USPTO Issues Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions: What It Means for Patent Strategy

On Nov. 28, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new examination guidance clarifying inventorship standards for artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted inventions. This update rescinds the prior 2024 guidance and reaffirms the principle that only natural persons can be inventors under U.S. patent law, even when AI plays a significant role in the inventive process.

The rise of generative AI and machine learning tools has transformed research and development (R&D) across industries. From drug discovery to advanced materials, AI systems are increasingly being used to generate novel solutions. But who qualifies as the “inventor” when an algorithm proposes the breakthrough? The USPTO’s latest guidance answers this question decisively: AI is a tool, not an inventor.

The Legal Touchstone: Conception

The Federal Circuit has long held that “conception is the touchstone of inventorship.” Conception occurs when an inventor has a specific, settled idea of the complete and operative invention, not merely a research goal. The revised guidance acknowledges that AI systems may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention. Thus, when a natural person uses AI to develop an invention, the key question is whether that person conceived the invention under the traditional standard of conception.

This standard applies across utility, design, and plant patents. Even for plant varieties developed with AI-driven breeding algorithms, the inventor must have contributed to the creation and appreciated the uniqueness of the plant.

Key Highlights of the Revised Guidance

There now is no special or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions. The same inventorship rules apply across all technologies. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Thaler v. Vidal remains the cornerstone: AI systems, regardless of sophistication, cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors.

Inventorship continues to hinge on “conception,” defined as the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. In other words, a human must have a specific, settled solution to the problem, not just a general research goal. Importantly, the guidance makes clear that AI may assist, but it is treated like any other tool akin to laboratory equipment or software.

Moreover, the USPTO withdrew its earlier approach, which applied the Pannu factors to AI-assisted inventions. Although the Pannu factors remain relevant when determining joint inventorship among multiple human contributors, the guidance specifies that the factors are not applicable when AI is involved.

Implications for Patent Prosecution

This guidance has practical consequences for companies leveraging AI in R&D:

• Document Human Contributions: Patent applicants must clearly demonstrate how a natural person conceived the invention. Detailed records of human input—especially where AI-generated outputs are involved—will be critical to withstand scrutiny.
• Foreign Priority Risks: U.S. applications claiming priority to foreign filings that list AI as an inventor will be rejected. Applicants should audit global filings to ensure compliance with U.S. inventorship standards and adjust application data sheets accordingly.
• Joint Inventorship Analysis Remains Human-Centric: When multiple individuals collaborate with AI tools, traditional joint inventorship principles apply. Each human contributor must meet the established Pannu factors: significant contribution to conception or reduction to practice, beyond mere explanation of known concepts.
• Design and Plant Patents Included: The guidance applies not only to utility patents but also to design and plant patents. Inventorship for these categories remains limited to natural persons, even when AI aids in creation or breeding.

Strategic Takeaways

The guidance has far-reaching consequences for companies leveraging AI in innovation, and this update underscores the importance of proactive compliance and litigation readiness:

• Train R&D teams on documenting human conception when using AI tools.
• Review invention disclosure forms and patent filing protocols to reflect the revised guidance.
• Audit pending and planned foreign filings for inventorship consistency.
• Prepare for heightened scrutiny in disputes involving AI-assisted inventions, as courts will likely demand robust evidence of human conception.

Bottom Line: The USPTO’s revised guidance reinforces a clear message: AI may accelerate innovation, but inventorship remains a human endeavor. Companies that proactively document human contributions and audit their filings will be best positioned to secure and defend valuable intellectual property (IP) rights in an AI-driven world.