Christian Berrios, PhD
Written by: 
Christian Berrios, PhD
, 
Legally reviewed by: 
February 23, 2026

How to use AI in patent practice: USPTO guidance and compliance tips

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate into legal practices, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued guidance to assist patent attorneys with adopting AI tools in patent drafting, prosecution, and other areas of patent law.

In this article, we summarize the key compliance requirements from the USPTO's guidance and explain how Patent Copilot™ helps practitioners meet these obligations while leveraging AI's benefits.

How to use AI in patent practice: USPTO guidance and compliance tips
Click Here for Full 2025 Review

Core principles

The USPTO has determined that its existing rules sufficiently protect against potential concerns with generative AI use. Importantly:

  • There is no prohibition against using AI in drafting documents, including patent applications, for submission to the USPTO.
  • There is no general obligation to disclose when AI tools have been used.

However, practitioners must remain vigilant about their existing professional obligations when incorporating AI into their workflows.

Signatory, review, and verification requirements

When submitting documents to the USPTO, all submissions must be signed and reviewed by the responsible party, ensuring accuracy and verification of all information. The USPTO emphasizes that simply relying on the accuracy of an AI tool does not constitute a reasonable inquiry under 37 CFR 11.18(b).

How Solve’s Patent Copilot™ helps

Our platform is designed to keep patent professionals in the driver's seat. Patent Copilot™ works collaboratively with attorneys, generating drafts and suggestions that practitioners review and refine; never autonomously filing documents. This workflow ensures that the human attorney maintains full control over verification and review, supporting compliance with signature and certification requirements.

Duty of disclosure requirements

If AI use is material to patentability, it must be disclosed. This includes situations where AI introduces embodiments that inventors did not conceive, or where a named inventor's contributions were actually made by AI. The duty of disclosure cannot be delegated to an AI system. The individuals identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c) bear personal responsibility for ensuring all material information is submitted.

How Solve’s Patent Copilot™ helps

Patent Copilot™ maintains transparency in the drafting process, clearly delineating AI-assisted suggestions from inventor-provided disclosures. This separation helps practitioners assess whether AI contributions rise to the level of materiality and supports proper inventorship analysis throughout the application process.

Confidentiality and client data protection

Under 37 CFR 11.106, practitioners must make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information. General-use AI systems may retain information entered by users and use it to train models. Before using any AI tool, practitioners must understand the tool's terms of use, privacy policies, and cybersecurity practices. Practitioners supervising others must ensure that staff under their supervision also comply with these requirements.

How Solve’s Patent Copilot™ helps

Solve Intelligence™ has built Patent Copilot™ with data security as a foundational principle. We maintain strict confidentiality protocols, and our platform is designed to protect client information. We do not use client data to train models shared with other users, and we provide transparent information about our data handling practices to support practitioners' compliance obligations.

Export control and security concerns

Practitioners must be mindful of foreign filing license requirements and export regulations when using AI tools. AI tools may use servers outside the United States, meaning entered data could be exported in violation of regulations. Foreign filing licenses do not authorize exporting data abroad for preparing US applications. Practitioners must verify their AI tools' infrastructure before use.

How Solve’s Patent Copilot™ helps

Patent Copilot™ is developed with awareness of export control considerations. We provide practitioners with clear, upfront information about our infrastructure and data handling to support their compliance assessments. Our European and US-based teams understand the sensitivity of patent-related technical information and work with practitioners to meet their data security requirements.

Practitioner competence requirements

Under 37 CFR 11.101, practitioners must possess the legal, scientific, and technical knowledge reasonably necessary for representation. The ABA Model Rules, which inform USPTO Rules, specify that lawyers must keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.

Additionally, under 37 CFR 11.104, practitioners must reasonably consult with clients about the means by which objectives are accomplished—including the use of AI tools in their matters.

How Solve’s Patent Copilot™ helps

We designed Patent Copilot™ to be intuitive and transparent, helping practitioners understand how AI assists in the drafting process. Our platform includes resources and documentation to support practitioners in developing competence with AI tools, and our collaborative approach facilitates meaningful client communication about AI use in their matters.

Conclusion

The USPTO's guidance provides a comprehensive framework for the responsible use of AI in patent practice. While there is no prohibition on AI use, practitioners must remain attentive to their professional obligations regarding verification, disclosure, confidentiality, export controls, and competence.

How Solve’s Patent Copilot™ helps

At Solve Intelligence™, we are building the first AI-powered platform to assist with every aspect of the patenting process. Our Patent Copilot™ assists with patent drafting, prosecution and office action analysis, portfolio strategy and management, infringement analyses, and litigation workflows.

Patent Copilot™ works with the patent professional; we have designed our products to keep patent professionals in the driving seat. This approach equips legal professionals, law firms, companies, and inventors with powerful tools while maintaining the human oversight that the USPTO's guidance requires.

To learn more about how Patent Copilot™ can enhance your practice while supporting your compliance obligations, contact us today.

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.

Request Demo

Related articles

UK Supreme Court aligns UK software patentability with EPO approach

The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision moves UK practice closer to the EPO for computer implemented inventions, including AI. Claims with ordinary hardware will usually avoid the “computer program as such” exclusion, but only technical features can support inventive step. In practice, applicants should focus arguments and evidence on technical contribution and inventive step.

Key takeaways

  1. UK moves closer to EPO, inventive step becomes the main battleground.
  2. Ordinary hardware avoids exclusion, but may not support inventiveness.
  3. Only technical features count at inventive step, not business aims.
  4. Neural networks are treated as software, no special treatment either way.
  5. Draft around technical contribution, measurable effects, and system level impact.
Read Now

Kicking Off 2026: New Investors, New Customers, New Product Features

A lot has happened in the last two months. We wanted to take a moment to share what we've been building, who's joined us, and where we're headed next.

Since we started Solve, the goal has been simple: help IP teams do their best work by combining real-world patent expertise with deep AI research, intuitive UX, and state-of-the-art security. The momentum we're seeing across the business tells us the market agrees as 400+ IP teams across 6 continents now use Solve.

Here's what's new.

Read Now

Reflections from AUTM: What Tech Transfer Offices Really Need in 2026

Last week, my colleagues and I attended the annual meeting of AUTM, the global association for technology transfer professionals. For anyone building in the intellectual property (IP) space, it’s one of the most important rooms you can be in.

The three-day conference brings together high education decision-makers from around the world who are shaping how intellectual property is evaluated, protected, and commercialized. This year’s conversations revealed something important: the question is no longer if AI will influence tech transfer, but instead about how institutions will integrate it.

Read Now

PTAB Case Studies of AI Disclosure Requirements: Part I

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a fast-evolving field with new technical methods, systems, and products constantly being developed. This growth has also been reflected in the dramatic increase in patent filings for AI-related inventions. According to Patents and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, more than ten times as many AI-related patent applications were published worldwide in 2019 than in 2013, and the increasing trend has only continued since.

Although AI-related patent applications have been on the rise, explicit guidance on patentability requirements have only recently begun to be published by patent offices around the world. Indeed, as a burgeoning field of technology, AI inventions have unique features, such as the importance of training data and the lack of explainability and predictability of trained AI models, that differentiate such innovations from traditional types of computer-implemented inventions (CII). 

These features raise questions about the interpretation of disclosure requirements, among other patentability requirements, for AI-related inventions. For example, how much information, such as source code, training data sets, or machine learning model architectures, should be provided to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of Title 35 of the U.S. Code § 112(a) or analogs in other patent jurisdictions?

As we await further official guidance from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) on disclosure requirements for AI-related inventions, we can gather initial indications from recent patent prosecution decisions from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) on such issues. In this article, we study a selection of PTAB appeals decisions for applications for AI-related inventions rejected under § 112. To set the background, we first review a classification of AI inventions and USPTO guidelines on disclosure requirements for computer-implemented inventions. After analyzing three case studies, we conclude with general takeaways and best practices, which emphasize that applicants must disclose specific algorithms and implementation details, not just desired outcomes, to satisfy written description requirements.

Read Now
Product
Product

By clicking "Accept", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.

PreferencesRejectAccept
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Preferences