SoylentNews

hubie [soylentnews.org] writes:

Following the denial last December in the EU [soylentnews.org], the USPTO has rejected the notion [patentlyo.com] that non-humans can apply for patents. The patent office noted that the language in US patent laws and federal regulations assumes an inventor is a person.

App’n No. 16/524,350 was filed listing DABUS as inventor and identifying DABUS as an “artificial intelligence” that “autonomously generated” the invention. Stephen Thaler created DABUS, then DABUS created the invention. Thaler then filed as the applicant.

In briefing to the PTO, the patent applicant explained that DABUS conceived of the idea of the invention and recognized its “novelty and salience.” In short, DABUS did everything necessary to be listed as an inventor with one exception — DABUS is not a human person.

The Patent Act does not expressly limit inventorship rights to humans, but does suggest that each inventor must have a name, and be an “individual.”

(f) The term “inventor” means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.

35 U.S.C. 100(f). In denying the DABUS petition, PTO Commissioner’s Office suggests that the word “Whoever” in Section 101 indicates a human “natural person.” (citing Webster’s 2011). Of course, Section 271 also uses “whoever” to define infringement — and human “natural persons” are almost never the ones charged with infringement. The Federal Courts have repeatedly held that we need to find the “individuals” who are the inventors, and not simply point to a collective organization like a corporation or government entity. However, the PTO could not point to precedent where the claimed inventor is a thinking non-human machine.

Original Submission