Why working with AI in patent matters is not straightforward – for now (part two)

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Why working with AI in patent matters is not straightforward – for now (part two)

Sponsored by

cabinet-oproiu-400px.png
Profile of human head surrounded by network of lines

Raluca Vasilescu of Cabinet M Oproiu continues a series on AI’s potential use in patent practice by analysing drafting experiments focused on differentiating from the closest prior art

The first article in this series dealt with experiments by the author using two AI assistants. One was internally adapted for use by Cabinet M Oproiu’s patent attorneys by deleting its memory. The experiments involved using the AI assistants to respond to two office actions for two patent applications in different technical fields.

The use of AI assistants by patent attorneys is tempting as it can shorten the time taken to prepare submissions.

This article deals with experiments using the AI assistants for patent drafting and explores the limits of deploying AI assistants in such a manner.

Description of the experiments

The first application described a method and its equipment for multiple coating of a textile for use in the medical field – a tangible subject matter. In this case, the inventor knew very well the closest prior art and described the new invention as compared to it.

The second application described a method and a system for adapted data processing using neural networks – a very abstract subject matter. In this case, there was no closest prior art known to the inventor, but rather some different pieces of prior art from various sources.

The purpose of the experiments was to see how much one can rely on the reasoning of an AI assistant.

In both cases, due to confidentiality constraints, the AI assistants were fed successive rounds of input consisting of fragments from the inventor’s disclosure and targeted questions.

The AI assistants were not used to prepare the draft of the patent application. They were used exclusively to help differentiate from the closest prior art.

For the first application, the inventor provided the firm with the drawing of the equipment and some explanations.

The steps of the method and the main items of the equipment were created from the drawing and then compared with prior art. Here, the AI assistants were used to compare the step-by-step method of the new invention with the method from prior art and to give the differences and the advantages.

Then, the inventor was consulted to confirm the differences, which constituted the essential features and the advantages in support of the inventive step. The majority of the input received from the two AI assistants was confirmed by the inventor.

For the second application, the lack of a clearly defined prior art and the possibility of selecting among various problems to be solved by the invention was the main difficulty of the case. Here, the AI assistants were effectively useless, as this was a matter of filing strategy.

The author has noted that in many cases, the inventors mention too many disadvantages of prior art, too many problems to be solved, and too many advantages of the invention. In the case of multiple technical problems to be solved, the invention is not unitary, which leads us – as counsels – to the necessity to select a single problem to be solved, even if the problem can have sub-objectives allowable by the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Then the challenge is this: which problem to be solved is the best one to select? The author’s usual advice is that the best problem is the one for which there are stronger arguments to prove inventive step. Again, the AI assistants are useless here.

For this application, the AI assistants were used for only two purposes:

  • To clarify the terms to be used in the invention; and

  • To double-check that the origin of the disadvantages of prior art was correctly understood.

In both cases, the author expressly mentioned links to the EPC and to the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office in the input to the AI assistants.

Provisional conclusions on the use of AI for patent drafting

Using AI assistants when drafting patents can be helpful, but it depends heavily on various parameters, such as the technical field and whether the inventor already knows the closest prior art.

The choice of which features are essential and which are optional when drafting patent applications, and how AI assistants can help, will be discussed in the next article by Cabinet M Oproiu.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of iPNOTE, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, have taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Law firms are rethinking litigation strategies after USPTO director John Squires said he would take control of PTAB challenges
News of Singapore planning to streamline the licensing framework for foreign law firms and a partnership between Avanci and Xprize were also among the top talking points
In major recent developments, the court also ruled on another request concerning access to documents and appointed a new panel to the Court of Appeal
A new foundation in Chile is giving women in the IP community the mentorship, and visibility they’ve long lacked
Gift this article