inventors.
- At least one human must be named as the inventor of any given claim, and they must show that they “significantly contributed” to the invention.
- The USPTO is not attempting to define or limit what AI does or is, or how people should use it. It’s simply an application of existing statute and precedent to a new technology.