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

How to Build an Invalidity Claim Chart: A Practical Guide

An invalidity claim chart is a structured document that maps, for example, each limitation of a patent claim against prior art to show the patent should never have been granted. If you’re defending against infringement allegations, preparing an IPR petition, opposing a European patent, or advising a client on patent risk, knowing how to build one correctly is non-negotiable.

Key takeaways

•       A well-built invalidity chart maps every claim limitation to prior art, element by element, with pinpoint citations to the exact column, line, page, or figure.

•       When IPRs reach a final written decision, the PTAB now finds every challenged claim unpatentable around 70% of the time; and the chart is a key component of getting a petition instituted in the first place.

•       Solve Intelligence’s Charts generates fully cited, limitation-by-limitation invalidity charts in minutes rather than days, flags weak limitation coverage candidly, and lets attorneys inspect the reasoning behind every mapping.

LAC 2026: What Generic and Biosimilar IP Teams Think About AI

Generic and biosimilar IP teams are already using AI for prosecution history and FTO work. The live debate is not about adoption, but internal framing of quality and coverage extension without reducing headcount. The teams furthest along chose the former.

Key takeaways

  • Generic and biosimilar IP teams use AI primarily for prosecution history summaries, invalidity analysis and FTO claim charting.
  • Viewing AI as a quality and coverage extension drives durable internal adoption.
  • General-purpose AI cannot reliably interpret claim scope from prosecution history; patent-specific tools are required.

Aliza Panjwani Joins Solve

We’re happy to welcome Aliza Panjwani as a Legal & Product Engineer.

Dan Rudoy to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

We are excited to welcome Dan Rudoy, Shareholder at Wolf Greenfield, to Solve Intelligence’s Customer Advisory Board.