By Robert Cantrell
Every week, it seems, I’m pinged by someone selling an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to aid in patent drafting. It is a natural avenue for vendors to explore, with ample potential customers. But is patent drafting AI’s best target from an industry perspective?
Improving Response Times
I ran an experiment the other day. I took a patent application I was familiar with, one with no strings attached, and asked one of the prominent AI systems to serve as a Patent Examiner at the time of filing. The AI system then examined the application and wrote a complete Office Action in accordance with MPEP standards. Without any further instructions or training from me, it performed remarkably well. The cited records were not identical to the originally received Office Action, but there was overlap, and the logic behind the citations matched. In fact, the AI system’s cited records appeared to be even more on point than those from the Patent Examiner.
There was a big difference, however. Rather than waiting 2 years for the first Office Action, I could have received this AI-generated Office Action within 2 minutes of filing. Such responsiveness could open some possibilities. One is to simply speed things up. It could also take some workload off Patent Examiners. An AI examination would not preclude examination by a person before allowance. It might simply do the first pass. But there’s another possibility that might be a more useful transformation for the USPTO.
3 Key Solutions
Picture a USPTO system in which the first hurdle for inventors and patent practitioners is an AI Examiner capable of issuing instant Office Actions on demand, enabling applicants to refine their claims repeatedly until the application is in condition for likely allowance. At this point, the patent application can go to a human Patent Examiner. This approach solves at least three problems:
- Overloaded Patent Examiners: Patent Examiners would receive fewer and better patent applications with some of the preliminary search work already completed.
- Subjective Examination Standards: The outcome of examinations can seem arbitrary, and results may depend on who conducts the examination. AI examination standards, at least on the first pass, would be uniform.
- Pace of Innovation: By the time patent claims are allowed, technology may already have moved to the next generation. Even when a time lag remains before a Patent Examiner signs off on an allowance, inventors can rapidly know whether their claims will likely, ultimately, be allowed.
No special AI design would be required to make this happen. At least one search engine can already examine patent applications without any special programming. What is required is a secure platform to maintain the secrecy of unpublished patent applications.
If you would like to know more about Trademark and Patent law industry developments, please contact a Lyons Law Group team member.
Lyons Law Group remains committed to providing timely and relevant legal insights. Should you wish to see particular topics addressed in forthcoming articles, we invite you to visit us at Lyons-Law-Group.Com and submit your suggestions via our contact form. Your engagement assists us in tailoring our content to better serve your interests.
