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

Solve Intelligence Ranked #1 IP Platform by the World's Leading Law Firms

Solve Intelligence has been ranked the number one intellectual property platform in the latest Legal AI survey published by SKILLS (the Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders Summit). The study surveyed 130 leaders at the world's top law firms about their legal AI product usage across every major practice area, scoring platforms based on live deployments, active pilots, and tools under consideration. In the Patents/IP category, Solve Intelligence placed first with a weighted score of 67, making it the most widely-used platform in the category. See the full report here.

The Hidden Cost of Ignoring AI in Patent Practice

As patent practitioners, the choice to “do nothing” about AI is not a neutral act. 

Law firms or in-house counsel that delay the adoption of AI may believe they are minimizing risk, but oftentimes they are taking on a different set of less visible, long-term risks. 

These hidden costs can accumulate quickly, from compounding inefficiencies in traditional patent drafting workflows to missed revenue opportunities that remain untapped without leveraging AI-driven capabilities.

So, what can patent practitioners do to stay ahead of the game? Here is what the Solve Intelligence team has seen speaking with thousands of practitioners.

Key takeaways

  • Waiting to adopt AI is itself a strategic decision with compounding costs.
  • Manual patent workflows create time, quality, and knowledge bottlenecks that grow over time.
  • Firms already experimenting with AI gain operational insight that late adopters cannot shortcut.
  • Low-risk entry points let practitioners build confidence without compromising legal judgment.

Why Patent Attorneys Need Purpose-Built AI

Legal AI platforms like Harvey and Legora are valuable productivity tools. Powered by large language models and enriched with legal data sources, firm-specific knowledge, and purpose-built workflows, they perform well on tasks like legal research, document summarisation, and contract or email drafting.

But their workflows are optimised for breadth across practice areas, not for the structural, technical, and jurisdictional depth that patent work requires.

For IP teams that already have access to a generalist platform, or are trying one out, the natural follow-up question is whether a vertical solution adds enough to justify the investment. 

At Solve Intelligence, we build AI specifically for patent practitioners. In our experience scaling the platform to over 500 IP teams, there is no question that patent-specific tooling delivers ROI that generalist platforms alone cannot. This article sets out why.

Key takeaways

  • Generalist legal AI tools weren't trained for the structural depth patent work demands.
  • Solve Intelligence is shaped by in-house patent attorneys who joined Solve from firms like Carpmaels & Ransford and Fish & Richardson.
  • Custom templating lets attorneys match output to house style, client/technology area, or jurisdiction.
  • Generalist and patent-specific AI are complementary investments, not competing ones.

Marbury Law sees 3x-4x efficiency gain from using Solve Intelligence

When we sat down with Bob Hansen for this conversation, we knew it would be grounded in both legal depth and real-world business experience. Bob is a founding partner of The Marbury Law Group and has extensive experience across patent prosecution, litigation, licensing, portfolio strategy, and complex IP transactions. But what makes his perspective particularly compelling is that he also brings 20 years of real-world experience as an engineer, program manager, and business executive in Fortune 50 companies and start-ups. He understands firsthand how innovation moves from idea to product, and how intellectual property law fits into that journey.

That dual lens is exactly why we wanted to have this discussion. Bob evaluates technology not just as a patent attorney, but as someone who has managed engineering teams, navigated acquisitions and divestitures, raised capital, and built businesses. When someone with that background says AI has been transformative and backs it up with measurable 3 to 4x efficiency gains, it’s worth listening.

Key Insights

  • AI adoption requires proof. Bob and his team tested multiple tools before committing, and only moved forward once they saw quantifiable results.
  • 3 to 4x efficiency gains changed the business case. By tracking his own drafting time, Bob demonstrated that AI-enabled workflows made fixed-fee work viable at partner rates.
  • Demonstration drives adoption. Live drafting sessions, client transparency, and side-by-side cost comparisons created full buy-in from both clients and colleagues.
  • Integrated chat removes friction. Keeping research, drafting, and revisions inside one contextual workspace eliminated copy-paste workflows and saved significant time.
  • Context is a force multiplier. AI performs best when it understands the full invention disclosure, file history, and drafting materials in one place.
  • Speed expands strategic value. Faster drafting didn’t just save time - it enabled better coverage, stronger enablement, and real-time responsiveness to client needs.

About Marbury Law

The Marbury Law Group is a premier mid-size, full-service intellectual property and technology law firm in the Washington, D.C. area, with additional strength in commercial law, litigation, and trademark litigation. Recognized by Juristat as a top 35 law firm nationwide and holding Martindale-Hubbell’s AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating, Marbury serves clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies and mid-size technology businesses to high-tech startups and inventors. Its practitioners bring unusually wide-ranging experience, including former technology executives, government R&D managers, startup founders, in-house counsel, “big-law” attorneys, USPTO patent examiners, and judicial clerks. 

Marbury delivers “big-law” service with the flexibility and personal attention of a smaller firm, pairing high-quality work with efficient, budget-aware billing. Based near the USPTO, the firm has drafted and prosecuted thousands of U.S. and foreign patent applications and trademarks, and advises on IP strategy, diligence, and licensing. Formed in 2009 through the merger of two established practices (with roots dating back to 1994), the firm takes its name from Marbury v. Madison (1803), the landmark Supreme Court case that established judicial review.