Written by: Ephraim Zachary Heiliczer, Ph.D
If you file a patent application in Israel, artificial intelligence may soon help examine it. The Israel Patent Office has published draft rules, called Annex 21, setting out how its examiners may use AI tools when they review applications.
The draft is open for public comment, and we are taking part. Here is what the rules say, what is good about them, what worries us, and what it means for you.
Why the Patent Office wants AI
When you file a patent application, an examiner has to check whether your invention is really new. That means searching through millions of earlier patents, scientific articles and technical documents, many of them in foreign languages. It is slow, painstaking work, and the pile of material grows every year.
AI can help. It can search faster, translate foreign documents, spot similar inventions and help draft letters. Used well, it could mean quicker decisions and more thorough searches.
Israel is not alone. Patent offices around the world are bringing AI into their work for the same reasons. The real question is not whether AI will be used, but how.
What the draft gets right
The good news is that the draft starts from the right place.
A person still decides your case. The rules say clearly that the examiner, not a computer, is responsible for every decision about your application. AI is a helper, not a judge.
AI answers must be checked. AI tools sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes invent facts or references that don’t exist. The draft requires examiners to check everything the AI produces against the original documents. If the AI and the original disagree, the original wins.
Your secrets are taken seriously. Until your application is published, your invention is confidential. The draft understands that hiding your name isn’t enough to protect it, because the technical details themselves can reveal what you invented. It also forbids common shortcuts such as translating your text, or entering only part of it, into tools that aren’t secure.
The draft knows AI’s weak spots. It warns examiners that AI can invent sources, tell users what they want to hear, and misread scanned documents, drawings and chemical formulas.
These are solid foundations. In some areas the draft is stricter than the general government rules on AI, which is a good sign.
Where we think it falls short
Even so, we see gaps that could put your invention at risk or lead to unfair differences in how applications are handled.
Your invention could leave government hands. The draft lets examiners put confidential information into commercial AI search tools run by private companies, as long as there is a contract with the company. A contract lets you sue after something goes wrong, but it doesn’t stop it happening. If your invention leaks before it is published, a competitor could learn about it, and that damage can’t be undone.
Public chatbots are allowed for some tasks. The draft permits tools like ChatGPT and similar public chatbots to help plan searches. But it is very hard to plan a search for your invention without describing it. Anything typed into a public chatbot leaves government control completely.
A search can give away the secret. To look for similar inventions, the examiner has to type in what your invention does. That search can reveal your idea almost as clearly as the application itself. The draft doesn’t clearly treat these searches as confidential.
“Autopilot” AI is allowed. The draft permits AI “agents”, programs that carry out several steps on their own without a person checking each one. We think that takes the examiner out of the picture.
Different examiners, different methods. Each examiner decides whether and how to use AI. Two similar applications could be examined in quite different ways depending on who gets them. That isn’t fair to applicants.
No record of AI use. Examiners must check the AI’s work, but nothing requires them to write down which tool they used or what it did. There is no required training, and only a thin plan for what happens if confidential information leaks by mistake.
You may never know. The draft doesn’t say whether you will be told if AI played a big part in an objection to your application, or how you can challenge an AI mistake.
What we are asking for
In our comments, we are asking the Patent Office to change the draft so that:
- AI is used only on secure systems controlled by the government, with your information kept in Israel;
- no public chatbots are used in examination, and your unpublished invention never goes to outside companies, not even as a search;
- no “autopilot” AI agents are used, so a real person checks every step;
- all examiners follow the same approved methods, so similar applications are treated alike;
- AI use is recorded, examiners are trained, and the tools are tested regularly;
- there is a clear plan if your information leaks, including telling you about it;
- no objection to your application relies on something the AI said unless the examiner has checked it against a real, identified source.
We support using AI to make the patent process faster and better. We simply want to make sure speed doesn’t come at the cost of your secrets, fairness or human judgment.
What this means for you now
- Your unpublished invention is your most valuable asset. Until it is published, keep it confidential. The rules on how the Patent Office protects it are being written right now.
- Be careful with your own AI use. Many people use AI to help write applications or responses. The Patent Office has warned that relying on AI without checking its work, for example by including made-up references or wrong data, can lead to your application being refused and to paying costs. And typing your invention into a public chatbot may itself expose it.
- Read Patent Office letters carefully. If an objection relies on a reference or explanation that seems wrong or that you can’t find, ask for the source.
We will keep you updated on the outcome of the consultation and the final rules. If you have questions about how this affects your applications, or want to share your views, please get in touch.
