USPTO Issues Supplemental Guidance For Design Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued supplemental guidance scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on March 13, 2026, addressing the examination of design patent applications for computer-generated interfaces and icons.

Background and Purpose

The USPTO received feedback that previously issued guidance unnecessarily limited the flexibility of design applicants for computer-generated interfaces and icons. This updated guidance provides more flexibility in presenting new, original, and ornamental designs for computer-generated interfaces or icons when filing design patent applications, responding to stakeholder concerns about outdated policies in light of technological modernization.

Key Policy Changes

•     Removes the requirement in MPEP 1504.01(a) that drawings depict the article of manufacture in solid or broken lines when the title and claim properly identify an article of manufacture.

•     Clarifies that computer-generated interface or icon designs for computers, computer displays, or computer systems constitute patent-eligible subject matter when properly disclosed and claimed.

•     Eliminates examiner objections to claim and title language using 'for' with computer-related articles under 37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1067.

•     Expands protection to include projections, holograms, and virtual/augmented reality designs where appearance is separate from the generating system.

Statutory Requirements and Compliance

Design claims must satisfy the article of manufacture requirement under 35 U.S.C.S. 171 by being 'for' an article of manufacture rather than merely transient or disembodied pictures. The guidance clarifies that dependence on a central processing unit and computer program does not disqualify a design from being 'for an article of manufacture,' citing precedent from In re Hruby and Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.

 

Examination Procedures

USPTO personnel must review complete disclosures, including title, claim language, specification, and drawings, to determine compliance with 35 U.S.C.S. 171. Claims reading 'icon for display panel,' 'projected interface for computer,' or 'interface for computer system' now meet statutory requirements. Examiners should reject applications only when designs are not for computers, computer displays, or computer systems and constitute merely transient or disembodied images.

The guidelines provided the following examples.

Compliant Examples

Example 1: Computer display screen with an icon

•      Title: Computer display screen with icon

•      Description: The figure is a front view of a computer display screen with an icon, showing the new design. The broken lines showing a portion of the computer display screen do not form part of the claimed design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a computer display screen with an icon as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description all reference a "computer display screen," which is an article of manufacture. The use of "with icon" indicates the design is not just a transient image but is for a computer-related article. The drawing shows the design embodied in a computer display screen (even if in broken lines), satisfying the requirement.

Example 2: Icon for a computer display screen

•      Title: Icon for a computer display screen

•      Description: The figure is a front view of an icon for a computer display screen, showing the new design. The broken lines showing a portion of the computer display screen do not form part of the claimed design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for an icon for a computer display screen as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The phrase "for a computer display screen" in the title and claim makes clear the icon is not claimed in the abstract, but as part of an article of manufacture. The drawing supports this by showing the icon in context.

Example 3: Paper stack icon (initially non-compliant, but can be amended)

•      Title: Paper stack icon

•      Description: The figure is a front view of a computer display screen with a paper stack icon showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: While the description refers to a computer display screen, the title and claim do not identify an article of manufacture. However, since the disclosure supports a computer display screen, the application can be amended to specify "paper stack icon for computer display screen," making it compliant.

Example 4: Paper stack icon for a computer display screen

•      Title: Paper stack icon for a computer display screen

•      Description: The figure is a front view of a paper stack icon for a computer display screen showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon for a computer display screen as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description all reference a computer display screen, and the use of "for" clarifies that the icon is not claimed in the abstract. The drawing provides a complete disclosure.

Example 6: Projected paper stack icon for a computer

•      Title: Projected paper stack icon for a computer

•      Description: The figure is a front view of a projected paper stack icon for a computer showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a projected paper stack icon for a computer, as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description reference a "computer," an article of manufacture. The use of "for" indicates the design is not a transient image. The drawing is assumed to provide a complete disclosure.

Example 7: Projected keyboard interface for a computer

•      Title: Projected keyboard interface for a computer

•      Description: The figure is a perspective view of a projected keyboard interface for a computer showing the new design. The broken lines showing the computer form do not form part of the claimed design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a projected keyboard interface for a computer as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description reference a "computer," and the use of "for" clarifies that the design is not a transient image. The drawing shows the computer (in broken lines) projecting the design.

Example 8: Projected interface for a computer system

•      Title: Projected interface for a computer system

•      Description: The figure is a perspective view of a projected interface for a computer system showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a projected interface for a computer system as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description reference a "computer system," and the use of "for" clarifies that the design is not a transient image. The drawing is assumed to provide a complete disclosure.

Example 9: Graphical User Interface for a computer

•      Title: Graphical User Interface for a computer

•      Description: The figure is a front view of a graphical user interface for a computer showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a computer as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description reference a "graphical user interface for a computer," which is not a transient image but an interface for a computer. The drawing is assumed to provide a complete disclosure.

Example 10: Virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer

•      Title: Virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer

•      Description: Multiple figures (top-down, front, perspective) show the virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer, as shown and described.

•      Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description reference a "computer," and the use of "for" clarifies that the design is not a transient image. Multiple views provide a complete disclosure.

Non-Compliant Examples

Example 5: Paper stack icon

•      Title: Paper stack icon

•      Description: The figure is a front view of a paper stack icon showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon as shown and described.

•      Non-Compliance Reasoning: Neither the title, claim, nor description references an article of manufacture, and the drawing does not depict one. The claim is for an icon in the abstract, which is not patent-eligible.

Example 11: Virtual Reality Motorcycle Interface

•      Title: Virtual Reality Motorcycle Interface

•      Description: Multiple figures show the virtual reality motorcycle interface.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a virtual reality motorcycle interface as shown and described.

•      Non-Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description do not reference an article of manufacture, and the drawings do not depict one. The claim is for an interface in the abstract.

Example 12: Digital motorcycle picture

•      Title: Digital motorcycle picture

•      Description: The figure is a perspective view of a digital motorcycle picture showing the new design.

•      Claim: The ornamental design for a motorcycle, as shown and described.

•      Non-Compliance Reasoning: The title, claim, and description do not reference an article of manufacture, and the drawing does not depict one. The image appears to be a transient or disembodied picture, not tied to any article of manufacture.

Key Takeaways

Compliant applications clearly identify an article of manufacture (e.g., computer, computer display screen, computer system) in the title, claim, and description, and the drawings support this context. Non-compliant applications fail to reference an article of manufacture in the title, claim, or description, and the drawings do not depict the design as applied to or embodied in such an article.