USPTO Revises Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship

Overview

On November 28, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") published revised guidance on AI-assisted inventions, rescinding Biden-era guidance on this topic. The new guidance implements the Trump administration's Executive Order on AI ("Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence"), which directed agencies to review and revise any policies from the prior administration "to ensure they promote American leadership in AI."  

Human Inventorship: Conception is Key

The new guidance reaffirmed that only natural persons can be inventors. AI systems, including GenAI and other computational models, are "analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process." As case law has long recognized, inventors may "use the services, ideas, and aid of others" without those sources becoming inventors. While AI can generate ideas or provide other services, human conception still remains paramount for proper patent inventorship. To that end, a human inventor must form in their mind a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, with a specific, settled solution to the problem. AI use does not alter this analysis. 

Rejection of Pannu Factors for AI Contributions

Departing from the prior approach, the guidance rejects applying the Pannu factors to evaluate whether AI itself contributed to inventorship. Under Pannu v. Iolab Corp., courts assess joint inventorship among natural persons by asking whether each named inventor: (i) contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention; (ii) made a contribution that was not insignificant in quality when measured against the dimension of the full invention; and (iii) did more than merely explain to the real inventors well‑known concepts or the current state of the art. The guidance states that Pannu is inapplicable when only a single human inventor was assisted by AI because AI cannot be an inventor—or a joint inventor. Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Implications

By simplifying AI inventorship analysis, the guidance is consistent with the pro-patent, pro-AI posture of the Executive Order. Because conception turns on an inventor's ability to describe the invention with particularity, applicants should ensure the specification demonstrates that a human inventor possessed a complete mental picture of the claimed invention at the time of filing.

Takeaways

• Only humans can be named as inventors; AI remains a tool for human inventors.
• The same legal standard for determining inventorship applies to all inventions, regardless of whether AI assisted in the inventive process. Conception is the touchstone.
• Robust, human-centered technical descriptions are essential to substantiate conception.