US Patent Office blocks application naming AI as inventor
The US Patent Office confirms that an artificial intelligence does not have the right to obtain a patent.
An artificial intelligence system called DABUS has again run into problems being recognised for its contribution to two patent applications. The UK Patent Office and European Patent Office have already both rejected the corresponding applications which attempted to name DABUS as the sole inventor (we previously commented on these decisions here)
Now the US Patent Office has weighed in on the issue which stems from a failure to “identify each inventor by his or her legal name” on the two US patent applications.
Specifically, in its decision the US Patent Office interprets provisions in US statutes, case law and USPTO regulations and rules to conclude that only “natural persons” are entitled to a patent. The US Patent Office concludes that under US law, conception of an invention is determined by a “mental act” or “formation in the mind of an inventor” which indicates that an inventor must be a natural person. The US Patent Office was also not persuaded to depart from this view, based on any broader policy considerations, for example to incentivise innovation using AI systems or to reduce the improper naming of natural persons as inventors.
Dr Stephen Thaler the creator of DABUS, now has until the end of June to name a natural person as inventor before the US applications are deemed abandoned. However, the US Patent Office also observed that “Identifying a natural person, who did not invent or discover the subject matter of the invention, as the inventor in a patent application would be in conflict with the patent statutes”. This may cause difficulties for Dr Thaler as in its application, Dr Thaler explained that DABUS is a “'creativity machine' programmed as a series of neural networks that have been trained with general information in the field of endeavor to independently create the invention….Instead it was the machine, not a person, which recognized the novelty and salience of the instant invention”. The US Patent Office’s observation may also cast doubt on the practical approach that other organisations are taking to the filing of their patent applications, by naming a relevant natural person to avoid their applications being rejected.
As it stands, an AI system will not be recognised as an inventor on US, UK or European patent applications.
The decisions against DABUS from the European and UK Patent Offices are being appealed, and the patent applications also have counterparts in Israel. We will continue to monitor developments on these cases.
