US design patent news flash: USPTO updates guidance on computer-generated interfaces and icons

In March 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Federal Register notice addressing how computer-generated interfaces and icons should be treated by examiners in design patent applications going forward. This update introduces a more flexible approach to how such designs are depicted and described, particularly in relation to the long-standing “article of manufacture” requirement.

A quick refresher on the article of manufacture requirement

Under US design patent law, a design must be embodied in an article of manufacture to be eligible for protection. This requirement has historically shaped how applicants present graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and other computer-generated designs.

Traditionally, applicants have met this requirement by depicting a display screen or other physical component in broken lines. This visual convention signals that the claimed design is associated with a tangible article, such as a monitor or device, while not limiting the design to a display having a particular shape.

What has changed?

The USPTO’s updated guidance signals a shift toward greater flexibility. Examiners are no longer expected to reject applications solely because the design fails to depict an associated article (like a display) in broken lines.

This is a meaningful procedural change. It allows applicants to patent computer-generated designs without being strictly bound to legacy drawing conventions. For technologies such as projections or holograms which may not be rendered on a display in the traditional sense, this update may provide additional flexibility for protecting innovations.

What has not changed

Importantly, the underlying legal requirement remains intact: a design must still be embodied in an article of manufacture.

The USPTO makes clear that examiners will continue to evaluate the title and claim language to ensure that this requirement is satisfied. For example, phrasing that indicates a design is “for” a computer, display, or similar device might demonstrate embodiment in an article of manufacture.

Expanding the scope: beyond traditional displays

At its core, the guidance recognizes emerging technologies. The USPTO explicitly acknowledges that eligible designs may include projections, holograms, and other computer-generated elements that are not necessarily tied to a conventional flat-screen display.

By removing the expectation that a display must be shown in broken lines, the guidance creates new ways to represent designs that are rendered in non-traditional ways.

A note of caution

While this update is notable, USPTO guidance does not carry the force of substantive law. This guidance does not override statutory requirements or binding case law, and does not apply outside of the United States.

As a result, applicants should be cautious when relying on the new guidance. Departing from well-established drafting practices may introduce risk if those practices have not yet been tested under applicable legal standards.

Practical considerations for applicants

Given the current landscape, applicants might consider a balanced approach.

Where traditional methods (such as depicting displays in broken lines) remain effective and well-supported, it may be prudent to consider using those methods rather than “reinventing the wheel.”

At the same time, the updated guidance provides an opportunity to better capture designs associated with evolving technologies that do not fit neatly within older drafting conventions. When an applicant seeks to protect a design that breaks the mold of traditional displays, the updated guidance may open new doors for protection.

Applicants might also consider hedging, for example, by filing one application that uses an experimental approach under the new guidelines while simultaneously filing another application using the conventional approach. This may mitigate risks of invalidation hampering the broader portfolio while creating additional opportunities for potential infringement.

Regardless of which approach(es) an applicant chooses to utilize, the title and claims should be carefully drafted to ensure consistency both with the new guidance and existing case law.

Key takeaways

• The USPTO is no longer requiring displays to be depicted in broken lines for computer-generated designs.
• Titles and claims must still demonstrate embodiment in an article of manufacture, though more flexible wording may be accepted.
• The USPTO recognizes projections, holograms, and similar non-traditional designs as potentially eligible subject matter.
• Applicants should continue to evaluate patent eligibility in light of applicable case law, not just USPTO guidance.

–

This article is not legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the author’s employer or any organizations which the author is a member of. Consider consulting a licensed US Patent Practitioner for any questions about US Patent Office procedure or US patent filing strategy.

← Back to News