Blog

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a fast-evolving field with new technical methods, systems, and products constantly being developed. This growth has also been reflected in the dramatic increase in patent filings for AI-related inventions. According to Patents and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, more than ten times as many AI-related patent applications were published worldwide in 2019 than in 2013, and the increasing trend has only continued since.

Although AI-related patent applications have been on the rise, explicit guidance on patentability requirements have only recently begun to be published by patent offices around the world. Indeed, as a burgeoning field of technology, AI inventions have unique features, such as the importance of training data and the lack of explainability and predictability of trained AI models, that differentiate such innovations from traditional types of computer-implemented inventions (CII). 

These features raise questions about the interpretation of disclosure requirements, among other patentability requirements, for AI-related inventions. For example, how much information, such as source code, training data sets, or machine learning model architectures, should be provided to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of Title 35 of the U.S. Code § 112(a) or analogs in other patent jurisdictions?

As we await further official guidance from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) on disclosure requirements for AI-related inventions, we can gather initial indications from recent patent prosecution decisions from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) on such issues. In this article, we study a selection of PTAB appeals decisions for applications for AI-related inventions rejected under § 112. To set the background, we first review a classification of AI inventions and USPTO guidelines on disclosure requirements for computer-implemented inventions. After analyzing three case studies, we conclude with general takeaways and best practices, which emphasize that applicants must disclose specific algorithms and implementation details, not just desired outcomes, to satisfy written description requirements.

In 2024, the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) published its Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI in the Work of Patent Attorneys. These Guidelines provide practical guardrails for the responsible use of generative AI in patent practice, reaffirming that professional responsibility, confidentiality, and transparency remain central when AI tools are used.

In our earlier blog post, we outlined the key principles set out in the epi Guidelines. Since then, the Guidelines themselves have not changed. However, the use of AI in patent workflows has continued to mature, and so has Solve Intelligence.

This update highlights how Solve Intelligence supports compliance with the epi Guidelines in day-to-day practice, focusing on concrete product capabilities and supporting processes.

Artificial intelligence is already reshaping patent practice, but adopting it swiftly, efficiently and securely is where most firms get stuck. Patent professionals know the productivity upside to using gen AI tools, yet often get derailed when informal experiments run into real-world problems: client confidentiality concerns, inferior work-product quality, delayed internal approvals, and decision-fatigue.

This guide lays out a practical, 30-day plan for adopting AI in patent work, moving from ad hoc trials to a controlled, firm-ready strategy. It shows how you can run a focused pilot, set clear guardrails, train attorneys, and document decisions in a way that satisfies partners, clients, and internal stakeholders.

Hauptman Ham is redefining patent prosecution with Solve Intelligence. By integrating AI-driven workflows into their patent practice, Hauptman Ham attorneys and agents are delivering office action responses that set a new standard—precise, insightful, and creatively crafted. Their clients are gaining a strategic edge with more innovative outcomes that stand out in a competitive landscape.  

Firm leader Ron Embry describes the value of Solve Intelligence in Hauptman Ham’s patent practice.

“The Patent Copilot system allows practitioners at Hauptman Ham to use more creative strategies in pursuit of broad, defensible patent claims for our clients. We use the advanced functionality of the Solve Intelligence system to explore multiple potential avenues in responding to rejections and prosecuting families of patent applications. We find the tool to be quite useful in integrating different legal strategies into one unified, comprehensive, and nuanced approach to obtaining patent protection for our clients.”

The European Patent Office has published a preview of its Guidelines for Examination, effective April 2026. This update incorporates the landmark Enlarged Board decisions G 1/24 (claim interpretation) and G 1/23 (products on the market), alongside a significant change of practice for selection inventions, new rules on colour drawings, and the EPO's first formal guidance on artificial intelligence.

The EPO and IP Australia are launching a new PCT pilot programme on 1 March 2026 which will allow Australian applicants to designate the EPO as their International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities (ISA and IPEA). 

Given the EPO’s rigorous approach to clarity and support requirements, for this pilot programme to succeed, Australian applicants and patent practitioners will have to adapt to draft international applications with EPO-specific requirements in mind.

The launch of this pilot programme will add a new layer of complexity — (and opportunity) for patent practitioners. In a landscape where jurisdictional nuance can shape international search and examination outcomes, AI‑augmented tools such as Solve Intelligence's Patent Copilot^TM are becoming increasingly valuable.

We are excited to welcome Joshua Davenport, Shareholder at Banner Witcoff, to Solve Intelligence’s Customer Advisory Board.

As AI adoption in patent practice continues to accelerate, a critically important question emerges—How do you get AI to deliver the work product you need and the quality you want?

Please join Solve Intelligence and IPWatchdog on Thursday, February 5, at 12 PM ET for a detailed examination of the practical application of AI prompting for patent practice. This webinar is designed for patent attorneys and in-house counsel who want to move beyond experimentation and understand how prompt engineering can be used as a repeatable skill, enabling more efficient, higher-quality patent work across AI-enabled workflows.

Register here.