Patenting AI assisted inventions – is a new obviousness standard required?
PATENTINGAI-ASSISTEDINVENTIONS–ISANEWOBVIOUSNESSSTANDARD
REQUIRED?
YUHENGTOMZHANG*
ROBIC,LLP
LAWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS
OneofthereasonswhyArtificialIntelligence(AI)hasreceivedsomuchrecentattentionisthatit
canbeusedtosolveproblemsandmakenewdiscoveriesbeyondwhathumans,bythemselves,
werecapableofbefore.ExamplesofusingAIincludedesigningbettercomponentsinairplanes†
andmakingdiscoveriesofnewdrugsandmedicaltreatments‡.
Conceivingnewsolutionstoproblemsandmakingnewdiscoveriesinevitablyleadstoadiscussion
ofseekingIPprotection.Generally,patentsarebestsuitedforusefulandfunctionalsolutionsor
discoveries.However,shouldtheprocessofinventingusingtheassistanceofAIbeviewed
differentlyfromthe“traditional”inventionprocess?Furthermore,howshouldtheinventivenessof
anewsolutionordiscoverybeevaluateddependingontheamountofassistanceprovidedbyan
AIsystem.
Wecanimaginethefollow4theoreticalscenariosinwhichahumaninteractswithanAIsystemin
ordertoconceiveanewsolutionormakeanewdiscovery:
Scenario1:Thehumanpersondesignsand/orbuildsanAIsystemorappliesextensive
customizationtotheAIsystemandthenusestheAIsystemtoobtainausefulandpractical
result;
Scenario2:ThehumanpersonappliesanamountofparameterizationtotheAIsystemthatis
non-trivialbutalsonotasextensiveasinScenario1.ThiscustomizedAIsystemisapplied,
forexample,toalargesetoftrainingdatatoobtainausefulandpracticalresult;
Scenario3:Thehumanpersonusesapre-existingAIsystembutexercisesanamountof
judgmenttoselectthedatathatisprovidedtotheAIsystemtoobtainausefulandpractical
result;
Scenario4:Thehumanpersonfeedsahighly-capableAIsystemasettrainingdatawithoutthe
humanapplyingmuchjudgmentintheparameterizationoftheAIsystem,norinthe
preselectionofthedata.TheAIsystemprocessesthistrainingdataandproducesauseful
andpracticalresult.
©CIPS,2018.*YuhengTomZhangisalawyerandapatentagentforROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentand
trademarkagents.
†https://www.autodesk.com/customer-stories/airbus‡https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05267-x
2
Tel:514987-6242Tel:418653-1888
AssumingthattheamountofinventivecontributionmadebythehumanandbytheAIsystemcan
beeasilysplitupandquantified,thesefourscenarioscanbegraphicallyrepresentedasfollows:
Scenario1isfairlysimple.Thehumanpersoncanbeunderstoodashavingmadethebulkofthe
inventivecontribution.
Scenario4isattheotherextremeandalsoappearsfairlysimple.Sincethehumandoesnot
providemuchjudgmentineithercustomizingtheAIsystemorintheselectionofthedataused,we
canconcludethattheAIsystemdoesmostoftheheavyliftingtogeneratetheusefulresult.
Scenarios2and3liesomewherebetweenscenarios1and4.Forthesescenarios,itisreasonable
toconcludethathumanpersonhasmadeanon-trivialcontributionbyeithercustomizingtheAI
systemorpreselectingthedata.ItisalsoreasonabletoconcludethattheAIsystemhasalso
contributedinanon-trivialwayinproducingtheusefulresult.
Thesedifferentscenariosraisethequestionofhowwearetocharacterizethe“inventiveness”
whenatleastaportionofthesolutionordiscoveryismadeusingtheassistanceofAI.More
importantly,atwhatpointdowedeterminethattherehasbeensufficientinventiveactivitysoas
therenderthatactivitynon-obviousandthereforethemeetthecriteriaofforbeinggrantedpatent
protection.
InCanada,thetestsetoutbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainApotexv.Sanofi§remainsthe
leadingtestforevaluatingnon-obviousness.Thetestisasfollows:
(1)(a)Identifythenotional“personskilledintheart”;
(b)Identifytherelevantcommongeneralknowledgeofthatperson;
(2)Identifytheinventiveconceptoftheclaiminquestionorifthatcannotreadilybedone,construe
it;
§ApotexInc.v.Sanofi-SynthelaboCanadaInc.2008SCC61
Scenario1Scenario2/3Scenario4
Inventivecontribution
HumanAITotal”Obviousness”Threshold
3
Tel:514987-6242Tel:418653-1888
(3)Identifywhat,ifany,differencesexistbetweenthemattercitedasformingpartofthe“stateof
theart”andtheinventiveconceptoftheclaimortheclaimasconstrued;
(4)Viewedwithoutanyknowledgeoftheallegedinventionasclaimed,dothosedifferences
constitutestepswhichwouldhavebeenobvioustothepersonskilledintheartordotheyrequire
anydegreeofinvention?
Takingforgrantedthatthedifferencebetweentheinventiveconceptofaclaimedinventionand
the“stateoftheart”(i.e.thecollectionofpertinentpriorart)canbereadilyidentified,alargepart
ofapplyingthistestdependsonstep1ofidentifyingthepersonskilledintheartandtherelevant
commongeneralknowledgeofthatperson.Itwillbeappreciatedthatobviousnessdependson
comparingthedifferencesidentifiedinstep3againsttheknowledgeofthisnotionalpersonskilled
intheart.
Thepersonskilledintheart,theknowledgeofthispersonandtheirinventiveprowesshasbeen
addressedmanytimesbytheCanadiancourts.InMerck&Co.v.PharmascienceInc.**perjustice
Hughesatparagraph35:
InCanada,the“personofordinaryskillintheart”isthehypotheticalpersontowhomthe
patentisaddressed.[…]Thepersonofordinaryskillintheartisdeemedtobe
unimaginativeanduninventive,butatthesametimeisunderstoodtohaveanordinarylevel
ofcompetenceandknowledgeincidentaltothefieldtowhichthepatentrelates(i.e.the
commongeneralknowledge)andtobereasonablydiligentinkeepingupwithadvances.
Thecommongeneralknowledgeisthatknowledgegenerallyknownbypersonsskilledin
therelevantartattherelevanttime.Accordingly,itcanincludeknowledgepassedamongst
peopleinthefield,includinginformationthatisnotinpublishedform.Likewise,not
everythingthathasbeenpublishediswithinthecommongeneralknowledge.
PriortothewidespreadadoptionofAIsystems,thethresholdthatneedstobemetinordertoshow
non-obviousisfairlyeasytodefine,albeitoftendifficultytoapplyinpractice.Ifthedifference
betweentheinventiveconceptandthestateoftheartwouldnothavebeenobvioustothe
unimaginativeanduninventivepersonofordinaryskill,thenthethresholdfornon-obviousnessis
met.Returningtothefiguregraphicallyrepresentinghypotheticalscenariosofan“inventive”
process,thehorizontalthresholdlineinpurpleoverlaidonthechartrepresentsanotionalthreshold
atwhichthedifferenceoverthestateoftheartnolongerbecomestothepersonskilledintheart.
Thiscouldrepresenttheamountof“inventive”activitythatwouldmeetstep4ofthetestunder
Sanofi.
ThedifficultybecomesdefiningthisthresholdwhenanAIsystemplaysapartinconceivingor
discoveringthatnon-obvious“difference”.WhereAIisinvolved,shouldthenotionofthepersonof
ordinaryskilledintheartbesomehowdifferent?Alternatively,doeswhatisunderstoodas“being
obvious”tothatpersonsomehowdifferentbecausetheinvolvementofAI?Thatis,shouldthe
thresholdsomehowbemoved?
Scenario1stillremainsfairlystraightforwardtoresolve.Theamountof“inventive”activity
attributabletothepersonindependentlyoftheAIsystemissogreatthatitsurpassesthenon-
obviousthreshold.
**Merck&Co.v.PharmascienceInc2010FC510,).
4
Tel:514987-6242Tel:418653-1888
Scenario4alsoseemstohaveastraightforwardanswer.Ifthehumanhasnotmadeasignificant
“inventive”contributionandtheAIhasinsteaddonealmostallofthework,thenitisreasonableto
concludethatthehumanisnotdeservingofpatentprotection.Although,aswillbeseenfurther
below,eventhisanswermaynotbeadequate.
Scenarios2and3aremoredifficult.Thecombinationoftheinventiveactivityprovidedbyhuman
thinkingwiththatprovidedbytheAImayeasilyexceedthenon-obviousthresholdunderits
traditionalsense,butwhatifneithercontributionalonemeetsthethreshold,asillustratedabove?††
AproposedsolutionistoconsidertheAIasatoolavailabletothepersonofordinaryskilledinthe
art.IftheAIhasbeenusedasatoolinawaythatwouldhavebeenobvioustothepersonof
ordinaryskilledintheart,thenthethresholdhasnotbeenmet.Whilethissolutionmayappear
reasonable,itisnotwithoutitsdrawbacks.Forexample,thecapabilitiesofAIsystemsare
constantlyinvolvingduetobothbetterAIalgorithmsaswellasconstantlyacceleratinghardware
implementingtheAIsystems.ThesefactorscausethewaysthathumansareusingAItobe
constantlyevolving,whichmakesevaluatingobviousnessmoredifficulty.
Furthermore,thereisalargerquestionofwhethermerelytreatingAIasatoolandnotattributing
anyinventiveactivitytotheAIsystemconsistentwithpatentpolicy.Atitscore,thepatentsystem
seekstoincentivizeinventionsbyrewardingthosethatdisclosetheirinventionswithatime-limited
monopoly.DoestreatinganAIsystemsimplyasatooladequatelyachievethispolicy?
Returningtothefourscenariosoutlinedabove,torewardpatentprotectionforthecreationofAI
system(scenario1)butnotforusefulsolutionsordiscoveriesmadebytheAIsystem(scenario4)
canleadtoasituationthatisinconsistentwiththepolicyofincentivizingdisclosureofinvention.
ThisdistinctionbecomesmorepronouncedwherethevalueoftheAIsystemreallyresidesinthe
solutionsanddiscoveriesmadebythatsystem.
RetakingtheexampleofanAIsystemfordesigningbetterairplanecomponents,gettingapatent
monopolyforonlytheAIsystemwouldhavelittlevalueiftheairplanecomponentsgeneratedby
thatAIsystemarenotprotectable.ThepartyholdingthepatentfortheAIsystemwouldhave
exclusiverightstousetheAIsystemtodesigntheairplanecomponents.Butifanyuseful
componentisfoundusingthesystem,anyonewouldbefreetocopythatusefulcomponent
becausethecomponentitselfisnotpatented.
OurIPlawsarealwaysevolvingtokeepupwiththeconstantadvancementsintechnology.This
shortdiscussionprovidesanexampleofjustonequestionbeingraisedbytheriseofAIsystems.
Goingforward,itwillbeinterestingtofollowhowtheIPlawswilladapttotheseAIsystemsorif
evennewlawswillbewritten.
††Ofcourse,thisassumesthatwecanmakeacleardemarcationbetweenthecontributionbythehumanfromthecontributionoftheAI,whichmaynotbeaneasytaskatall.