AI can draft, but a human answers for every word
Using AI does not move any duty off the person who files, so read, verify and sign as if you wrote every line.
Lesson 9 of 9 · 4 min
The duty sits with the person
The rules for papers filed at the Patent Office do not depend on how a draft was made. Anyone presenting a paper certifies its truth and a reasonable inquiry, on pain of striking, referral or termination (37 C.F.R. § 11.18). A reasonable inquiry means you actually checked. Striking means the paper is thrown out.
Candor runs through Rule 1.56, which is the duty to be honest with the Office about what you know (37 C.F.R. § 1.56). Each inventor also signs an oath confirming review of the application and awareness of the duty to disclose (37 C.F.R. § 1.63). In our judgment, an inventor cannot honestly confirm review of text they have not read.
What goes wrong
In our judgment, AI output can read as fluent and confident while being wrong, and the risk in patent work is sharper than in ordinary writing, for reasons earlier lessons in this course explain. An invented detail, a wrong citation or an overstated result can end up in a sworn or certified document. Words you did not mean can also shape how your claims are later read.
What to check
The list below is our judgment, not a legal standard:
- Read every sentence as if you wrote it, and strike anything you cannot personally stand behind.
- Open every citation, including citations to your own specification and figures, and confirm it exists and says what the draft claims.
- Check any test result, number or performance claim against your real records.
- Compare each claim against the specification, and confirm the specification actually teaches it.
- Ask whether the draft added anything that you or your co-inventors did not contribute.
In our judgment, this applies to every AI tool without exception, including any you pay for. A vendor's statements about accuracy are claims to verify, not a substitute for your own inquiry.
Confidentiality comes first
Practitioners must protect client confidences (37 C.F.R. § 11.106). Inventors have their own reason for care before pasting an unfiled invention into any tool. Course 2 treats AI prompts as an unadjudicated risk, drawing on commentary such as one law firm's alert (Saul Ewing). In our judgment, decide that question before you start drafting, not after. Read the terms of the tool you are using, because they change.
Timeless wisdom
Responsibility for a filed paper stays with the person who files it. Anyone presenting a paper certifies its truth and a reasonable inquiry, on pain of striking, referral or termination (37 C.F.R. § 11.18). Candor runs through Rule 1.56 (37 C.F.R. § 1.56), and practitioners must protect client confidences (37 C.F.R. § 11.106). In our judgment, these duties apply the same way whatever produced the first draft.
What's current
As of November 6, 2026
As of November 6, 2026, there is no AI-specific USPTO rule, and we found no replacement for the April 2024 guidance. It says "there is no prohibition against using these computer tools in drafting documents", finds no general duty to disclose use unless it is material, warns "Simply relying on the accuracy of an AI tool is not a reasonable inquiry", requires a natural person's signature, and applies Rule 11.18 to pro se (self-represented) applicants (89 FR 25609). Its inventorship passages rest on rescinded guidance (90 FR 54636).
In re Mitchell, D2026-16 (July 2026), publicly reprimanded a practitioner whose AI-generated citations to the specification, figures and prosecution history did not exist or were misattributed (order). Lexos Media v. Overstock (D. Kan., Feb. 2, 2026) found five attorneys in violation of Rule 11(b), with $12,000 in fines (order).
Key takeaways
- You may use AI, and you generally need not say so.
- You must read, verify and personally sign what you file.
- Check citations to your own specification, not just outside sources.
- No tool or vendor statement replaces your own inquiry.
Check your understanding
Sources
- 37 C.F.R. § 11.18
- 37 C.F.R. § 1.56
- 37 C.F.R. § 1.63
- 37 C.F.R. § 11.106
- Saul Ewing, Could AI Prompts Become Prior Art? (commentary, Sept. 23, 2026)
- 89 FR 25609, guidance on AI-based tools in USPTO practice (Apr. 11, 2024)
- 90 FR 54636, revised inventorship guidance (Nov. 28, 2025)
- In re Mitchell, D2026-16 (USPTO OED, July 2026)
- Lexos Media v. Overstock (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2026)
The Academy is general education, not legal advice, and reading it doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Patent law and fees change, so check the linked sources and have a registered patent attorney or agent review your situation before you file. Obsidyan sells patent software, including AI drafting tools, so weigh what these lessons say about AI tools with that in mind.