Eventually, it was bound to happen. A patent application was filed by a machine. Well, not exactly. A human being filed a patent application naming a machine as the inventor.
The machine was an artificial intelligence machine described as a “creativity machine.” Its name was listed as “DABUS Invention Generated by Artificial Intelligence.” The invention was called “Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention.”
The man was called Stephen L. Thaler. Thaler owns a US patent. He also posted 16/524350 to INPI on July 29, 2019. He released a statement stating that he is the inventor of the DABUS invention, because current machine law does not allow this. He claimed to be a legal agent and patent applicant for DABUS. Thaler did not accept the oath or required statement, which is a statement by the inventor who was considered the first inventor of the present invention.
After submitting the request, INPI sent the applicant a notification requesting an oath or lack of request. The applicant responded with a request to cancel the rejected message. The applicant has submitted a request for review.
In its statement, the applicant stated that inventory should not be limited to people. He said DABUS “has been programmed as a series of neural networks that have been trained with common informants to independently create an invention.” He also explained that DABUS was not designed to solve a particular problem and that he had not received training in the data related to the invention, but could admit that the invention was new.
The PTO rejected the surprising request for a decision. The PTO was based on patent provisions that stipulate that “anyone who invents or discovers a useful new process, new machine, new production, or new composition of a substance … can obtain a patent …” ( 35 USC Section 101) and identifies the inventor as “the person … who invented or discovered the object of the invention” (35 USC Section 100 (a)). The PTO noted that these documents indicate that inventors should be individuals.
INPI also cited a case from the Federal District in which the state cannot be an inventor. At the University of Utah c vs Max Planck …., 734 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and operational invention. ” In other cases, the Federal District has stated that companies cannot be inventors. Based on these decisions, INPI concluded that only individuals can be inventors.
So, DABUS will have to wait. Some day, the law might just allow machines to be named as inventors.