“We’re seeing a lot of changing in the guidelines,” she said. “The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently issued some new guidelines. It was really a revised version of what we’ve already seen, but there’s a lot of ambiguity left.”
That lack of clarity may center around a new U.S. presidential administration, although Herdeman said the White House is keen about the prospect of more automation. Despite interest in AI, the new administration has not given guidance about how patents get across the finish line with AI-assisted inventorship or how these patents are going to be construed at the patent office.
Part of the issue surrounds determining what a significant human contribution is to a patent. However, as USPTO guidance stands now, that question has not been clearly defined, according to Herdeman.
She said that “any invention that comes from a product of AI as a tool with some human contribution should be eligible for a patent.”
As for the sports nutrition industry, Herdeman noted the rapidly changing field of AI should push products to market more quickly and speed up the R&D process, which may lead to more patents.
At the same time, cuts in the federal workforce may also affect how quickly patents are approved, she added.
“So there are questions about the cadence of patent applications being examined; there are questions about how that’s going to change examination in general, especially with new guidelines,” Herdeman said. “Examiners already have to move very quickly. Adding on an additional component to suss out contributions in these [AI-assisted] applications I think is going to present some new challenges. There’s just a lot of ambiguity in the space right now.”
