USPTO’s Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate into legal practices, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new guidance to assist patent attorneys and the public with its adoption, including the adoption of patent software and AI tools in assisting intellectual property attorneys with the patent drafting process, patent prosecution, and other areas of patent law.

USPTO’s Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Below are some key takeaways from the USPTO’s guidance, the entirety of which can be found here

  1. The USPTO’s existing rules are sufficient to protect against any potential concerns with the use of generative AI tools in preparing patent drafts for filing at the USPTO.
  2. There is no prohibition against using AI in drafting documents, including patent applications, for submission to the USPTO and there is no general obligation to disclose when AI tools have been used. 
  3. The USPTO also provided some reminders of current obligations for practitioners using AI in patent application drafting, which are highlighted below.

Signatory and Review Requirements

When submitting documents to the USPTO, whether drafted with AI or not, all submissions must be signed and reviewed by the party responsible, ensuring the accuracy and verification of all information. Therefore, in its guidance, the USPTO emphasized that a signing party must still review the contents of any document filed before the USPTO for accuracy, and in the specific case of patent claims, that each claim has significant contribution by a human inventor. 

Duty of Disclosure Requirements

The USPTO also provided a reminder about the duty to disclose to the USPTO all information known to an individual to be material to patentability. Therefore, similar to all other patentability and duty of disclosure requirements, if the use of AI is material to patentability, the use of AI must be disclosed to the USPTO. With that said, there’s still no general obligation to disclose when AI tools have been used.

Inventorship Considerations

The USPTO recognized that AI can be used during the patent drafting process to draft or modify claims and claim language, and noted that such modifications could impact inventorship, as well as patentability. Therefore, although there is no general obligation to disclose when AI has been used, the USPTO provided the reminder that each named inventor must have significantly contributed to the claimed invention and practitioners should still continue to properly assess inventorship when using AI during the patent claim drafting process. 

Conclusion

The guidance provided by the U.S. Patent Office provides helpful information and considerations for the public on the use of AI for patent application drafting and prosecution. Here, at Solve Intelligence™, we are building the first AI-powered platform to assist with every aspect of the patenting process, including our Patent Copilot™, which assists with patent drafting, and future technology focused on patent filing, patent prosecution and office action analysis, patent portfolio strategy and management, and patent infringement analyses. At each stage, however, our Patent Copilot™ works with the patent professional and we have designed our products to keep patent professionals in the driving seat, thereby equipping legal professionals, law firms, companies, and inventors with the tools to help develop the full scope of protection for their inventions. We will continue to develop our products in view of these guidelines and any future guidance provided by patent offices around the world.

AI for patents.

Be 50%+ more productive. Join thousands of legal professionals around the World using Solve’s Patent Copilot™ for drafting, prosecution, invention harvesting, and more.

Related articles

IPO European Committee Conference 2025: A Fireside Chat on IP and AI

At the European Practice Conference hosted by the IP Owners Association in Paris, one fireside chat stood out for its insight and urgency: “IP Trends and Developments in AI.”

The session was led by two highly respected experts: Jean-François Adam, who covers all things European and currently serves as in-house counsel at Infineon Technologies, and Jonathan Osha, founding partner of Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP, who brought the US perspective. OBWB, a long-time thought leader in cross-border IP, was also the hosting sponsor of this year’s event, held at the elegant Hôtel le Marois in central Paris. 

Together, Jean-François and Jonathan offered a compelling look into the evolving challenges of patenting artificial intelligence-based inventions – and why practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic are grappling with inconsistent, outdated frameworks that do not sufficiently reflect the reality of modern innovation implementing AI.

G1/23: Marketed Products Are Prior Art

The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G1/23 on July 2, 2025, addressing whether products put on the market before a patent filing date form part of the prior art when their composition or internal structure cannot be reproduced by the skilled person.

AI Claim Charting - Patent Prosecution

Patent prosecution has always hinged on precision, speed, and strategic foresight. Yet as Office Actions grow in both volume and complexity—often bundling multiple §§102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) rejections grounded in nuanced claim interpretations and an ever-expanding body of prior art—the traditional toolkit of the patent professional faces serious challenges. Manual claim charting, painstaking annotation of cited references, and labor‑intensive crafting of responses under tight deadlines can create bottlenecks, drive up costs, and leave room for human error.

Enter AI-powered claim charting: a suite of advanced natural language processing (NLP), machine‑learning (ML), and knowledge‑representation technologies that is rapidly reinventing each step of the Office Action workflow. By automating the generation of claim charts, surfacing hidden flaws in Examiner rejections, semantically analyzing claim language, and even proposing targeted response strategies, AI tools are transforming how attorneys and agents prosecute patents.

In this post, we’ll explore four core capabilities of AI‑driven claim charting and how they bring both speed and insight to Office Action responses:

  1. Automated analysis of Examiner rejections
  2. Instant flagging of issues and gaps
  3. Holistic assessment of claim language and prior art
  4. AI‑generated response strategies

The 5 Best Patent Proofreading Software Solutions for Law Firms (2025)

Key Takeaways

  • Proofreading software has become essential: Manual checks can’t keep pace with growing patent complexity and filing volumes. AI solutions can help prevent costly errors, office actions, and post-grant risks.

  • Most legacy solutions fall short of quality control: Many platforms rely on basic rule-based checks, lack real-time drafting integration, and offer limited jurisdictional support, creating workflow gaps and added manual work.
  • Solve Intelligence for AI-assisted patent review: With seamless drafting integration, tracked changes, auto-propagation of edits, and multi-jurisdiction compliance, Solve Intelligence provides unmatched accuracy and efficiency.