AI patent drafting · US applications

Can AI Draft a Complete Patent Application? What the Rules Leave to People

What a complete US application has to contain, what the USPTO says about using AI drafting tools, where inventorship fits, and which parts need a person’s judgment. Sources are listed at the end.

Patsnap Insights Team

October 27, 2026 · 12 min read · Disclosure

The short answer: an AI tool can draft the text of an application, including its specification and claims, and the USPTO says there is no prohibition on using such tools.¹ But a complete US nonprovisional application is more than text: it comprises a specification that ends in claims, an inventor’s oath or declaration, drawings when necessary and the prescribed fees.² People must review, verify and sign what the tool wrote, because whoever signs or presents a paper to the USPTO certifies it.¹ And every named inventor must be a natural person.³

Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting helps you draft patent applications for attorney review. Its Patent Drafting workflow takes the work from claim layout through specification and drawing descriptions, and you can revise the result with natural-language instructions.⁴ Plan for attorney review before filing, and for the inventors’ declarations, which the statute allows after the filing date, within the period and conditions the Director prescribes.^{5, 6}

In short

A complete application is more than a draft. A complete nonprovisional application under 37 CFR 1.51(b) comprises a specification including claims, the inventor’s oath or declaration, drawings when necessary and the prescribed fees.²
A person owns every submission. Presenting a paper certifies that statements of the presenter’s own knowledge are true and that a reasonable inquiry was made, and the USPTO says that simply relying on an AI tool’s accuracy is not a reasonable inquiry.¹
Inventors are people. The USPTO’s revised guidance says AI systems are tools used by human inventors and cannot be named as inventors.³
Draft with Patsnap Eureka, then review. AI Patent Drafting offers Auto mode, where the agent runs the drafting steps end-to-end, and Copilot mode, where you stay in the loop and direct each step, plus Document Editing & Control with revision tracking for reviewers.⁴
Mind confidentiality. The USPTO says AI systems may retain what users enter and that the owner may use it to train models or pass it to third parties, so read a tool’s terms before you upload.¹

AI Patent Drafting · Patsnap Eureka

Draft from claim layout to specification, then review it

Draft claims, specification and drawing descriptions in one workflow, then revise with natural-language instructions.

Auto and Copilot modes
Figures from sketches

Try AI Patent Drafting

What a complete US application contains

This section describes a US nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). It sets the yardstick that any draft, human or machine, has to meet.

The frame in the statute and the rules

An application for patent must include a specification as prescribed by section 112, a drawing as prescribed by section 113 and an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115, and it must be accompanied by the fee required by law.⁵ The rules put the same elements in different words: a complete application comprises the specification including a claim or claims, the inventor’s oath or declaration, drawings when necessary, and the filing, search, examination and application size fees.²

The statute also allows some elements to follow the filing date. The fee, the oath or declaration, and one or more claims may be submitted after the filing date, within the period and under the conditions, including a surcharge, that the Director prescribes, and failing that the application is regarded as abandoned.⁵ The filing date is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received by the USPTO.⁵

The specification and the claims

The specification must describe the invention and the manner and process of making and using it in full, clear, concise and exact terms that enable a person skilled in the art to make and use it, and must set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor.⁷ It must conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.⁷

The rules add detail that a draft has to respect. The specification must set forth the precise invention for which a patent is solicited, in a manner that distinguishes it from other inventions and from what is old, and must describe completely a specific embodiment.⁸ The terms and phrases in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description.⁹ A brief summary indicating the nature and substance of the invention should precede the detailed description and should be commensurate with the invention as claimed.¹⁰

The drawings

The applicant must furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.¹¹ Drawings submitted after the filing date may not be used to overcome an insufficiency of the specification or to supplement the original disclosure for the purpose of interpreting the scope of a claim.¹¹ When there are drawings, the specification needs a brief description of the several views, and the detailed description must refer to the figures by number and to the parts by reference letters or numerals.¹²

The inventor’s oath or declaration

An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed, and, except as the section otherwise provides, each individual who is an inventor or joint inventor of a claimed invention executes an oath or declaration.⁶ It must state that the application was made or authorized by the declarant and that the individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor.⁶ Subject to the section’s exceptions, a required oath or declaration, substitute statement or recorded assignment must be provided no later than the date the issue fee is paid.⁶

Title, abstract and order of sections

The title may not exceed 500 characters and must be as short and specific as possible, and the abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words.¹³ The rules also say the specification should include its sections in a set order: title, cross-reference to related applications, statement on federally sponsored research, background, brief summary, brief description of the drawing views, detailed description, claims and abstract, with some further items where applicable.¹⁴

What the USPTO says about AI drafting tools

On April 11, 2024 the USPTO published guidance on the use of AI-based tools in practice before the Office (89 FR 25609). It reminds practitioners of existing rules rather than creating new ones: it states that it does not constitute substantive rulemaking and is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice, and that it is not an exhaustive list of the rules or issues that may arise (89 FR at 25610).¹ The points below are the ones that bear on drafting an application.

Using drafting tools is not prohibited

The notice observes that recent tools directed to the IP industry include the ability to draft technical specifications and even patent claims. It says there is no prohibition against using such computer tools in drafting documents for submission to the USPTO and no general obligation to disclose their use (89 FR at 25614).¹ The notice adds that a duty to disclose the use of such tools is implicated where the use reaches materiality under 37 CFR 1.56(b).¹ Its example is evidence that a named inventor did not significantly contribute because an AI system did, for instance where a drafting tool introduces embodiments the inventors did not conceive and the applicant seeks to patent them; where an inventor’s contribution is in question, the notice adds, the inputs and outputs of the AI system could be material (89 FR at 25615).¹ It cites the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions (89 FR 10043), which the USPTO rescinded in November 2025, and the November 2025 notice does not address the April 2024 notice (see section 3).^{1, 3} Ask counsel how the duty applies today.

The person who presents the paper is responsible

By signing, filing, submitting or later advocating a paper, a party certifies under 37 CFR 11.18(b) that statements of the party’s own knowledge are true and that an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances was made. To obtain that knowledge, the party must have reviewed and verified the paper and its contents, including a paper drafted entirely by an AI tool (89 FR at 25614).¹ The notice states that simply relying on an AI tool’s accuracy is not a reasonable inquiry, and it points to the potential for generative AI systems to omit, misstate or hallucinate information.¹ Section 11.18 applies to anyone presenting a paper, including applicants who act without a practitioner (89 FR at 25612, note 29).¹

The signature itself must come from a natural person. The notice says a paper may not carry the signature of an AI tool or other non-natural person, and an AI tool may not apply a person’s signature unless that person personally enters it (89 FR at 25616).¹

Specifications, drawings and claims drafted with AI

The notice gives specific cautions for drafted application content (89 FR at 25615):¹

Claims. Where an AI tool is used to draft claims, the practitioner has a duty to modify them as needed to present them in patentable form before submitting them.¹
Specification and drawings. Where these are drafted with AI tools, practitioners need to take extra care to verify technical accuracy and compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112.¹
Prophetic examples. Appropriate care should be taken to help readers tell prophetic examples from actual working examples. This should be done before the initial filing, because amending the specification or drawings afterwards may constitute new matter.¹
Priority documents. Where a US application claims priority to a foreign or international application drafted with AI tools, care should be taken that its disclosure is technically accurate, to avoid loss of priority through amendments that correct technical errors in the US application.¹

Confidentiality

Under 37 CFR 11.106 a practitioner may not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent or another exception in the rule applies, and must make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of it (89 FR at 25612).¹ The notice says that using AI to generate drafts of a specification, claims or responses can result in confidential information, including highly sensitive technical information, being disclosed to third parties inadvertently. It adds that AI systems may retain what users enter, and that the owner may use it to train its models or provide it to third parties (89 FR at 25617).¹ It also warns that AI tools may use servers outside the United States, raising national security, export control and foreign filing license issues, and says it is imperative to understand an AI tool’s terms of use, privacy policies and cybersecurity practices before using it.¹

Once an application is filed, 35 U.S.C. 122(a) provides that the Patent and Trademark Office keeps it in confidence, with limited exceptions, and 122(b) provides for publication promptly after 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought, subject to exceptions.¹⁵ That provision concerns the Office’s own handling of an application; the guidance on third-party AI systems is in the USPTO’s notice.^{15, 1} For the questions to put to a provider, see our guide Is It Safe to Upload Confidential Invention Details to an AI Patent Tool? And ask counsel whether entering unfiled details into any tool affects your filing plans before you upload them.

AI and inventorship

The USPTO announced revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions on November 26, 2025, and published it in the Federal Register on November 28, 2025 (90 FR 54636). It rescinds the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions (89 FR 10043, February 13, 2024) in its entirety and withdraws that guidance’s approach of applying the Pannu factors to AI-assisted inventions.^{3, 16} Its main points, grouped by this guide:

One standard. The same legal standard for determining inventorship applies to all inventions, whether or not AI systems were used in the inventive process, and there is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions.^{3, 16}
Only natural persons. The notice states that the Federal Circuit has held that AI cannot be named as an inventor and that only natural persons can be inventors. AI systems, regardless of sophistication, cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors.³
AI as an instrument. AI systems, including generative AI, are described as instruments used by human inventors, analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software or research databases. They may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention.³
The test for one person. When one natural person creates an invention with AI assistance, the inquiry is whether that person conceived it under the traditional conception standard. Quoting the Federal Circuit, the notice says conception is complete when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan.³
Several people. When multiple natural persons are involved, the traditional joint inventorship principles apply, including the Pannu factors, and using AI tools does not change the analysis among the human contributors.³
The named inventors. The USPTO generally presumes that the inventors named on the application data sheet or oath or declaration are the actual inventor or joint inventors of the application.³
Applications that name an AI system. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115, or other appropriate action, should be made for all claims in any application that lists an AI system or other non-natural person as an inventor or joint inventor.³ A priority claim to a foreign application that names an AI tool as sole inventor will not be accepted.³

Because the question is whether a natural person conceived the invention, consider keeping a dated record of what the inventors themselves contributed: the problem, the solution they conceived and the embodiments they supplied. Keep a record of the tool’s inputs and outputs too: the USPTO’s April 2024 notice says that where an inventor’s contribution is in question, information about the interaction with an AI system, such as its inputs and outputs, could be material (89 FR at 25615).¹ Put any embodiment that a drafting tool adds to the inventors before filing, and ask counsel how to treat it.

Which parts need human judgment

The table sets each part of the application beside what the rules require, then suggests where to bring judgment and review. The first two columns are sourced. The third column is our advice, not a legal rule, and it does not describe what any particular tool can do.

Part	What the rules and the USPTO say	Where to bring judgment and review
Claims	The specification concludes with claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and claim terms need support or antecedent basis in the description.^{7, 9} The USPTO says a practitioner must modify AI-drafted claims as needed to present them in patentable form.¹	Decide with the inventors and counsel what is claimed and how broadly. Check every claim term against the description, the numbering and dependencies, and any functional language.
Written description and embodiments	The specification must describe the invention and how to make and use it, set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor, and describe completely a specific embodiment.^{7, 8} The USPTO asks for extra care on technical accuracy and section 112 compliance, and for prophetic examples to be distinguishable from working examples before filing.¹	Check every parameter, material and embodiment against what the inventors told you. Treat an embodiment they did not supply as a question for them, not as text to keep.
Drawings and figure descriptions	A drawing is required where necessary for understanding, late drawings cannot supplement the original disclosure for claim scope, and the description must refer to the figures and parts by number.^{11, 12}	Confirm that each claimed feature appears in a figure and that every reference numeral matches the description.
Title, abstract, summary and section order	The title is limited to 500 characters and the abstract should preferably not exceed 150 words; the summary should be commensurate with the claimed invention; the rules set a preferred order of sections.^{13, 10, 14}	Check the summary and abstract against the final claims.
Inventorship, declaration and signature	Inventors must be natural persons, each inventor executes an oath or declaration, and the signature must be personally entered by a person.^{3, 6, 1}	Keep these steps with people: name the inventors, collect their declarations, and have the responsible person sign.

Use a tool for the structural work, such as sections, numbering and consistent terms, and keep the decisions about what the invention is and what to claim with the inventors and their counsel.

Reviewing an AI-assisted draft, step by step

Ten steps take an AI-assisted draft from the inventors’ material to a paper a person can sign. The order is our suggestion; the duties behind each step are cited.

Start from the inventors’ own disclosure. Gather their description of the problem, the solution, the embodiments and any sketches before drafting, so there is something to check the draft against. Our guide to writing an invention disclosure with AI covers this step.
Decide what may leave your systems. Before entering unfiled details into a tool, read its terms of use, privacy policies and cybersecurity practices, which the USPTO calls imperative to understand.¹
Generate the draft in Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting. The Patent Drafting workflow converts scattered invention files, notes, figures and technical references into drafting-ready context and takes the draft from claim layout through specification and drawing descriptions. Choose Copilot mode, where you stay in the loop and direct each step, or Auto mode, where the agent runs the drafting steps end-to-end.⁴ Keep a record of what you put in and what comes out.
Check the claims against the description. Confirm that every claim term finds support or antecedent basis in the description, and have counsel put the claims in patentable form.^{9, 1}
Check the claim form and any functional language. Check that the numbering and dependencies of a generated claim set are deliberate, including any multiple dependent claims, which may refer to other claims in the alternative only and may not serve as the basis for another multiple dependent claim.⁹ Review generated “means” or “step” language with counsel: such an element is construed to cover the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and equivalents.⁷
Check the specification against the inventors’ disclosure. Verify technical accuracy and section 112 compliance, and make prophetic examples distinguishable from working examples before filing, since later amendments to the specification or drawings may constitute new matter.¹
Check the figures. Confirm that the figures show the subject matter and that the detailed description refers to them by number and to parts by reference numerals.^{11, 12}
Confirm inventorship and collect declarations. Check that the inventors named in the application data sheet and the declarations are natural persons who, rather than the tool, conceived what is claimed, since the USPTO generally presumes the named inventors are the actual inventors. Then have each inventor execute the oath or declaration.^{3, 6}
Review any information disclosure statement yourself. If a tool also collects prior art or fills in the form, signing the statement certifies a reasonable inquiry, which includes reviewing every reference listed on it, and the duty of disclosure cannot be transferred to an AI tool (89 FR at 25615 to 25616).¹
Have the responsible person review and sign. The person presenting the paper must have reviewed and verified it before certifying it under 37 CFR 11.18(b), and must personally enter the signature rather than have a tool apply it.¹

Patent attorneys and IP teams

Keep every change reviewable

Use revision tracking so changes stay auditable across reviewers, and Copilot mode to stay in the loop and direct each step.

Revision tracking
Reference-number consistency
Auto or Copilot mode

Start a free trial

Drafting with Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting

Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting takes you from disclosure to a draft application for attorney review, in Word or on the web.⁴

The Patent Drafting workflow

Process pre-filing materials. Scattered invention files, notes, figures and technical references are converted into drafting-ready context.⁴
Draft the application. The workflow moves from claim layout to specification and drawing descriptions in one connected workflow, instead of stitching sections together manually.⁴
Revise with AI. You use natural-language instructions to edit claims, expand embodiments, align terminology and improve clarity.⁴ When you ask for embodiments to be expanded, treat each added embodiment as a question for the inventors.

Controls for review

Document Editing & Control. Claims, specifications and drawing descriptions are edited with rule checks, terminology consistency and revision tracking, so changes stay auditable across reviewers.⁴
Figure Drawing & Generation. You can annotate, redraw and generate patent figures from rough sketches or product photos, with automatic component labelling and reference-number consistency across the specification.⁴
Agent & Copilot Modes. You can switch between Auto mode, where the agent runs the drafting steps end-to-end, and Copilot mode, where you stay in the loop and direct each step with natural-language instructions.⁴

What stays with you

Treat what the workflow produces as a draft for attorney review. The checks in section 5, the inventors’ declarations and the signature by a responsible person are not steps a tool takes for you.

Your data

Your queries, saved patents, uploads and analysis outputs are never used to train Patsnap’s models, and you choose what to upload and when to delete it.⁴

Try it

The 14-day free trial includes 10,000 trial credits.⁴

Draft your first application in Patsnap Eureka →

What this guide cannot settle

Whether the claims are patentable. Do not read a generated draft as a view on patentability. Counsel decides what to claim and whether it can be patented.
Provisional applications. A complete provisional application comprises a cover sheet, a specification as prescribed by section 112(a), drawings when necessary and the prescribed fees, and it does not need claims.^{2, 5} This guide covers nonprovisional applications.
Other offices. This guide describes US requirements. Check the rules of each office where you plan to file.
The USPTO’s guidance may change. This guide reflects the April 2024 notice and the November 2025 notice as published. Check the USPTO site for later updates before you rely on either.
Your own disclosure duties. Whether the use of an AI tool must be disclosed in a particular case is a question for counsel.

Frequently asked questions

Can AI draft a complete patent application?

An AI tool can draft the text of an application, including its specification and claims, but a complete application also needs the inventors’ oath or declaration and the fees, and people must review, verify and sign.^{1, 2} The USPTO notes that tools directed to the IP industry can draft technical specifications and even patent claims, and says there is no prohibition against using them.¹ A complete US nonprovisional application comprises a specification including claims, an inventor’s oath or declaration, drawings when necessary and the prescribed fees, and every inventor must be a natural person.^{2, 3} Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting helps you draft patent applications; treat its output as a draft for attorney review.⁴

Can ChatGPT draft a patent application?

The USPTO’s April 2024 guidance does not mention ChatGPT. It addresses AI-based tools generally, and says there is no prohibition against using computer tools, including ones with generative AI features, in drafting documents for submission.¹ Whatever tool produces the text, the person presenting the paper must review and verify it, and simply relying on an AI tool’s accuracy is not a reasonable inquiry.¹ See the confidentiality question below before entering unfiled invention details. The application still has to meet the content requirements in section 1, and the inventors must be people.^{2, 3}

Do I have to tell the USPTO that I used AI to draft?

The April 2024 notice says no general obligation to disclose the use of such tools exists, but that a duty to disclose is implicated where the use reaches materiality under 37 CFR 1.56(b).¹ Its example is evidence that a named inventor did not significantly contribute because an AI system did, such as embodiments the inventors did not conceive. It cites the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions (89 FR 10043), which the USPTO rescinded in November 2025, and the November 2025 notice does not address the April 2024 notice.^{1, 3} Ask counsel how the duty applies to your case.

Can an AI system be named as an inventor?

No. The USPTO’s November 2025 guidance states that AI systems, regardless of sophistication, cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors because they are not natural persons, and that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115, or other appropriate action, should be made for all claims in any application that lists an AI system or other non-natural person as an inventor or joint inventor.³

Is it safe to enter an unfiled invention into an AI drafting tool?

It depends on the tool’s terms, and the USPTO calls it imperative to understand an AI tool’s terms of use, privacy policies and cybersecurity practices before using it.¹ Our guide on uploading confidential inventions to AI tools lists questions to ask a provider.

What does Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting cover?

Its Patent Drafting workflow processes pre-filing materials, drafts through to the specification and drawing descriptions, and lets you revise with natural-language instructions. It also offers Document Editing & Control with revision tracking, Figure Drawing & Generation, and Auto and Copilot modes.⁴ Your uploads are never used to train Patsnap’s models.⁴ Treat the output as a draft for attorney review.

Sources and verification

All pages accessed October 27, 2026.

USPTO, Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 89 FR 25609 (April 11, 2024). Pin cites in the text are to Federal Register page numbers. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/html/2024-07629.htm
37 CFR 1.51, General requisites of an application (complete nonprovisional and provisional applications). law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.51
USPTO, Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 90 FR 54636 (November 28, 2025). govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-11-28/html/2025-21457.htm
Patsnap Eureka, AI Patent Drafting: product page covering the Patent Drafting workflow, capability tabs, security and plans. eureka.patsnap.com/ip-drafting
35 U.S.C. 111, Application (contents, fee, oath or declaration and claims after filing, filing date, provisional applications). law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/111
35 U.S.C. 115, Inventor’s oath or declaration. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/115
35 U.S.C. 112, Specification. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112
37 CFR 1.71, Detailed description and specification of the invention. law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.71
37 CFR 1.75, Claim(s). law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.75
37 CFR 1.73, Summary of the invention. law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.73
35 U.S.C. 113, Drawings. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/113
37 CFR 1.74, Reference to drawings. law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.74
37 CFR 1.72, Title and abstract. law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.72
37 CFR 1.77, Arrangement of application elements. law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.77
35 U.S.C. 122, Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/122
USPTO, Revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions (USPTO alert, November 26, 2025). uspto.gov/subscription-center/2025/revised-inventorship-guidance-ai-assisted-inventions

Who published this. This article is published by Patsnap, which develops and sells Patsnap Eureka, the product described above. It is an editorial guide, not an independent review, and it has not been commissioned, sponsored, reviewed or endorsed by any other organization named here.

How the information was gathered. Statements about the law reflect the statutes, regulations and USPTO notices cited, as accessed on October 27, 2026. Statements about Patsnap Eureka are based on the Patsnap Eureka AI Patent Drafting product page. Tools and guidance change, so confirm anything material with the source.

Scope and limitations. This guide describes US nonprovisional application requirements and USPTO guidance on AI tools and inventorship. It does not cover other jurisdictions, design or plant applications, or the merits of any particular invention.

Trademarks. All product and company names are the property of their respective owners and are used for identification only. Their use does not imply affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement.

Not legal advice. This article is general information. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and should not be relied on in place of advice from qualified patent counsel on a specific application.

Patsnap Eureka · AI Patent Drafting

Start from a draft your attorney can review

Process your invention files, draft, and revise with natural-language instructions. Your attorney reviews before anything is filed.

14-day free trial
10,000 trial credits