Raising the standard fails---it’s based on prior art and when there’s more AI generated prior art, there’s more for the patent office to review, creates huge costs for investors.

Samuel Scholz, "A Siri-Ous Societal Issue: Should Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Receive Patent or Copyright Protection?," Cybaris®: Vol. 11 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol11/iss1/33.

To counteract the issue of increasing the time needed to rule on a patent, the USPTO will need to hire additional examiners to review applications. Examiners are educated and well paid, as the USPTO requires examiners receive a four-year bachelor’s degree and their average salary is $124,675.63.189 Hiring many new examiners with well above average annual salaries will create an additional cost on society. Additionally, examiners would likely be limited in how much time they may allocate to reviewing any application. As the prior art expands, and the time limits for examiners remains the same, the likelihood of mistakenly granting a patent that should have been rejected for lack of inventive step or anticipation increases. This would likely shift a portion of the burden of reviewing the prior art to the judicial system, as courts will need to determine whether a patent is valid after it has been granted.190 Shifting this burden to the courts not only creates additional stress on the judicial system, but it imposes a massive financial burden on inventors. The average cost of receiving a software patent is about $16,000, 191 while the average cost of litigating a successful software patent through final disposition that earns between one to twentyfive million dollars is $2.8 million.192 This litigation cost of one hundred and seventy-five times the original cost of receiving a patent motivates inventors to be certain that their idea is patentable before filing an application. Inventors rely on the USPTO to perform an excellent review of the prior art before granting a patent to avoid future litigation costs.