Pixel Perfect: USPTO Issues Expanded Design Patent Guidance for Computer-Generated Interfaces, Icons, and Virtual Reality

3.30.26

On March 13, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published new supplemental guidance governing the examination of design patent applications for computer-generated interfaces and icons. The 2026 Supplemental Guidance makes three significant changes to USPTO examination practice: (1) it removes the longstanding requirement that application drawings depict a display screen in solid or broken lines when the application’s title and claim already identify an article of manufacture; (2) it expressly recognizes that projected, holographic, and virtual and augmented reality (“PHVAR”) designs are potentially eligible for design patent protection; and (3) it expands the acceptable claim and title language that applicants may use to satisfy the article of manufacture requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 171. For design patent applicants in the technology space, particularly those whose products involve software user interfaces, augmented reality, or holographic displays, this guidance represents a meaningful expansion of the design patent landscape.

Background

Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of articles of manufacture. The settled principle is that a picture standing alone is not patent eligible—what elevates a computer-generated image to patentable subject matter is its connection to an article of manufacture, traditionally accomplished by depicting the display screen on which the image appears. In November 2023, the USPTO issued supplemental guidance requiring that design patent application drawings for computer-generated images include a depiction of a display screen—shown in either solid or broken lines—to satisfy the article of manufacture requirement. Although practical in many cases, that requirement drew criticism from stakeholders, including the International Trademark Association and the American Bar Association’s Section of Intellectual Property Law, who viewed it as an outdated constraint that failed to account for technologies like projected interfaces, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality, where the design’s appearance is inherently separate from any traditional display screen.

Key Changes Under the 2026 Supplemental Guidance

1. Removal of the Display Screen Drawing Requirement

Perhaps the most immediate practical change is eliminating the requirement that application drawings depict a display screen in solid or broken lines. Under prior guidance, examiners were instructed to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 171 when the drawings failed to show the display panel. Under the 2026 Supplemental Guidance, that depiction is no longer required, provided that both the title and claim language properly identify an article of manufacture. In other words, if the title and claim make clear that the design is for a computer, a computer display, or a computer system, the article of manufacture requirement may be satisfied without any corresponding depiction in the drawings.

Applicants may continue to include broken-line depictions of the display panel in their drawings. Indeed, doing so may still be advisable, particularly for foreign filing purposes, where other jurisdictions continue to require such depictions, or to preserve flexibility in the event of changes in guidance. The 2026 Supplemental Guidance simply removes the requirement that such depictions appear; it does not prohibit them.

2. Expanded Eligibility for Projected, Holographic, and Virtual and Augmented Reality (PHVAR) Designs

The 2026 Supplemental Guidance also addresses a gap left entirely unresolved by the 2023 guidance: designs that appear separate from any traditional display screen, such as projected images, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality interfaces. The USPTO draws an analogy to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals’ decision in In re Hruby, 373 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A. 1967), which held that a design for a water fountain—whose appearance depended on the flow of water generated by external equipment—was nonetheless patent eligible as a design for an article of manufacture. The USPTO now extends that principle to digital designs: a holographic keyboard, a projected graphical interface, or a virtual reality environment, each generated by a computer system, may qualify as patent-eligible subject matter so long as (a) the appearance of the interface or icon is separate from the computer, computer display, or computer system that generates it, and (b) the interface or icon is claimed as being “for” such a computer system, thereby tethering it to an article of manufacture rather than leaving it as a free-floating transient image.

3. Expanded and Clarified Claim and Title Language

Additionally, the 2026 Supplemental Guidance clarifies and expands the range of claim and title language that the USPTO will accept as adequately describing a design for an article of manufacture. Previously, examiners were instructed to object to claim language stating, for example, “icon for a computer display screen” on the basis that the “for” construction did not properly recite an article of manufacture. Under the new guidance, the USPTO reverses that position: claims using the word “for” followed by a reference to a computer, computer display, or computer system, such as “GUI for a computer,” “projected interface for a computer system,” or “virtual reality interface for a computer,” now adequately satisfy the article of manufacture requirement. The “for” language signals that the design is not a transient or disembodied picture, but a design for a manufactured article.

Practical Considerations for Applicants

Importantly, the 2026 Supplemental Guidance does not alter any of the other substantive requirements for design patent protection. Applicants are reminded to still comply with the novelty and non-obviousness requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and all applications remain

subject to the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, the guidance cautions that applicants must provide sufficient views to fully disclose the design’s appearance, as required by 37 CFR 1.152. For three-dimensional or spatial designs (e.g., a virtual reality environment or a holographic interface), that requirement may necessitate more views than a flat, two-dimensional icon would.

It also bears noting that the 2026 Supplemental Guidance is just that—guidance. It does not carry the force and effect of law, and rejections will continue to be based upon substantive law, which remains subject to judicial review. Some commentators have already questioned whether the statute’s “article of manufacture” requirement can accommodate projected or holographic designs under its plain text. That debate will ultimately be resolved by the courts, and applicants should proceed with the understanding that the guidance reflects the USPTO’s current position, not a settled legal rule.

Looking Ahead

The 2026 Supplemental Guidance marks a significant step forward for companies whose products involve digital interfaces, user experience design, and emerging technologies like spatial computing, mixed reality, and holographic displays. Software companies, in particular, stand to benefit: under the prior framework, companies that did not control the hardware on which their interfaces were displayed faced genuine uncertainty about whether and how to claim those interfaces. The new guidance removes that uncertainty by decoupling the design claim from any specific hardware depiction, provided the claim language properly tethers the design to a computer system.

As with the LKQ decision’s overruling of the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness,1 the 2026 Supplemental Guidance reflects a trend of broadening and modernizing design patent law to better protect innovation. Companies and practitioners active in the design patent space should revisit their portfolios and prosecution strategies in light of this guidance, considering whether pending applications can or should be amended to take advantage of the new flexibility, and whether new filings should be structured to capture PHVAR designs that previously fell outside the scope of protectable subject matter.

1 For more information, see S. Chase Talbot, LKQ Decision Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patents, PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. (July 25, 2025), LKQ Decision Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patents – PattersonPatterson | IP Solutions for Innovators Worldwide. Precisely.

Chase Talbot | Associate Attorney