\n<\/p>\n
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) maintains that artificial intelligence systems cannot be named inventors, but humans can use AI tools in the process of creating patented inventions and must disclose if they do.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The agency published its latest guidance<\/a> following a series of \u201clistening\u201d tours to gather public feedback. It states that while AI systems and other \u201cnon-natural persons\u201d can\u2019t be listed as inventors in patent applications, \u201cthe use of an AI system by a natural person does not preclude a natural person from qualifying as an inventor.\u201d People seeking patents must disclose if they used AI in the invention process, just as the USPTO asks all applicants to list all material information necessary to make a decision.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n However, to be able to register a patent, the person using the AI must\u2019ve contributed significantly to the invention\u2019s conception. A person simply asking an AI system to create something and overseeing it, the report says, does not make them an inventor. The office says that a person who simply presents the problem to an AI system or \u201crecognizes and appreciates\u201d its output as a good invention can\u2019t claim credit for that patent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cHowever, a significant contribution could be shown by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution from the AI system,\u201d the USPTO says.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The office also says that \u201cmaintaining \u2018intellectual domination\u2019 over an AI system does not, on its own, make a person an inventor\u201d \u2014 so simply overseeing or owning an AI that creates things doesn\u2019t mean you can file a patent for them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In 2020, the USPTO ruled<\/a> that only \u201cnatural humans\u201d can apply for patents after it denied a petition from researcher Stephen Thaler. Thaler added the AI system he created, DABUS, as an inventor in a patent application. A US court upheld the patent office\u2019s decision<\/a>. A different federal court ruled that AI systems cannot be granted copyright<\/a>, following a separate application by Thaler involving an AI-generated image.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n