The SHADOW PATENT OFFICE

The only source of duly guaranteed
validations and valuations of your patents

Introducing: the AI-accelerated KX Patent Analyzer,
backed by powerful Patent Defense insurance



THE GROWING CONFLICT BETWEEN AI DESIGN TOOLS AND KSR'S "PREDICTABLE"

Every year, AI design tools become more powerful in terms of being to invent drugs, circuits, mechanical devices, computer programs - completely autonomously. If all the human/inventor/"individual" is doing is to press the "RUN" button, is that invention done by a "Whoever" to satisfy 35 USC 101? If one skilled of a PHOSITA - one skilled in the art - is to use such tools, are any inventions output from the program "obvious" and not patentable as the "predictable" outcomes of the PHOSITA under 35 USC 103?

What follows is a list of papers from PATNEWS and other publications on this issue, followed by a database of papers on AI design tools. Rules based on these development are being built into the Analyzer.


THE USPTO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE'

In October 2020, the USPTO released a report, Inventing AI: tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents, written by the Office of the Chief Economist of the USPTO. It is a boring statistical analysis of the number of AI patents issued over the years, with the usual pretty-but-uninformative landscape graphs. What is not discussed in the report, because the Chief Economist doesn't understand patent economics, are the following troubling concerns with AI patents:
  • The low quality of most AI patents (most cite no non-patent prior art)
  • The lack of enforceability of most AI patents (do the AI method offshore)
  • Do AI design patents render obvious inventions created by the AI? (this Web page)
  • Why doesn't the USPTO use any of the 30 years of AI patents to reduce patent pendency from two years to two weeks?
  • Why doesn't the USPTO use natural language AI to measure the incoherency and contradictions of 101 caselaw?
  • Can a lawyer who has never programmed AI be competent to write an AI patent?
  • As there is no definition of 'intelligence' in the science community, are all patent phrases using 'intelligence' (the NIST defintion is circular), failing of enablement?
For example, the report cites U.S. Patent 8,930,178, Processing text with domain-specific spreading activation methods, without mentioning the patent is easily worked-around by running the natural language analysis offshore (rendering the Beauregard claims, the patent's only claims, worthless) - indeed, the patent teaches this work-around with the statement: "While the invention would typically be hosted by a server connected to the Internet, ..." -- which includes remote servers outside the U.S.



ARTICLES ON THE GROWING CONFLICT BETWEEN AI DESIGN TOOLS AND KSR'S "PREDICTABLE"


PATENTED AI DESIGN TOOLS: ARE THE COMPANIES SELLING SUCH TOOLS MAKING IT HARDER FOR THE CLIENTS TO OBTAIN PATENTS WHEN USING THE TOOLS?

ISSUED PATENTS

PATENT APPLICATIONS


PAPERS ON AI DESIGN TOOLS: THEIR TECHNOLOGY AND INVENTIVE POWER



The Shadow Patent Office, Mall Plaza Pance, Calle 18 #350, Avenida Cañagordas, Cali, Colombia
(c) 2021-2022 - The Shadow Patent Office (part of KukaXoco Colombia S.A.)