On March 13, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published supplemental examination guidance in the Federal Register addressing design patent applications that claim computer-generated interfaces and icons. The guidance, issued under Docket No. PTO-P-2026-0133, is intended to provide design patent applicants with greater flexibility in how they present claimed designs while clarifying the Office’s approach to statutory subject matter for computer-generated electronic images.
Under the supplemental guidance, the USPTO removes the requirement that a computer-generated design be shown as embodied in a specific physical article in every instance. Instead, applicants may present a design as a computer-generated electronic image, provided that the claim and drawings make clear that the design is embodied in an article of manufacture. The guidance reaffirms that computer-generated interfaces and icons remain eligible for design patent protection when they are new, original, and ornamental, and when the application satisfies the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 171. Included in the realm of “computer-generated interfaces” includes projections and holograms, which may provide design patent protections when (1) separate from the computer, computer display, or computer system that generates it, and (2) more than a transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image.
The USPTO further clarified that applicants have flexibility in how they depict the claimed design, including the use of broken lines to illustrate environmental structure or portions of the display that form no part of the claimed design. The USPTO noted that examination will continue to focus on whether the claimed subject matter is directed to a statutory article of manufacture rather than an abstract concept.
Applicants seeking design protection for user interfaces, icons, and other digital designs should consider whether the updated guidance provides opportunities to refine claim scope or drawing presentation. The increased flexibility may allow applicants to better capture the ornamental aspects of dynamic or screen-based designs without unnecessarily constraining the claimed article. Practitioners should nevertheless continue to draft applications carefully to ensure that the claimed design is clearly tied to an article of manufacture and supported by the drawings.
In conclusion, the USPTO’s March 2026 supplemental guidance represents a meaningful clarification of examination practice for computer-generated interface, icon designs, and holograms. By relaxing certain presentation requirements while maintaining statutory boundaries, the guidance may improve predictability and expand design patent protection for digital products.
