### AI Can Be a Tool, But Not an Inventor: Unpacking the USPTO’s New Guidance

In a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, a fundamental question has haunted inventors, lawyers, and innovators: If an AI contributes to a groundbreaking discovery, who gets the credit? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has finally provided some long-awaited clarity, issuing new guidance that carves out a distinct role for AI in the inventive process—as a powerful tool, but never as the inventor itself.

The new rules, published in the Federal Register, address a critical gray area in intellectual property law. The core takeaway is unambiguous: only human beings can be named as inventors on a U.S. patent. This decision reaffirms the traditional legal understanding that inventorship requires a “conception” of the invention—a mental act of creation that, for now, is considered an exclusively human capability.

This stance aligns with previous court rulings, most notably in the case of Stephen Thaler, who repeatedly tried to have his AI system, DABUS, named as an inventor on patents, a quest that was denied by courts in the U.S., U.K., and Europe. The USPTO’s guidance essentially codifies this legal precedent into official examination policy.

#### The “Significant Contribution” Standard

While AI cannot hold the title of inventor, the USPTO’s guidance doesn’t dismiss its role. Instead, it establishes a framework where AI-assisted inventions are patentable, provided a human inventor can demonstrate a “significant contribution” to the invention’s conception.

So, what constitutes a “significant contribution”? The guidance clarifies that simply owning an AI system or pushing a button is not enough. A human must be the one who:

* **Constructs the prompt or designs the experiment** that leads the AI to a specific solution.
* **Recognizes the significance and utility** of the AI’s output and applies it to solve a particular problem.
* **Makes a creative leap or contribution** to the final conception of the invention, even if the AI generated the initial data or design.
* **Refines the AI’s output** in a way that is essential to the final, workable invention.

In essence, the human must be the intellectual architect of the invention. The AI can be the sophisticated hammer, the advanced calculator, or the tireless lab assistant, but the human must be the one who directs the work and understands the “why” behind the result.

#### A New Duty of Candor

Perhaps one of the most practical impacts of this new guidance is the introduction of a “duty of candor” for patent applicants. Inventors and their attorneys now have an obligation to disclose to the USPTO if and how AI was used in the process of creating the invention.

This transparency is crucial for patent examiners to properly assess whether the human named on the application truly meets the “significant contribution” threshold. Applicants will need to be prepared to articulate their precise role in the inventive process, distinguishing their own intellectual input from the raw output of the machine.

#### Striking a Balance for the Future of Innovation

The USPTO’s guidance is a careful balancing act. On one hand, it avoids a radical overhaul of patent law that would be required to grant inventorship rights to non-human entities. On the other, it provides a clear pathway for innovators to leverage the incredible power of AI without fearing that their inventions will be deemed unpatentable.

By keeping humans at the center of the inventive process, the USPTO is encouraging innovation while maintaining the core principle that patents are designed to reward human ingenuity. This guidance isn’t the final word on AI and intellectual property—as AI systems become more autonomous, these questions will undoubtedly resurface. But for now, it provides a stable and predictable framework for the next chapter of human-machine collaboration. The message is clear: use the tools, make the discoveries, but the credit—and the patent—belongs to the person behind the machine.