USPTO Clarifies Design Patent Eligibility for Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued supplemental guidance to assist examiners in evaluating design patent applications directed to computer-generated interfaces and icons under 35 U.S.C. § 171. The guidance reflects the Office’s evolving understanding of modern digital designs, particularly those appearing in emerging formats such as projections and holographic displays.

The guidance is effective immediately and will be incorporated into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure in a future revision.

Key Updates in the Supplemental Guidance

The guidance introduces several important clarifications affecting how examiners and applicants should handle or manage digital interface designs. Under the previous practice, the claim put the article of manufacture first and described the graphical user interface as being “with” or “on” the display screen: “The ornamental design for a display screen or a portion thereof with a graphical user interface, as shown and described.” And the drawings had to include a broken-line border showing the display panel. Under the new guidance, the claim language is more flexible, and applicants can claim the design element first followed by the article using the word “for”: “The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a computer, as shown and described.” The guidance also permits “computer icon” standing alone as adequate claim language, since the word “computer” in that compound term is treated as identifying the article of manufacture.

1. Removal of the “article depiction” drawing requirement

The guidance removes the requirement that drawings of computer-generated interfaces or icons must depict the associated article of manufacture (such as a computer or display) in solid or broken lines. When the title and claim properly identify the article, the drawing itself no longer needs to show the physical device.

2. Confirmation that interfaces and icons are eligible designs

The guidance re-affirms that computer-generated interfaces or icons for, e.g., a computer, computer display, computer system, are not merely transient or disembodied images. When correctly disclosed and claimed, computer generated icons or interfaces constitute patent-eligible designs.

3. Acceptance of “for a computer/display/system” claim language

The guidance confirms that claim or title language stating that an icon or interface is “for” a computer, computer display, or computer system adequately ties the design to an article of manufacture. Examiners are instructed to accept such language under 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 or 37 C.F.R. § 1.1067.

4. Recognition of new forms of digital design

The guidance features additional eligible design categories, including interfaces or icons that appear as projections or holograms, even when their visual appearance is separate from the underlying hardware that generates them.

5. Additional procedural guidance

Finally, the guidance provides practical instructions for both Examiners and applicants concerning drawing conventions, claim language, and title requirements for these types of design applications.

Why the Guidance Matters

As digital products rely on graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and virtual display environments, design patents have become an important tool for protecting visual aspects of software-driven products. By clarifying eligibility standards, the guidance enables prior procedural barriers to be avoided, clarifies requirements for eligibility and acknowledges the realities of modern interface design and spatial computing technologies.

Practice Tips for Patent Attorneys and Agents

1. Use flexible claim language linking the design to an article of manufacture.

The guidance confirms that phrasing such as “the ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a computer display” is acceptable. Practitioners no longer need to worry that the “for a computer” formulation will prompt objections.

2. Reconsider drawing strategies.

The guidance instructs that the device itself no longer must appear in the drawings. Applicants must consider whether including the device in the drawing will assist in improving the clarity of the design. For example, with the acknowledgement augmented reality displays, or holographic environments are eligible for design patent protection, applicants/attorneys may want to consider including a computer device to improve clarity.

3. Take advantage of new design formats.

Designs that appear in projections, augmented reality displays, or holographic environments are now clearly eligible under the guidance. Consider design protection early for these evolving user-experience environments.

4. Align titles, claims, and disclosure.

Although the physical device need not appear in the drawings, the title and claim must still clearly identify the article of manufacture. Consistency between the title, claim, and specification should be ensured.

Takeaway

The USPTO’s supplemental guidance signals a more modern and technology-aware approach by clarifying eligibility for computer-generated interfaces and icons and recognizing new display formats such as projections and holograms. For patent practitioners working with software, user interfaces, and immersive and interactive technologies, the guidance offers both greater flexibility and new opportunities to secure beneficial design protection.

is a partner in Manatt, Phelps and Phillips’ Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement business unit and is the author of Patent Prosecution: Law, Practice, and Procedure, 2025 Edition, and Constructing and Deconstructing Patents (2d Edition).

Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer- Generated Interfaces and Icons, 91 Fed. Reg. 12394 (March 13, 2026).