Getting AI Patents Allowed: Supporting and Enabling AI Applications to Survive 101 and 112

This conversation took place at the IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters™ 2024 program in March of 2024.
This segment will be part 1 of a larger conversation on “Getting AI Patents Allowed”.
Since Alice v. CLS Bank, the high likelihood of an AI invention being found to be directed to an abstract idea has created the worrisome possibility that an entire field capable of generating worlds of foundational technology may be patent ineligible. Indeed, it is hard to fathom a world where things like the Star Trek computer, with its endless knowledge base and control capabilities, could be patent ineligible, but for many inventors that is the reality faced. This is because the very thing that makes AI so useful is its abstract nature, which often defies concrete characterization. While the patent community waits for relief, which could come from the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA).
This panel will discuss practical tips and suggestions, and in particular discuss:
(1) What can practitioners do in terms of disclosure and claiming in order to survive 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112?
(2) What does the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen mean for AI patents and patent applications?
(3) What key points should AI practitioners take from the USPTO’s recent 112 Guidance?
(4) Is the USPTO’s 101 Guidance sill relevant, and if so which examples are still probative? Why? For what types of AI?
(5) How the landscape could change if PERA were to become the law.

[@Daniel-b3t4u]

I like writing my claim 1 as a "story claim," and my two other independent claims as my "real" patent claims so to speak. The story claim provides narrative context for the other two independent claims which, realistically, will define the legal scope of the invention.