The applicant recorded his AI as the inventor for some reason (*). Had the applicant recorded himself as the inventor having used the AI as a tool to invent, t

The applicant recorded his AI as the inventor for some reason (*). Had the applicant recorded himself as the inventor having used the AI as a tool to invent, then the application probably would have been allowed. Using a mechanical process to search a large possibility space to find a patentable subspace is not new. For example, testing chemical compounds to find a mixture with optimal properties or testing drug dosages to find the most effective treatment is common. The resulting narrow range of mixtures or dosages is patentable so long as it is new (not done before), non-obvious (inventive), useful, etc. Also, if I hire other people to do the lab work at my direction, then I am still the inventor, not the lab technicians. Similarly, AI is just another tool. Edit: (*) After looking into this more, the applicant here is on a crusade to have an AI recognized as an inventor. https://artificialinventor.com/patent-applications/ https://artificialinventor.com/patent-applications/. That web site contains nonsense like the following: > Arguably, DABUS may be considered “sentient” in that any chain-based concept launches a series of memories (i.e., affect chains) that sometimes terminate in critical recollections, thereby launching a tide of artificial molecules. It is these associated memory sequences, and the accompanying simulated neurotransmitter rush, that are considered equivalent to subjective feelings in humans (i.e., sentience). In this way, DABUS has an emotional appreciation for what it conceives.