US Patent Office Establishes New Rules for AI Inventions

Changes in Patent Law

The rules have just changed, and if you were thinking that your whizzy new idea cooked up by an amazing AI machine could claim the AI as an inventor, think again.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released guidelines on November 26, 2025, outlining that while AI can be credited for making inventions, patents will credit inventors only as one of us—humans.

AI Cannot Own Intellectual Property

Artificial-intelligence systems— even the modern ones that can generate surprisingly realistic images and sounds—officially cannot be inventors or own intellectual property, according to a new ruling from the USPTO.

This isn’t just bureaucratic fine-tuning; the change nullifies the earlier AI-inventorship directives from February 2024. The previous program attempted to apply old joint-inventor rules to AI-improved inventions, but that won’t be happening anymore.

Implications for Human Inventors

If there was only one human working with AI, the decision is straightforward: apply the inventorship test that has always applied. Why does this matter? Because artificial intelligence is now ubiquitous—in labs, creative studios, biotech, design, and even songwriting.

There is pressure from innovators to give technologies like generative AI more legal credit. However, the USPTO signals that even though AI can assist, it does not get to hold the patent. No credit for AI in the inventing process; the inventor can only be a human.

Documentation is Key

Inventors using AI will need to document what particular mental leaps they made—what was the spark? What is their invention, not AI’s? Patent applications must demonstrate written human conception, not merely AI-assisted generation. Without that, the innovation could be ruled out.

Ethical Considerations

This sets a moral and legal line in the sand. On one hand, fair enough. After all, who exactly can be said to “own” an idea if not someone’s brain? But on the other hand, as AI becomes more powerful and versatile, could this dissuade inventors from leveraging it for bold, experimental leaps? What if the role of the human is small—does that raise ethical questions about how well the law is keeping pace with technology?