[ExI] Early Data Indicates an A.I.-Generated Drug Could Slow Aging

Jason Resch jasonresch at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 14:09:13 UTC 2026 

On Tue, Sep 8, 2026, 11:57 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> If that is so then patent law and copyright are diverging.


It appears the US patent office recently issued guidance on this question:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/13/2024-02623/inventorship-guidance-for-ai-assisted-inventions

It says:

"The guidance provides clarity for USPTO stakeholders and personnel,
including the Central Reexamination Unit and the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PTAB or Board), on how the USPTO will analyze inventorship issues as
AI systems, including generative AI, play a greater role in the innovation
process. This guidance explains that while AI-assisted inventions are not
categorically unpatentable, the inventorship analysis should focus on human
contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human
ingenuity. Patent protection may be sought for inventions for which a
natural person provided a significant contribution to the invention, and
the guidance provides procedures for determining the same. "

"35 U.S.C. 100(g) defines the terms “joint inventor” and “coinventor” as
“any 1 of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of
a joint invention.” Based on the holding in Thaler that an “individual”
must mean a natural person, it is clear that a “joint inventor” or
“coinventor” must also be a natural person. In February of 2023, the USPTO
published the R-07.2022 revision of the MPEP, which included revisions to
section 2109. This section reiterates the USPTO's position, and the
position expressed by the Federal Court in  Thaler, that an inventor must
be a natural person, and by extension, any joint inventor must be a natural
person."

"While AI systems and other non-natural persons [13] cannot be listed as
inventors on patent applications or patents, the use of an AI system by a
natural person(s) does not preclude a natural person(s) from qualifying as
an inventor (or joint inventors) if the natural person(s) significantly
contributed to the claimed invention, as explained in section IV of this
notice."

"Additionally, there are no other sections of the Patent Act that support a
position that inventions that are created by natural person(s) using
specific tools, including AI systems, result in improper inventorship or
are otherwise unpatentable. The statutes only require the naming of the
natural persons who invented or discovered the claimed invention,
irrespective of the contributions provided by an AI system or any other
advanced system."

"The Supreme Court has indicated that the meaning of “invention” in the
Patent Act refers to the inventor's conception.[19]
Similarly, the Federal Circuit has made clear that conception is the
touchstone of inventorship.[20]
Conception is often referred to as a mental act or the mental part of
invention.[21]
Specifically, “[i]t is `the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a
definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it
is hereafter to be applied in practice.' ” [22]
Because conception is an act performed in the mind, it has to date been
understood as only performed by natural persons. The courts have been
unwilling to extend conception to non-natural persons.[23]
Hence, when a natural person invents using an AI system, the conception
analysis should focus on the natural person(s)."

"When evaluating the contributions made by natural persons in the invention
creation process, it is important to keep in mind they may apply for a
patent jointly, “even though (1) they did not physically work together or
at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of
contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter
of every claim of the patent.” [31]
Instead, each inventor must contribute in some significant manner to the
invention. In making this determination, the courts have looked to several
factors, such that each inventor must: “(1) contribute in some significant
manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention,[32]
(2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant
in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the
full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors
well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art” (Pannu
factors).[33]
Courts have found that a failure to meet any one of these factors precludes
that person from being named an inventor.[34]"

I think the most important guidance comes from these examples:

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-02623/p-94

"1. A natural person's use of an AI system in creating an AI-assisted
invention does not negate the person's contributions as an inventor.[53]
The natural person can be listed as the inventor or joint inventor if the
natural person contributes significantly to the AI-assisted invention.

2. Merely recognizing a problem or having a general goal or research plan
to pursue does not rise to the level of conception.[54]
A natural person who only presents a problem to an AI system may not be a
proper inventor or joint inventor of an invention identified from the
output of the AI system. However, a significant contribution could be shown
by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem
to elicit a particular solution from the AI system.

3. Reducing an invention to practice alone is not a significant
contribution that rises to the level of inventorship.[55]
Therefore, a natural person who merely recognizes and appreciates the
output of an AI system as an invention, particularly when the properties
and utility of the output are apparent to those of ordinary skill, is not
necessarily an inventor.[56]
However, a person who takes the output of an AI system and makes a
significant contribution to the output to create an invention may be a
proper inventor. Alternatively, in certain situations, a person who
conducts a successful experiment using the AI system's output could
demonstrate that the person provided a significant contribution to the
invention even if that person is unable to establish conception until the
invention has been reduced to practice.[57]

4. A natural person who develops an essential building block from which the
claimed invention is derived may be considered to have provided a
significant contribution to the conception of the claimed invention even
though the person was not present for or a participant in each activity
that led to the conception of the claimed invention.[58]
In some situations, the natural person(s) who designs, builds, or trains an
AI system in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution
could be an inventor, where the designing, building, or training of the AI
system is a significant contribution to the invention created with the AI
system.

5. Maintaining “intellectual domination” over an AI system does not, on its
own, make a person an inventor of any inventions created through the use of
the AI system.[59]
Therefore, a person simply owning or overseeing an AI system that is used
in the creation of an invention, without providing a significant
contribution to the conception of the invention, does not make that person
an inventor."



So it seems that whether or not something is patentable comes down to how
kne uses it. If you simply promoted the AI: "come up with a commercially
viable patent idea for me." Those results would not be patentable.
However, if you looked at the idea and then contributed to improving them
in some important way, then it could be.

Alternatively, if instead you presented the AI with the seed of an idea (in
terms of a solution) already in hand, and asked if the AI saw a way of
turning it into a solution for certain problems, or to flesh out the
details of an implementation, that result would be patentable.


There was a
> recent case regarding a graphic novel titled "Zarya of the Dawn" that
> only got limited copyright protection from the USPTO because the author
> Kris Kashtanova used Midjourney for the artwork.


That is a little surprising, especially as Adobe blurs the line between
Photoshop and generative AI by building generative AI into their own
Photoshop tool. Even taking photos with a phone sometimes use AI based
algorithms to generate missing details and enhance perceived resolution.

I think the copyright changes is showing that already the line between tool
and entity/person is blurring.


The layout and text
> were copyrightable, but the images were not. Also, I think that many if
> not most people choose not to distinguish between good AI-assisted art
> and AI slop, which is the difference between useful information and
> spam. There is a weird irrational element to the politics surrounding
> generative AI. The irrationality is a little reminiscent of "The
> Animatrix" prequel to "The Matrix" movie where the all human nations
> boycotted importing products from the machine nation because it was of
> higher quality than the human products.
>

I'll have to check out the animatrix.

Jason


> Stuart LaForge
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2026-09-08 13:54, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> > My understanding is they can still patent it, just that they must list
> > only human names on the patent application where it asks for
> > inventors.
> >
> > There was an AI called the "invention machine" a few decades ago that
> > used genetic programming algorithms to find novel designs, which were
> > subsequently patented.
> >
> > What or methods were used to help find a certain technique or drug
> > isn't asked for on a patent applications today, and I suppose the
> > person who supplied the prompt could put their name down as the
> > inventor.
> >
> > Most journals are following a similar direction, they don't allow
> > adding AIs as authors even when they contribute substantially or more
> > than any human coauthor.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2026, 12:25 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
> > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I am not against using AI to invent and generate intellectual
> >> property,
> >> but I wonder how the laws against it will affect things like drug
> >> development. I mean big pharma typically won't make a drug to combat
> >> a
> >> disease unless they can patent it. Are they going to make an
> >> exception
> >> in the new AI laws for large corporations?
> >>
> >> Stuart LaForge
> >>
> >> On 2026-09-07 12:25, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote:
> >>> Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it
> >> for
> >>> free without a subscription.
> >>>
> >>> Early Data Indicates an A.I.-Generated Drug Could Slow Aging
> >>>
> >>> Artificial intelligence was used to help develop a drug candidate,
> >>> rentosertib, for a rare lung condition. Its maker says the drug
> >> also
> >>> seems to reduce the biological hallmarks of age.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/07/science/ai-generated-drug-longevity.html?unlocked_article_code=1._VA.LFye.Rv2JHNLQdgzL&smid=em-share
> >> [1]
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>> Links:
> >>> ------
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> >
> https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/07/science/ai-generated-drug-longevity.html?unlocked_article_code=1._VA.LFye.Rv2JHNLQdgzL&smid=em-share
> >> [1]
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> extropy-chat mailing list
> >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> extropy-chat mailing list
> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1]
> >
> https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/07/science/ai-generated-drug-longevity.html?unlocked_article_code=1._VA.LFye.Rv2JHNLQdgzL&smid=em-share
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260909/f19c8268/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list