The Squo solves---current obviousness doctrine is sufficient

A. The Current Obviousness Doctrine Will Reach the Correct Results for Inventions Created Using AI Technology

The thrust of the modern obviousness analysis focuses not on the inventor, but rather on the invention itself.220 The test hinges on whether a claimed invention presents a significant advancement over prior art.221 Therefore, the mere fact that an invention is created in part or entirely by an AI machine does not render it obvious under current doctrine.222 Section 103 of the Leahy-Smith AIA explicitly reaffirmed that the “manner in which [an] invention was made” will not support an obviousness determination.223 With or without the use of AI technology, the determination comes down to whether an average worker, with knowledge of all relevant, preexisting technology would find the claimed invention obvious.224 For example, an invention created by a team of researchers over the course of five years is not necessarily any less obvious than if it had been created by one researcher in a few days using an AI machine.225 Suppose that, in the above example, researchers in the inventor’s field widely use AI technology and that the researcher using the AI is a worker of ordinary skill.226 The researchers who labored away for five years should not receive a patent for something that would have been obvious within a few days had they applied the tools commonly used in the industry.227 Far from incentivizing innovation, allowing a patent in such a situation would reward the researchers for failing to stay up-to-date on the standard technology used in the field.228

In contrast, suppose that someone creates a superior AI machine or finds a way to incorporate AI in the inventive process better than their peers, which in turn results in an invention.229 In this instance, the inventor has created a nonobvious invention and the fact that, in order to do so, the inventor ended up creating a better tool should not defeat his or her right to a patent.230 The obviousness test, laid out by the Supreme Court, in 2006, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., arrives at the correct result for either situation by expanding the scope of prior art according to the standard technologies in the industry and endowing the PHOSITA with the ordinary skill and creativity that would lead the PHOSITA to use such technology.231