13 thoughts on “Will AI lead to dramatic changes in patent prosecution over the next 5 years? 

  1. 6

    Do your readers a favor, Dennis, and ask your computer to revisit this topic (and this thread) in December 2028.

  2. 5

    Perhaps (or perhaps not) in the “As Applied” use case of patent prosecution, but certainly in the legal implications of patents in at least two areas of impact of:

    a) non-real-person State of the Art as to be judged by the non-real-person legal fiction known as Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art; and

    b) non-real-person creativity in so far as claims having “joint-inventor” style contributions, to which NO real human person can legally meet the definition of inventor (of certain claim aspects).

    These are items to which I have called attention to being needed to be addressed for several years now, and the naysayers have taken ostrich-like, three-m0n key-like, “let’s pretend this is not important” positions to, that the expl 0s10n of ChatGPT just over a year ago rent asunder.

    (as I have also pointed out, there is a Hobson choice for those who demand that AI is “just a t001,” given the fact that non-human elements in claims ADVANCE the State of the Art. If no human can legitimately claim to be the inventor of that aspect, then the claims are not eligible to be granted a patent by way of EITHER:

    a-i) anything generated by AI to be taken as having already existed in the State of the Art; or

    b-i) lack of ability to grant a patent to a non-human.

    In other words, the contribution of the non-human “advance” cannot ‘count’ for protection of human work. Either AI IS inventive (and no patent for you), of AI IS NOT inventive (and no patent for you).

    Those who choose to use AI TO augment human inventorship be aware – and beware.

  3. 4

    Very little change. Perhaps there might be an advantage to searching, but application drafting will be the same as usual. I experimented what Chatgpt and had it write an application for me, and the quality was poor. The application had technical flaws, was superficial, and the claims had all kinds of substantive and stylistic errors. Any dedicated patent attorney is not going to do this.

    Those web-based $999 provisional filing companies might benefit though. I can see an attorney resting on his registration # and using Chatgpt to justify charging $1,000 per provisional application, and would probably generate a lot of cash over time. However, it only takes one malpractice suit to destroy your career. So I personally wouldn’t go there.

  4. 3

    Probably more like 10 years. Five come up pretty quick.

    In what ways, exactly? Doing rough-in boilerplate, transcribing and extending client conversations, searching for prior art, searching for patterns among examiners & successful applications of similar inventions, etc.

    OT, this should be fun

    link to apnews.com

    1. 3.1

      “ Doing rough-in boilerplate, transcribing and extending client conversations, searching for prior art, searching for patterns among examiners & successful applications of similar inventions”

      Should be a cinch for these amazingly powerful computers. These tasks are not nearly as complicated or detail-oriented as, say, taking a fast food order off a severely limited menu, or deciding whether to back up or slowly drive over a screaming perdon’s body.

  5. 2

    Computers aren’t going to cause any changes that are any more “dramatic” over the next five years than they have over the previous five years. Put another way, the “drama” caused by the use of computers has far less to do with increases in the “power” of computers and far more to do with the behavior of powerful people using computers (and peddling computer use) to affect human behavior.

    You might as well ask the same question about improvements in personal weapon technology.

    As I’ve stated earlier, the best outcome that can arise from increased use of the technology (laughably referred to here using the meaningless term “artificial intelligence”) is that the PTO and courts wake up to the absurdity of patenting logic (a farcical game that revolves primarily around the creation of fake structure in the form of newly coined verbiage applied to decision making). That’s not a likely outcome, given the depths of inanity in which the system is presently suffocating, but it’s the best outcome.

    1. 2.1

      As with any of Malcolm’s emotive apoplectic rants against innovation protection for a certain Kondratiev wave 5 item, he is cordially invited to abstain from anything that he would seek to deny innovation protection to.

    2. 2.2

      Checkers and Carl’s Jr. are among US fast-food chains hailing AI-powered drive-thrus as labor-zapping wizards that speed up service. But a popular provider of these systems recently revealed a crucial part of how it gets so many orders right: humans.
      But disclosures in recent filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and changes to marketing suggest that the technology is less autonomous than it first appeared. The company, which went public last year, now says “off-site agents” working in locales such as the Philippines help during more than 70% of customer interactions to make sure its AI system doesn’t mess up.


      If anybody is surprised by this, they haven’t been paying attention for the last twenty years of Silly Con Valley con artistry.

  6. 1

    Put me in the “No” category. I have clients who are on the cutting edge of AI technology so I’m pretty comfortable with both the technology and have some insight into the future. While AI has its fair share of parlor tricks, for patent prosecution, it adds next to nothing.

    1. 1.1

      It does well for background. Other than that,I haven’t figured out how it provides a benefit, particularly because anything you put into is not protected privacy-wise.

      1. 1.1.1

        That is not a small attorney-client confidentiality ethics issue.

        Speaking of ethics, it’s been how many months since a new post on the Ethics side of the blog appeared?

Comments are closed.