（三）人工智能时代的技术水平基准：专利法对AI辅助发明的适应性变革
来源：广东中策知识产权研究院 发布日期：2025-02-25 阅读：28次
Implementation Challenges and Solutions: A Practical Guide
实施挑战与解决方案：实用指南
The integration of AI capabilities into patent law’s nonobviousness analysis raises three key practical challenges that practitioners must navigate. While these challenges may appear daunting, they can be effectively addressed within existing legal frameworks.
将人工智能能力整合到专利法的非显而易见性分析中，提出了从业者必须应对的三大实际挑战。虽然这些挑战看似艰巨，但却可以在现有法律框架内有效解决。
The most significant concern is that considering AI capabilities might set an impossibly high bar for nonobviousness. Critics worry that if we factor in AI’s vast computational power and pattern-recognition capabilities, almost any innovation might seem “obvious.” This concern misunderstands the fundamental nature of the analysis – we are evaluating human skill augmented by AI, not AI capabilities alone. For example, in pharmaceutical research, while an AI system might routinely screen millions of compounds, the inventor’s insight in recognizing unexpected patterns in the results, combining multiple AI tools in novel ways, or identifying promising candidate compounds for further investigation still represents nonobvious innovation. Just as courts have long considered how inventors use sophisticated laboratory equipment without assuming every measurement is obvious, we must focus on how human inventors creatively employ AI tools in their work.
最重要的担忧是，考虑人工智能能力可能会为非显而易见性设定一个高得无法再高的标准。批评者担心，如果考虑到人工智能强大的计算能力和模式识别能力，几乎任何创新都可能显得 “显而易见”。这种担忧误解了分析的基本性质--我们是在评估人工智能所增强的人类技能，而非单纯的人工智能能力。例如，在制药研究中，虽然人工智能系统可能会对数百万种化合物进行例行筛选，但发明人在识别结果中的意外模式、以新颖的方式结合多种人工智能工具或确定有希望的候选化合物以进行进一步研究方面的洞察力，仍然代表着非显而易见的创新。正如法院长期以来一直在考虑发明人如何使用精密的实验室设备，而不假定每一项测量都是显而易见的一样，我们必须关注人类发明人如何在其工作中创造性地使用人工智能工具。
A second major challenge involves determining what AI tools were available and how they were typically used at the relevant time. This challenge fits within patent law’s existing frameworks for evaluating technical evidence – courts routinely assess complex technical questions about the state of various arts and the capabilities of available tools.
第二大挑战是确定当时有哪些人工智能工具，以及这些工具通常是如何使用的。这一挑战与专利法现有的技术证据评估框架不谋而合--法院通常会对有关各种技术状况和可用工具能力的复杂技术问题进行评估。
Practitioners should maintain comprehensive records about AI tool usage in their fields, such as technical documentation of commercially available AI platforms, published papers discussing standard AI methodologies, and industry surveys showing adoption rates. When responding to obviousness rejections, they can challenge unsupported assumptions about AI capabilities by requiring evidence that specific capabilities were actually available and routinely used at the relevant time.
从业者应保存有关其领域内人工智能工具使用情况的全面记录，例如商业化人工智能平台的技术文档、讨论标准人工智能方法的已发表论文以及显示采用率的行业调查。在回应显而易见性驳回时，他们可以要求提供证据，证明特定能力在相关时间确实存在并被常规使用，从而对有关人工智能能力的无根据假设提出质疑。
The third challenge concerns variations in access to AI tools and expertise across different inventors and organizations. Critics worry that considering AI capabilities might unfairly disadvantage smaller inventors or those with limited resources. Patent law has long addressed similar variations in access to research tools by focusing on what is reasonably available to ordinary practitioners in the field, not on cutting-edge capabilities available only to elite institutions. When preparing patent applications or responding to office actions, practitioners should focus on documenting widely available AI tools and their typical uses, rather than exceptional or proprietary capabilities.
第三个挑战涉及不同发明人和组织在获取人工智能工具和专业知识方面的差异。批评者担心，考虑人工智能能力可能会不公平地使较小的发明者或资源有限的发明者处于不利地位。长期以来，专利法一直通过关注该领域普通从业者可合理获得的工具，而非只有精英机构才具备的尖端能力，来解决在获得研究工具方面的类似差异。在准备专利申请或回应审查意见时，从业者应重点记录广泛可用的人工智能工具及其典型用途，而不是特殊或专有的能力。
These challenges underscore the sufficiency of existing PHOSITA analysis frameworks. By working within these established approaches while carefully documenting AI’s role in innovation, practitioners can help ensure the patent system continues to promote genuine innovation in an AI-enhanced world.
这些挑战凸显了现有 PHOSITA 分析框架的充分性。通过在这些既定方法的范围内开展工作，同时认真记录人工智能在创新中的作用，从业人员可以帮助确保专利制度在人工智能增强的世界中继续促进真正的创新。
Looking Forward: Integrating AI into Patent Law’s Evolution
展望未来：将人工智能融入专利法的发展
The integration of AI considerations into patent law’s nonobviousness analysis represents an immediate challenge that courts, the USPTO, and practitioners are actively working to address. The USPTO’s 2024 initiatives, particularly its April Request for Comments addressing AI’s impact on PHOSITA analysis, demonstrate growing recognition that the patent system must thoughtfully adapt to this technological change.
将人工智能因素纳入专利法的非显而易见性分析，是法院、美国专利商标局和从业人员正在积极应对的一项直接挑战。美国专利商标局的 2024 计划，特别是其 4 月份针对人工智能对 PHOSITA 分析的影响的意见征集，表明人们日益认识到专利制度必须深思熟虑地适应这一技术变革。
This evolution mirrors how patent law has historically adapted to transformative technologies. Just as the system evolved to address the innovations of the Industrial Revolution and later the digital age, it must now accommodate the reality of AI-augmented invention. Early indicators suggest the patent system will likely take an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach. The Federal Circuit has not yet issued any opinions that directly address this issue, despite the widespread use of AI in the inventive process, thereby indicating a conservative approach for now. The USPTO, as indicated above, has sought comment on this topic but has not yet issued any guidelines or changed any of its policies. Other major patent offices have begun developing examination guidelines that consider AI’s role in assessing inventive step. Furthermore, the European Patent Office, for instance, has hinted, in comments to the USPTO, that the knowledge and use of AI by PHOSITA might impact the level of skill of PHOSITA. All of these indicate active interest coupled by cautious and incremental steps forward by patent offices.
这种演变反映了专利法在历史上是如何适应变革性技术的。正如专利制度的演变是为了应对工业革命和后来数字时代的创新一样，它现在也必须适应人工智能增强发明的现实。早期迹象表明，专利制度很可能会采取进化而非革命的方式。尽管人工智能在发明过程中得到了广泛应用，但联邦巡回法院尚未发表任何直接针对这一问题的意见，这表明目前采取的是一种保守的态度。如上所述，美国专利商标局已就这一问题征求意见，但尚未发布任何指导方针或改变任何政策。其他主要专利局已开始制定审查指南，考虑人工智能在评估创造性方面的作用。此外，欧洲专利局在给美国专利商标局的意见中暗示，PHOSITA（具有普通技能的技术人员）对人工智能的了解和使用可能会影响 PHOSITA 的技术水平。所有这些都表明了专利局对人工智能的积极关注，同时也采取了谨慎和渐进的措施。
The path forward requires careful balance – recognizing AI’s transformative impact while preserving patent law’s fundamental principles and ensuring accessibility to all inventors. This means developing frameworks flexible enough to adapt as AI capabilities evolve, while maintaining focus on human creativity and judgment in the inventive process.
前进的道路需要谨慎的平衡--既要承认人工智能的变革性影响，又要维护专利法的基本原则并确保所有发明人都能使用。这意味着要制定足够灵活的框架，以适应人工智能能力的发展，同时在发明过程中保持对人类创造力和判断力的关注。