USPTO Treats Generative AI as Tool, Not Inventor, in Patent Guidelines

Background

The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) has prompted questions about its role in the invention process and how it fits within U.S. patent law. Historically, the legal framework has required that an inventor be a natural person, a stance affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application or issued patent.

USPTO’s Updated Guidance

In a recent notice, USPTO Director John Squires articulated the agency’s position that AI systems are “analogous” to other tools that inventors might use, such as laboratory equipment, software, and research databases. He stated that AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are “instruments used by human inventors.” The notice clarifies that while AI may provide services and generate ideas, it “remains a tool used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention.”

The updated guidance does not create a separate evaluation process for inventions that involve AI assistance. Instead, the USPTO will treat AI‑assisted inventions like any other, applying the same criteria for patentability. When multiple natural persons are involved in creating an invention with AI assistance, the traditional joint‑inventorship principles continue to apply.

Implications for Innovators

This clarification offers greater certainty for researchers, companies, and startups that leverage genAI in developing new technologies. By confirming that AI is a tool rather than an inventor, the USPTO ensures that existing patent‑filing procedures remain applicable, avoiding the need for new administrative pathways. The guidance also signals that inventions such as new medications developed with AI assistance remain eligible for patent protection, provided a human inventor is identified.

Industry observers note that the USPTO’s stance aligns with longstanding legal principles while acknowledging the growing influence of AI in the innovation ecosystem. The agency’s approach balances the need for legal consistency with the practical realities of modern research, where AI is increasingly integrated into the creative process.

Future Outlook

While the USPTO’s notice does not alter the fundamental requirement that only natural persons can be named as inventors, it provides clearer direction for how AI‑assisted work should be documented and claimed. As generative AI technologies continue to evolve, the agency may revisit its policies to address emerging challenges, but for now, AI remains classified as a supporting instrument rather than a legal inventor.