USPTO’s Supplemental Guidance on Design Patents: Key Changes to Requirements for Computer-Implemented and Emerging Digital Interfaces

Executive Summary

On March 13, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued supplemental examination guidance (“supplemental guidance”) addressing long-standing uncertainty surrounding design patent protection for computer-generated user interfaces, including graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, projections, holograms, and virtual or augmented reality (VR/AR) renderings (91 Fed. Reg. 12394). The supplemental guidance updates examination practice under MPEP §1504.01(a) and reflects a more flexible and realistic interpretation of the “article of manufacture” requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 171.

Most notably, the supplemental guidance confirms that applicants are no longer required to depict a physical display (e.g., a display panel, a computer or mobile screen, etc.) in the drawings when the article of manufacture or physical environment for displaying the subject design is adequately identified through the title and claim language. This shift significantly expands drafting flexibility and lowers procedural barriers that have historically complicated protection of modern, software-driven designs.

The guidance is effective as of March 13, 2026, and applies to design patent applications and proceedings (including proceedings under Chapters 30, 31, and 32) filed before, on, or after March 13, 2026.

Statutory and Historical Background

Under 35 U.S.C. § 171, design patents protect the “ornamental design for an article of manufacture,” and MPEP § 1504.01(a) has historically been interpreted as requiring that a claimed design be embodied in a tangible article. Ex Parte Strijland, 26 USPQ 2d 1259 (BPAI 1992) (a design cannot exist as disembodied imagery). However, this framework has become increasingly outdated, particularly as applied to digital interfaces and immersive environments. In response, the supplemental guidance relaxes outdated interpretations while preserving the core statutory principles to harmonize examination practice with current and emerging digital interface technologies.

Key Changes in Examination Practice and Drawing Requirements

Visual Illustrations in the Drawings

Traditionally, certain examiners have interpreted MPEP §1504 as requiring drawings for computer-generated images to depict the display outline (at least in broken line format) to satisfy the “article of manufacture” requirement. This practice had been based on the rationale that a design patent protects an ornamental design for an article of manufacture, not a mere disembodied picture.

The supplemental guidance clarifies that when the application (e.g., both the title and the claim) properly identify the article of manufacture, the depiction of the article of manufacture (e.g., a display panel) in solid or broken lines is not mandatory. Applicants may include such outlines if desired, but examiners are instructed not to require them.

Acceptance of “FOR” Language

The supplemental guidance also resolves a longstanding procedural issue with claim and title phrasing regarding the term “for” (e.g., “Icon for a computer display screen”). Some examiners had been requiring the applicant to use the term “with” or similar terminology (e.g., “A computer display with an icon”), objecting to the use of “for” language. The guidance confirms that language indicating a digital design “for” a computer or computer display panel is adequate. Examiners are directed to cease objecting to such language (e.g., under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.153 or 1.1067). This is based on a recognition that “for” language more naturally describes the design of digitally generated icons or interfaces and that showing the display boundary is unnecessary.

Projections, Holograms, and AR/VR Interfaces

A central motivation for the supplemental guidance is the increasing prevalence of interfaces beyond flat screens, such as projected controls, holograms, and VR/AR overlays. The supplemental guidance clarifies that (1) dependence on a computer program, processor, or external mechanism does not disqualify a design from eligibility, and (2) dynamic or spatial interfaces may still constitute ornamental designs applied to an article of manufacture. 

This position is consistent with broader U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent recognizing designs that rely on external systems, such as In re Hruby, 373 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A. 1967), and Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016), which have upheld less rigid interpretations of the “article of manufacture” requirement in the design patent context.

Unchanged Requirements: Drawings Continue to Define Scope

Definiteness for design patents turns on whether a person of ordinary skill, viewing the disclosure as an ordinary observer, can determine the scope of the claimed design with “reasonable certainty.” (In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Under the supplemental guidance, applicants still must satisfy disclosure requirements by providing drawings with sufficient views and clarity. In Maatita, the Federal Circuit held that when an applicant elects to depict the design using a two-dimensional perspective view, infringement can be assessed from that perspective for a three-dimensional article. Some designs—such as 2D GUIs or icons—may be adequately claimed with fewer views, although inherently three-dimensional digital designs (e.g., holograms or projections) should be claimed with multiple views to provide an adequate disclosure.

Practice Tips

The supplemental guidance provides meaningful insights for design patent application drafting strategy. These insights are particularly useful for applicants seeking protection for immersive and software-centric technologies (e.g., mobile applications, consumer electronics, digital vehicle dashboards, and spatial computing platforms), where design patents serve as valuable intellectual property complements alongside utility patents and trademarks.

Key practice considerations include:

• Anchor compliance with § 171 in the title, the claim, and other portions of the application, such as the Description of the Drawings.
• Cite the March 13, 2026, supplemental guidance when responding to examiner objections that do not comply with the relaxed requirements. For example, if the original application lacks explicit disclosure of a display or screen, argue that the application and the drawings at least “inherently” teach, infer, or disclose a display for the claimed design.
• Use “for” language strategically. Instead of reciting “Computer display screen with an icon” or “Computer screen with a menu interface,” consider “Icon for a computer display screen” or “Menu interface for a computer display,” when such language more properly and logically supports the claimed design.
• Consider a parallel drawing approach by including multiple embodiments in the drawings with and without contextual device outlines, depending on enforcement and infringement objectives. Inclusion of the broken line context remains useful but is optional under the guidance, especially when the title and the claim provide proper anchoring either explicitly or implicitly. Best practice could be, depending on the ultimate design and infringement targets, to include distinct drawings, one set that includes, and another set that omits, the display or screen outlines in solid or broken line form.
• Maintain rigorous disclosure standards. The introduced flexibility in the guidance allowing the omission of display or screen outlines does not reduce the need for clear and complete drawings, especially for projected, holographic, three-dimensional, or VR/AR designs.

Conclusion

The supplemental guidance clarifies how examiners are to assess compliance of design patent applications with greater flexibility. This should reduce examination timelines, accelerate allowances, and facilitate the development of design portfolios that adapt to evolving user interface ecosystems. While the above discussion provides an overview of the supplemental guidance, applicants are encouraged to verify compliance with current USPTO rules and regulations by meeting standard patentability and disclosure requirements. 
 

Subscribe To Viewpoints