The advent of the internet has been one of the most significant technological advances: artificial intelligence AI, a transformative technology with enormous economic and societal benefits.
As far as we know, as of Feb 2023, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) does not use the latest rage in AI, ChatGPT, in its operations. However, the USPTO has been utilizing various artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as those mentioned in my previous answer, to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and speed of its processes. It is possible that the USPTO may consider using AI models like ChatGPT in the future, as the technology continues to evolve and become more widely adopted.
The USPTO already has a deep knowledge of artificial intelligence (AI) due to its examination of AI-related patent applications. The USPTO is responsible for reviewing and for a wide range of technologies, including AI. As a result, the USPTO has gained a wealth of expertise and knowledge about AI and its various applications. This knowledge is critical for the USPTO to make informed decisions about patent grants and to ensure that AI-related patents are properly protected and enforced. The USPTO’s deep knowledge of AI also helps it to promote innovation and support the growth of the AI industry by ensuring that new and innovative AI-related inventions are protected and made available to the public.
Integrating AI technology into next-generation tools presents an exciting opportunity for improving trademark and patent examination quality and efficiency. The USPTO has been utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) in various aspects of its operations to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and speed of its processes.
Here are some ways in which AI is helping USPTO to catch errors in patent and trademark applications:
Patent Examination: AI-powered systems can assist examiners in reviewing patent applications by quickly searching through large databases of prior art and highlighting relevant information. This can speed up the examination process and improve the accuracy of patent grants.
Image Processing: AI can be used to extract information from images in patent applications, such as drawings and diagrams, to help examiners better understand the invention described.
Patent Analytics: The USPTO uses AI to analyze patent data and identify trends, helping the office to make data-driven decisions and improve its operations.
Patent Classification: AI can be used to automatically classify patent applications into specific categories, making it easier for examiners to review them and ensuring that they are assigned to the correct examination team.
Overall, the USPTO’s use of AI is helping to improve the speed and accuracy of its processes, making it easier for inventors to get their patents granted and enabling the office to better serve its stakeholders.
The agency has developed a comprehensive strategy to incorporate AI in USPTO examination tools and processes. This includes extensive market research and testing of many proofs-of-concept. The PTO not just trying to implement more ingenious technology. its goal is to create a smarter organization through the integration of the strengths and talents of its workforce with those of AI. This is the start of a new era in the way The USPTO uses technology to improve patent and trademark operations.
USPTO integrates AI tools in two areas critical to patent examination: classification and search
A thorough prior art search is an essential part of patent examination and the USPTO’s mission to grant reliable patent rights. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find the most relevant prior artwork due to technological advancements and the rapid growth of prior art. The USPTO has created an AI-based prototype search tool that can help users identify relevant documents and provide suggestions for other areas to search. The system provides world-class patent AI models and is designed to learn from its USPTO examiners, who are some of the most respected patent searchers in the world. To provide additional enhancements, the system automatically collects feedback data from its examiners. To provide transparency, the USPTO is developing features that will allow examiners to interpret the AI models’ results. In March 2020, a beta version of the new AI tool was made available to select examiners. Evaluations have shown promising results so the USPTO is taking steps to integrate AI into the next generation of search tools for examiners.
An auto-classification tool, which leverages machine learning to classify patent documents under the Cooperative Patent Classification system (CPC), was also developed. The system can suggest CPC symbol suggestions and allows for the identification of claimed subject matter to refine the suggested CPC symbol suggestions. This is similar to its AI-search system.
Indicators that link suggested CPC symbols with specific parts of the document provide insight into the reasoning of an auto-classification system. The system includes enhanced feedback mechanisms that can be integrated with existing classification processes in order to aid in training the AI. The USPTO used system performance analysis to implement auto-classification in December 2020. This allows the USPTO to automatically identify CPC subject matter for internal operations. The agency has seen a reduction in its procurement costs for CPC data acquisition. The USPTO is also developing new capabilities to help support a wider range of patent classification requirements at USPTO.
These successes demonstrate the importance of AI in improving agency operations and strengthening the IP system. its Patents team is expanding its research to discover new ways to leverage AI to build on these successes. Research is underway to develop AI-based image search capabilities that could allow for new ways of retrieving prior art. This could prove to be especially useful in searching patent applications, where examiners heavily rely on images to make patentability determinations.
Examples of AI Usage at the PTO
Trademarks: The USPTO recently conducted market research on AI capabilities for image comparison, and to verify the acceptance of services and goods being identified against entries in the Trademarks ID Manual. USPTO developed AI prototypes that could be used to compare trademark images and suggest the right assignment of mark design codes. This would also help to assess the acceptability of identifications of goods or services. These prototypes were tested through a common interface with around 10 stakeholders in November 2020. A larger beta is possible later in the year. The USPTO also tested false specimen detection solutions using a software program. This software program was integrated into agency efforts to identify digitally altered specimens of use and mock-up web pages on December 1, 2020. A prototype of an AI-based chatbot that answers frequently asked questions via USPTO’s website may be available for beta testing in the latter part of this year.
It’s likely that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will continue to explore and adopt new artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the future to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and speed of its processes. Here are a few potential areas where the USPTO could use AI in the future:
Automated Translation: AI-powered translation systems could be used to automatically translate patent applications and related documents into multiple languages, making it easier for examiners to review and understand inventions from around the world.
Predictive Analysis: AI could be used to analyze patent data and make predictions about the likelihood of a patent being granted or the likelihood of a patent dispute, helping the USPTO to allocate resources more effectively and make data-driven decisions.
Fraud Detection: AI-powered systems could be used to detect fraud and inconsistencies in trademark applications, helping the USPTO to ensure the integrity of the trademark system and prevent fraud.
Virtual Assistance: AI-powered virtual assistants could be used to answer common questions from inventors and the public, freeing up USPTO staff to focus on more complex tasks.
Overall, the future use of AI by the USPTO will depend on the development and availability of new AI technologies, as well as the office’s ongoing efforts to improve its processes and better serve its stakeholders.
How AI is used to Reject Patent Applications
Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to assist in the rejection of patent applications. AI systems can be trained to analyze patent applications and identify inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or prior art that may render an invention unpatentable. This can help speed up the patent examination process and improve the accuracy of patent grants by identifying problematic applications more quickly.
AI can be used to assist in the rejection of patent applications under Section 112 of the US Patent Act. Section 112 sets out the requirements for the written description and enablement of a patent application, and provides that a patent must contain a written description of the invention that is sufficiently clear and complete for a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field to make and use the invention.
101 Rejection
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the US Patent Act occurs when a patent application is rejected because the claimed invention is deemed to be not eligible for patent protection. This can occur when the claimed invention is deemed to be directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, an abstract idea, or a purely conventional or obvious method.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to assist in the rejection of patent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by analyzing patent applications and identifying potential eligibility issues. AI systems can be trained to analyze the content of patent applications and identify potential abstract ideas or natural phenomena, as well as determine whether a claimed invention is directed to a conventional or obvious method.
AI) can be used to assist in applying the Alice factors in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the US Patent Act. The Alice framework, named after the Supreme Court case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, is used by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the courts to determine whether a claimed invention is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Alice framework involves a two-step process for evaluating patent eligibility: (1) determining whether the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the claimed invention contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
AI can be trained to analyze patent applications and identify potential abstract ideas, as well as determine whether the claimed invention contains an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. This can help speed up the patent examination process by identifying problematic applications more quickly and improve the accuracy of patent grants by reducing the number of applications that are granted in error.
It’s important to note that the final decision to reject a patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 101 still rests with a human patent examiner. AI systems can only provide assistance and support to examiners by highlighting relevant information and potentially problematic areas, but the ultimate decision must be made by a person who is knowledgeable about patent law and who can carefully consider all relevant factors.
The USPTO has been incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into various aspects of its examination process. AI systems are already in use to assist patent examiners with filtering out unpatentable applications, similar to the way AI systems help the pharmaceutical industry screen drug candidates.
According to the USPTO, AI systems could be used to examine and analyze patent application documents, allowing USPTO examiners to spend less time examining applications and more time responding to those that qualify for a patent. This process can be helpful for both applicants and examiners by helping to lighten the workload on examiners as well as increase the quality of the patent applications that are allowed.
For example, a recent announcement from the USPTO highlights how they will be using AI to locate prior art. The USPTO is developing a system that allows examiners to search for relevant prior art based on keywords that are provided by an applicant, which will allow them to more quickly find relevant art during the patent application review process.
However, there are a number of challenges that need to be considered when using this type of technology in the patent application review process. Among these is the question of authorship in cases where an AI algorithm is created. The USPTO does not currently issue protection for AI algorithms unless the creator of the AI algorithm is a natural person, as opposed to an artificial intelligence system.
Aside from the question of authorship, other issues to consider in AI cases include whether or not the inventive subject matter around which an AI invention was conceived is exclusively attributable to an AI system, or if it was primarily created by an individual. The USPTO has issued guidance indicating that certain inventions involving machine learning applications are patent eligible, but it is important to take the time to evaluate inventorship in these cases.
In addition, it is important to carefully review all claims in an AI patent application as some of them may be rejected under Section 101. Several types of claims are commonly rejected under this provision, including those relating to mathematical concepts.
102 Rejection
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of the US Patent Act occurs when a patent application is rejected because the claimed invention is deemed to be anticipated by prior art. In other words, the claimed invention is not considered novel or non-obvious in light of prior disclosures or prior patents.
As a rule, 35 U.S.C. §102 requires that any claim of an invention be new or novel (and not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field). This requirement can be difficult to overcome, especially for a complex or advanced technology like artificial intelligence. However, using AI to examine new patent applications can make the examination process more efficient. This may help patent applicants and the PTO ensure that new technologies receive valid patents. It can also increase the value of issued patents, which can lead to more technological investment and commercialization.
In addition, using AI to examine patent applications can reduce the number of rejections that the PTO issues. This can save the agency money by reducing the amount of time it takes to examine each application and can improve the quality of the patents that are issued.
The USPTO is currently exploring ways to incorporate AI into the examination process, particularly with respect to prior art searches. For example, the USPTO has a prototype AI-based search system for patent applications, and it has found that it can help examiners find relevant prior art.
Another way in which the USPTO can use AI to examine patent applications is by analyzing the results of its own prior art searches. The USPTO is currently working to develop a system that can detect prior art and suggest areas for additional searches by examiners.
Eventually, the USPTO hopes to use AI to create “virtual assistants” that can search and extract information from prior art databases and then learn from human examiners. These systems will help the USPTO streamline the data generation and analysis process, and make it easier for supervisors to evaluate examiners’ work.
Although there are many benefits to the USPTO integrating AI into the examination process, there are still some concerns that need to be addressed. One of these is whether an AI system can qualify as an inventor or author for patent protection or copyright protection. This is a complicated issue, and it is not clear how the USPTO would resolve it. In addition, some commenters agreed that additional training should be provided for USPTO examiners as AI progresses, particularly in the area of prior art searches
Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to assist in the rejection of patent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by analyzing patent applications and identifying relevant prior art that may anticipate the claimed invention. AI systems can be trained to search large databases of patents and other technical documents, making it easier and faster to find relevant prior art.
However, it’s important to note that the final decision to reject a patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 102 still rests with a human patent examiner. AI systems can only provide assistance and support to examiners by highlighting relevant information and potentially problematic areas, but the ultimate decision must be made by a person who is knowledgeable about patent law and who can carefully consider all relevant factors.
103 Rejection
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the US Patent Act occurs when a patent application is rejected because the claimed invention is deemed to be unpatentable due to obviousness in light of prior art. In other words, the claimed invention is considered to be an obvious combination or variation of existing elements or inventions, and therefore is not considered to be novel or non-obvious.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to assist in the rejection of patent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by analyzing patent applications and identifying relevant prior art that may render the claimed invention obvious. AI systems can be trained to search large databases of patents and other technical documents, making it easier and faster to find relevant prior art.
However, it’s important to note that the final decision to reject a patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 still rests with a human patent examiner. AI systems can only provide assistance and support to examiners by highlighting relevant information and potentially problematic areas, but the ultimate decision must be made by a person who is knowledgeable about patent law and who can carefully consider all relevant factors.
USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and his team have been working to improve the patent application review process using AI tools. In 2019, the agency issued two requests for comments (RFCs) and received nearly 100 responses from companies, trade groups, law firms, and academia.
The RFCs sought comments on ways to use AI to improve the examination of patent applications. One of the most significant challenges that patent examiners face is how to find prior art that is relevant to the claimed invention. This task can be challenging, particularly for complex technology inventions that involve numerous aspects.
Another significant challenge with a particular technology invention is determining whether the invention is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103, which states that “[t]he invention must not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Even when courts adhere to this standard, there is still considerable disagreement as to what ordinary skill in art means.
As a result, many applicants who have been rejected by the USPTO may believe that their patent application is not patentable. This can be especially the case for new and emerging technologies.
In response to this issue, the USPTO has made several changes in its examination process to address these issues. For example, it has incorporated a similarity search feature into the Patents End-to-End (PE2E) search suite that uses AI to search for similar prior art in the same domain as the patent application.
Using AI in this way can save patent examiners a significant amount of time searching for relevant prior art. This can allow them to conduct more thorough searches and provide greater certainty of obtaining valid patents for new inventions. This could increase the value of the patents granted, as well as provide for increased technological investment and commercialization.
112 Rejection
One of the most frequent patent rejections issued by the USPTO is a Section 112(b) rejection. This rejection occurs when the patent examiner considers a claim element to be “indefinite.” A Section 112(b) rejection can often be remedied by amending the patent application, ensuring that all terms are well-drafted and supported by the specification.
In an effort to increase the quality of patent examination, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has begun to use artificial intelligence tools to examine patent applications. These tools help patent examiners reduce the time spent searching for prior art and improve the efficiency of their review process. In addition, AI tools can promote better use of inventors’ and other interested parties’ time and money in connection with patenting new technologies and maintaining their patent portfolios.
AI is being used for detecting errors in patent specifications, including erroneous parts lists and numbering inconsistencies. Patent specifications typically include a detailed description of the invention, including drawings, diagrams, and other illustrations.
AI systems can be trained to analyze the content of patent specifications, identify errors, and alert the patent examiner to potential issues. For example, AI can be used to check that all parts in a parts list are correctly numbered and correspond to the appropriate illustrations, and can also be used to identify inconsistent numbering or other typographical errors.
This can help improve the accuracy of patent specifications and reduce the number of errors that may otherwise go unnoticed. Additionally, it can also help speed up the patent examination process by reducing the amount of time that examiners spend reviewing and correcting errors in patent specifications.
It’s important to note that while AI can be a useful tool for identifying errors, the final decision to correct any errors still rests with a human patent examiner. AI systems can only provide assistance and support to examiners, but the ultimate decision to accept or reject any changes must be made by a person who is knowledgeable about patent law and who can carefully consider all relevant factors.
As more and more AI is used to develop inventions, the USPTO will face new ethical and legal questions, such as whether a machine can be considered an inventor or an entity with authorship rights. The USPTO has created a special AI task force to address these issues.
The USPTO is also examining AI to see how it may affect prior art searches, which are required for patent examiners to determine whether an invention was obvious or ineligible. Currently, the Supreme Court requires that an invention must not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date. However, AI is a relatively new technology, so it will be difficult for the USPTO to gauge how it might affect prior art searches.
Aside from the fact that AI may have an unmanageable volume of prior art, it is also possible for AI to transform the hypothetical “ordinary skilled artisan.” The United States Patent and Trademark Office has already begun to investigate how AI will affect patent law and the judicial review process.
For example, the USPTO has introduced a feature called Similarity Search that uses trained AI models to generate a list of similar domestic and foreign patent documents. Examiners can then compare these documents to their own application files in order to find prior art that may be relevant to their application. The USPTO believes that these AI-based tools will help examiners perform a more thorough and efficient review of patent applications, which can lead to the grant of more valid and valuable patents.
AI systems can be trained to analyze patent applications and identify inconsistencies or inadequacies in the written description or enablement of an invention, which could result in a Section 112 rejection. This can help speed up the patent examination process by identifying problematic applications more quickly and improve the accuracy of patent grants by reducing the number of applications that are granted in error.
It’s important to note that, as with any use of AI in the patent examination process, the final decision to reject a patent application under Section 112 still rests with a human patent examiner. AI systems can only provide assistance and support to examiners by highlighting relevant information and potentially problematic areas, but the ultimate decision must be made by a person who is knowledgeable about patent law and who can carefully consider all relevant factors.
AI has a strong future at the PTO
The USPTO’s implementation of AI is an important step in enhancing the patent examination process and will likely reduce the number of invalidated patents. This can have a significant impact on the overall cost of obtaining patents, as well as on future litigation costs.
In summary, AI can be a valuable tool for the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in its patent examination process, but it is not a substitute for the expertise and judgment of human patent examiners.
PowerPatent’s Tools Even The Playing Field for Patent Applicants
PowerPatent is a company that provides a range of tools and services to help patent applicants in the preparation and filing of their patent applications. The goal of PowerPatent is to even the playing field for patent applicants by providing them with affordable access to high-quality patent preparation and prosecution services.
PowerPatent’s tools can help patent applicants in various ways, including:
- Providing guidance on the preparation and drafting of patent applications, including assistance with claim language, drawings, and other important components of the patent application.
- Automating certain tasks, such as parts list and numbering consistency checks, to help identify and prevent errors in the patent application.
- Providing assistance in the preparation of responses to office actions from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other patent offices.
- Providing online tools for tracking the status of pending patent applications and for managing communication with patent examiners.
By providing these tools and services, PowerPatent aims to make the patent application process more accessible and more affordable for inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses, helping to ensure that their innovations are properly protected. However, it’s important to note that while PowerPatent’s tools and services can be a valuable resource for patent applicants, they do not guarantee the grant of a patent, which is ultimately determined by the USPTO and other patent offices based on their own policies and regulations.