On March 13, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will issue supplemental examination guidance significantly expanding and clarifying design patent protection for computer‑generated interfaces and icons, including graphical user interfaces (GUIs), projected interfaces, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality designs. The guidance responds to stakeholder feedback and reflects the USPTO’s updated understanding of how the “article of manufacture” requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 171 applies to modern digital designs.
The guidance applies to all design patent applications and proceedings, regardless of filing date. While not substantive rulemaking, all USPTO personnel including examiners and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are instructed to follow it, even where it may be inconsistent with prior guidance.
New Guidance Provides Certainty and Flexibility
Digital products increasingly rely on software‑driven visual design—from mobile apps and connected devices to immersive AR/VR environments—yet design patent practice in the U.S. has lagged behind these technologies. This guidance reduces formal barriers that previously complicated protection of GUIs and icons and provides greater certainty during examination. As a result, companies should reassess both current filings and future design strategies to take advantage of the expanded flexibility and reduced risk of §171 rejections.
Applicants now have greater flexibility in drafting titles, claims, and drawings for digital designs. The digital icon or interface design itself is confirmed to be eligible for design protection, so long as the title and claim clearly indicate that it is a design for an article of manufacture such as a computer system. This is a big change from previous guidance, which required that an eligible design be directed to a display panel or similar physical part of a computer system.
Updated Examples Reflect a Broader View of Design Eligibility
The USPTO provides multiple examples illustrating compliant and non‑compliant claim formats, offering helpful guidance for prosecution strategy. Many of these examples have directly opposite outcomes as examples provided under previous guidance, with the new examples finding a greater range of circumstances eligible for design protection. One example that would have been deemed ineligible under previous guidance, but is now confirmed to be eligible, involves an icon for a computer. Example 4, pictured below, is titled “Paper stack icon for a computer display system.”
This example would have been ineligible under previous guidance for not showing a display screen and for not being directed to the display screen itself. It is eligible under the new guidance because it is directed to the icon, and its title and claim confirm that it is intended for an article of manufacture, the computer display system.
Key Takeaways
- Display panels are no longer required in drawings
Applicants are no longer required to depict a display panel (in solid or broken lines) in drawings for computer‑generated interfaces or icons so long as the title and claim properly identify an article of manufacture, such as a computer, computer system, or computer display panel.
- The icon or GUI itself can be the subject of the title and claim
The USPTO now confirms that titles and claims using language such as “icon for a computer display screen” or “interface for a computer system” adequately identify an article of manufacture. Examiners are instructed not to object to such language.
- Eligibility is expanded beyond traditional screens
The guidance expressly recognizes design patent eligibility for computer‑generated interfaces and icons that are separate from conventional display screens, including projections, holograms, and virtual or augmented reality (PHVAR) interfaces, provided the design is for a computer, computer display, or computer system and is more than a transient or disembodied image.
- GUIs and icons are not “mere pictures”
When properly disclosed and claimed, computer‑generated interfaces and icons are considered statutory subject matter, even though they rely on software or processing systems for their existence. The USPTO emphasizes that such dependence does not render a design transient or non‑statutory.
This supplemental guidance meaningfully modernizes USPTO design patent practice and aligns it with evolving digital technologies. It broadens opportunities for protecting GUIs, icons, and immersive digital interfaces while reducing formalistic obstacles that previously limited design patent filings in this space.
