Ahsan Shaikh’s Post

🚀 **New USPTO Guidance on AI Patents: A Timely Update** 🚀 The USPTO has issued updated guidance on subject matter eligibility, specifically addressing AI-related inventions. This update, effective July 17, 2024, is particularly timely given that approximately **20% of recent patent applications are AI-related**. ### Key Highlights from the New Guidance: 1. **Enhanced Clarity for AI Innovations**:   - The guidance aims to provide more clarity and consistency in evaluating the subject matter eligibility of AI-related inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.   - This update builds on previous guidance by offering detailed examples to help USPTO personnel and applicants understand how to apply eligibility criteria to AI claims. 2. **New Examples**:   - Three new examples illustrate the application of the eligibility analysis to AI claims:    - Use of an artificial neural network to detect anomalies.    - AI-based methods for analyzing and separating speech signals.    - An AI model designed to personalize medical treatment based on individual patient characteristics. 3. **Balancing Innovation and Patentability**:   - The USPTO emphasizes fostering innovation while preventing the monopolization of broad concepts that could hinder further advancements.   - The guidance clarifies that AI tools themselves cannot be inventors; only inventions with significant human contribution are patentable. ### Why This Matters: - **For Innovators**: This guidance provides much-needed clarity, helping innovators navigate the complexities of patenting AI technologies. - **For Patent Practitioners**: It underscores the importance of strategic patent drafting and prosecution to ensure compliance with updated eligibility criteria. - **For the AI Community**: It reflects the USPTO's commitment to supporting AI innovation while ensuring a balanced and fair patent system. ### Looking Forward: The USPTO is open to public feedback on this new guidance until September 16, 2024. This is a great opportunity for stakeholders to share their insights and help shape the future of AI patenting. For more details, you can read the full guidance updates here: (https://lnkd.in/e-nwgSqY) and explore the exampleshere: (https://lnkd.in/ekXJUyu4). #AI #Patents #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #TechLaw

Last week, the USPTO requested feedback on AI's role in patent creation. Currently, AI systems cannot be named inventors or co-inventors, raising questions about the patentability criteria for AI-assisted inventions. This stance (as well as the Executive Order from last fall) has prompted the release of guidelines aimed at clarifying the role of human contributors in AI-assisted inventions. The USPTO's proposed guidelines clarify that that a person using AI doesn't exclude them from being considered an inventor, provided their input is significant. However, merely identifying a problem or having a broad goal falls short of qualifying for inventorship. How do you define significant contribution? The USPTO itself acknowledges this difficulty, "Determining whether a natural person’s contribution in AI-assisted inventions is significant may be difficult to ascertain, and there is no bright-line test." IMO, the guidelines should be a lot broader. Any form of human involvement that facilitates or guides AI towards generating inventions should qualify a person as an inventor. If you are interested in reading more 1.      https://lnkd.in/g-eifhun 2.      https://lnkd.in/gqShBsvp 3.      https://lnkd.in/gXBTDx2M 4.      https://lnkd.in/gQBR42RF Alison (. Ted Wimsatt Matt Talpis #AIInnovation #PatentLaw #USPTO #IntellectualProperty #TechEthics #Inventorship #ArtificialIntelligence #LegalTech #InnovationPolicy #FutureOfInvention

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued examination guidance regarding patentability for artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted inventions. The guidance states that AI-assisted inventions are not “category unpatentable.” Instead, when a natural person provides a “significant contribution” to an invention, such an invention can be patentable even if an AI system contributed to the invention. While the guidance does not constitute law, it is grounded in law, i.e., the Federal Circuit’s so-called Pannu factors, which serve as a test for ensuring that a natural person contributed, at least in part, to the conception of the invention as required in the Federal Circuit’s Thaler decision on AI inventorship. The guidance also provides several useful guidelines and examples to help patent practitioners determine what constitutes a “significant contribution” for purposes of establishing natural person inventorship and, thus, patentability for AI-assisted inventions. #intellectualproperty #patents #artificialintelligence #inventorship https://lnkd.in/dFPRrkVT  

USPTO has issued a guidance update on patent subject matter eligibility to address innovation in critical and emerging technologies, including in artificial intelligence (AI). This guidance update, which goes into effect on July 17, 2024, will assist USPTO personnel and stakeholders in determining subject matter eligibility under patent law (35 § U.S.C. 101) of AI inventions. This latest update builds on previous guidance by providing further clarity and consistency to how the USPTO and applicants should evaluate subject matter eligibility of claims in patent applications and patents involving inventions related to AI technology. The guidance update also announces three new examples of how to apply this guidance throughout a wide range of technologies. #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #SubjectMatterEligibility #IntellectualProperty #Patnet #USPTO #Innovation

The recent examination guidance from the USPTO regarding patentability for AI-assisted inventions clarifies that a natural person can use an AI tool to create a patented invention so long as that natural person provided a "significant contribution" in view of the Federal Circuit's Pannu factors. This guidance, while not law, offers crucial insights and examples to navigate inventorship and patentability in the emerging area of AI innovation. Read the latest PatentNext.com blog post by partner Ryan Phelan here: https://bit.ly/4cfFkNJ #USPTO #PatentLaw #AIInnovation

📜 Stay Ahead with the Latest USPTO Guidance on AI Patent Eligibility📜 On Wednesday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released an essential update on patent subject matter eligibility, particularly focusing on emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI). 🔍 Discover the Summary: https://lnkd.in/edq6fh8B 📘 Dive into the Full Guidance: https://lnkd.in/g43huwkD At the Zucker Institute for Innovation Commercialization, our patent experts are dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest USPTO guidance, court rulings, and trends that impact the patentability of groundbreaking technologies. 💡 Got an idea? Let’s explore its patent potential together! Whether you're developing AI solutions or other cutting-edge innovations, our team is here to help you navigate the complexities of patent law and secure the protection your invention deserves. 🔗 Connect with us today and let's innovate together! #Innovation #AI #PatentLaw #EmergingTechnologies #ZuckerInstitute #USPTO #PatentEligibility #TechInnovation #MUSC

USPTO issues inventorship guidance for inventions assisted by artificial intelligence (AI). https://lnkd.in/gM6Dhn8s "Pursuant to the “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” (October 30, 2023), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is issuing inventorship guidance for inventions assisted by artificial intelligence (AI). The guidance provides clarity for USPTO stakeholders and personnel, including the Central Reexamination Unit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), on how the USPTO will analyze inventorship issues as AI systems, including generative AI, play a greater role in the innovation process. This guidance explains that while AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable, the inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity. Patent protection may be sought for inventions for which a natural person provided a significant contribution to the invention, and the guidance provides procedures for determining the same. Finally, the guidance discusses the impact these procedures have on other aspects of patent practice."

My new article explores the new AI guidelines and includes the following takeaway: The USPTO announced its 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, particularly focusing on Artificial Intelligence (AI). Effective July 17, 2024, this guidance aims to address examination procedures for U.S. patent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 101, following President Biden’s executive order on the safe development and use of AI. The 2024 AI Guidance is designed to help USPTO personnel apply existing subject matter eligibility rules to AI-related inventions during patent examination, appeal, and post-grant proceedings. It includes case examples from the Federal Circuit, which, although not AI-specific, are relevant for understanding software-related arts. Additionally, it introduces hypothetical examples (new example claims 47-49) illustrating how AI-related patent claims will be analyzed for eligibility. These examples suggest that examiners will scrutinize AI-related claims more rigorously, emphasizing the need for detailed descriptions of how AI features improve technology or technical fields and/or provide a specific medical treatment. While the guidance does not constitute new law, it replaces previous guidance and is expected to be integrated into the MPEP eventually. https://lnkd.in/giNRrpWa

USPTO Rules: Only Humans, Not AI, Can Own Patents The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued guidance clarifying that only natural humans, not AI systems, can be granted patents. This decision is rooted in legal tradition and the principle of rewarding human ingenuity. While AI-assisted inventions are eligible for patents, the AI itself cannot be recognized as an inventor or co-inventor. This clarification addresses the evolving role of AI in the invention process, specifying that significant human contribution is required for a patent claim. The guidance aims to maintain the integrity of the patent system by ensuring that inventions attributed to AI systems still reflect human creativity and contribution, setting a clear boundary on the legal personhood of AI in the realm of intellectual property. https://lnkd.in/gsF-wXDC

Now this is an interesting: A Guidance on AI and Patents. This document stipulated who is able to receive a patent. So far only humans are allowed that. Now we have to remember here that a guidance is not the same thing as the law and this is only in the United States. Other countries and leaderships will have different views and may develop different regulations. I have a feeling that there will be many changes to these concepts as AI develops and becomes more sentient. At some point they may be holding patents because the definition of the mind will inevitably include artificial minds. I’m excited to see where this goes and how it evolves. For now here are some notable quotes: “This guidance explains that while AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable, the inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity” “The USPTO's decisions were upheld on September 2, 2021, in a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed in Thaler v. Vidal (Thaler) the holding "that only a natural person can be an inventor, so Al cannot be." “Because conception is an act performed in the mind, it has to date been understood as only performed by natural persons. The courts have been unwilling to extend conception to non-natural persons.” Pt1 , I will also share the paraphrased criteria. https://lnkd.in/gwsT_nS3