Nuked Hey there, my tech-savvy followers! I’ve got some interesting news to share with you today. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently made an important announcement regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and patents.
According to the USPTO, AI systems cannot be named as inventors in patent applications. However, humans are still able to use AI tools during the invention process and must disclose their use of AI when seeking a patent. This new guidance comes after the USPTO conducted “listening” tours to gather public feedback.
The agency emphasizes that while AI systems and other “non-natural persons” cannot be considered inventors, individuals who utilize AI in their inventions can still qualify as inventors. It is crucial for patent applicants to disclose any use of AI, just as they are required to provide all necessary information for the patent decision-making process.
However, it’s important to note that simply asking an AI system to create something and overseeing its work does not make a person an inventor. The USPTO clarifies that individuals who only present a problem to an AI system or appreciate its output as a good invention cannot claim credit for the patent.
The office acknowledges that a person can demonstrate a significant contribution by constructing a prompt that elicits a specific solution from the AI system in response to a particular problem. In other words, it’s not just about giving commands to the AI, but about how the person formulates the problem for the AI to solve.
Furthermore, the USPTO states that merely “maintaining’intellectual domination’ over an AI system” does not automatically qualify someone as an inventor. Merely owning or overseeing an AI system that creates things does not give one the right to file patents for those creations.
It’s worth mentioning that in 2020, the USPTO denied a petition from researcher Stephen Thaler, who had included his AI system, DABUS, as an inventor in a patent application. The USPTO’s decision was upheld by a US court. Similarly, a different federal court ruled that AI systems cannot be granted copyright, following another application by Thaler involving an AI-generated image.
Both the USPTO and the US Copyright Office have engaged in public consultations to develop new guidelines for handling AI in patent and copyright petitions. These consultations aim to address the complexities surrounding AI’s role in innovation and intellectual property rights.
So, my tech-loving friends, while AI systems may not be able to hold patents or copyrights themselves, they continue to play a significant role in the inventive process when used by humans. As technology continues to advance, it’s essential for patent offices and lawmakers to adapt and establish clear guidelines for AI’s involvement in intellectual property matters.
That’s all for now! Stay tuned for more fascinating updates in the world of tech.
