USPTO Commissioner Squires Issues Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions – Effective Immediately

On Friday November 28, 2025, USPTO Commissioner John Squires issued a Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions.  This Guidance rescinds the USPTO’s previously published Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions from February 13, 2024, and replaces it with the new Guidance.  This new guidance is effective immediately.

The Guidance clarifies how AI may be used in patent applications, noting that, “AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors. . . and [AI systems] are analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process.”

The Commissioner emphasized that the use of AI is supported by the case law, which “establishes [that] inventors may ‘use the services, ideas, and aid of others’ without those sources becoming co-inventors.”  The Commissioner further stated that “the same principle applies to AI systems: they may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention.”

Accordingly, the proper legal standard for determining inventorship in patent applications for AI-assisted inventions should center on the inventor or inventors being a natural person or natural persons who conceived of the invention, under the traditional conception standard.  This traditional conception standard is well established in the law, and requires that the claims defining the invention were conceived, and thus created, only by a natural person or persons. In the case of joint inventors, the joint inventor may also be a natural person who reduced the invention to practice, with “reduction to practice” also well established in the law.

TAKE AWAYS:  AI may be used to assist in drafting patent applications.  However, the claims or claimed subject matter of the patent application must have been conceived only by a natural person or persons (at least one natural person in the case of joint-inventors, who may have contributed in reducing the invention to practice), and not by AI.  AI is not considered to be a natural person or persons, such that an invention with claims conceived by AI will not be patent eligible.

Client Update based on above

USPTO Issues Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions – Effective Immediately

USPTO Commissioner John Squires has released Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, effective as of 28 November 2025. This new guidance formally rescinds and replaces the USPTO’s February 2024 inventorship guidelines, providing clearer direction for applicants using AI tools in the inventive process.

The USPTO now expressly characterizes AI systems—including generative AI and advanced computational models—as instruments used by human inventors, comparable to laboratory equipment, software, or research databases. Consistent with long-standing case law, the Commissioner reaffirmed that inventors may rely on the “services, ideas, and aid of others” without those contributors becoming co-inventors. The same principle applies to AI: while AI may generate ideas or perform tasks, it is legally treated as a tool, not an inventor.

Under this framework, inventorship must continue to be grounded in the traditional conception standard. Patent claims must be conceived by one or more natural persons, and only natural persons may be named as inventors. In joint-inventorship scenarios, a natural person may also qualify through contribution to reduction to practice. Any claimed invention conceived by an AI system alone will remain ineligible for patenting.

Key Points for Applicants

• AI may be used to support or accelerate the inventive process, including drafting patent applications.
• Only natural persons may be named as inventors; AI cannot be an inventor under U.S. law.
• At least one natural person must have conceived the claimed subject matter, even where AI tools played a role.
• Applications relying heavily on AI-generated outputs should carefully document the human inventor’s conception and contribution.

We are available to advise on how this revised framework may affect your ongoing or future AI-related innovation and patent strategies.