USPTO Guidance on Design Patent Applications for Computer-Generated Images

80277

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR are made and either regulations are DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE issued or, if the taking is limited to 217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be Patent and Trademark Office harassment, a notice of a proposed based on a determination that the level authorization is provided to the public of taking will be consistent with the [Docket No.: PTO–P–2023–0047] for review. findings made for the total taking An authorization for incidental Supplemental Guidance for allowable under these regulations and a takings shall be granted if NMFS finds Examination of Design Patent determination that the amount of take that the taking will have a negligible Applications Related to Computer- authorized under the LOA is of no more impact on the species or stock(s), will Generated Electronic Images, than small numbers. not have an unmitigable adverse impact Including Computer-Generated Icons NMFS issued an LOA to CGG on on the availability of the species or and Graphical User Interfaces March 24, 2023, for the take of marine stock(s) for subsistence uses (where : United States Patent and mammals incidental to a three- relevant), and if the permissible AGENCY Trademark Office, Commerce. dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring (OBN) survey over approximately 200 : Examination guidance. ACTIONand reporting of such takings are set lease blocks in the Walker Ridge and : The United States Patent and forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible SUMMARYGreen Canyon areas of the central GOM, Trademark Office (USPTO) is impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact effective May 1 through December 31, publishing supplemental guidance to be resulting from the specified activity that 2023. Please see the Federal Register used by USPTO personnel in cannot be reasonably expected to, and is notice of issuance (88 FR 17819, March determining whether a design claim not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 24, 2023) for additional detail regarding including a computer-generated the species or stock through effects on the LOA and the survey activity. electronic image is directed to statutory annual rates of recruitment or survival. CGG initially anticipated that the subject matter. This guidance reflects Except with respect to certain activity would occur at some point current USPTO practice. activities not pertinent here, the MMPA between May 1 and December 31, 2023. defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of : This supplemental guidance is DATESCGG requested an initial modification to pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: applicable as of November 17, 2023. the expiration date on August 17, 2023, (i) has the potential to injure a marine : For reasons of government ADDRESSESmammal or marine mammal stock in the upon which basis NMFS modified the efficiency, comments must be submitted wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has expiration date of the originally issued through the Federal eRulemaking Portal the potential to disturb a marine LOA by extending it to April 7, 2024 (88 at www.regulations.gov. To submit mammal or marine mammal stock in the FR 70935, October 13, 2023). CGG comments via the portal, enter docket wild by causing disruption of behavioral subsequently informed NMFS that the number PTO–P–2023–0047 on the patterns, including, but not limited to, survey would be further delayed, and homepage and click ‘‘Search.’’ The site migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, requested a second modification to the will provide a search results page listing feeding, or sheltering (Level B expiration date of the LOA (from all documents associated with this harassment). docket. Find a reference to this December 31, 2023 to October 17, 2024) On January 19, 2021, we issued a final document and click on the ‘‘Comment’’ to accommodate the delays. There are rule with regulations to govern the icon, complete the required fields, and no other changes to CGG’s planned unintentional taking of marine enter or attach your comments. activity. Since issuance of the LOA, no mammals incidental to geophysical Attachments to electronic comments survey work has occurred. survey activities conducted by oil and will be accepted in Adobe portable ®gas industry operators, and those Authorization document format (PDF) or Microsoft persons authorized to conduct activities Word format. Because comments will ®on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry NMFS has changed the expiration be made available for public inspection, operators’’), in U.S. waters of the GOM date of the LOA from April 7, 2024 to information that the submitter does not over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, October 17, 2024. There are no other desire to make public, such as an January 19, 2021). The rule was based changes to the LOA as described in the address or phone number, should not be on our findings that the total taking March 24, 2023, Federal Register notice included in the comments. from the specified activities over the 5- of issuance (88 FR 17819): the specified Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal year period will have a negligible survey activity; estimated take by for additional instructions on providing impact on the affected species or incidental harassment; and small comments via the portal. If electronic stock(s) of marine mammals and will numbers analysis and determination submission of comments is not feasible not have an unmitigable adverse impact remain unchanged and are incorporated due to a lack of access to a computer on the availability of those species or here by reference. and/or the internet, please contact the stocks for subsistence uses. The rule USPTO using the contact information became effective on April 19, 2021. Dated: November 14, 2023. below for special instructions. Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et Catherine Marzin, : Erin seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTDeputy Director, Office of Protected Harriman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office industry operators for the incidental Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. of Patent Legal Administration, at 571– take of marine mammals during [FR Doc. 2023–25434 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 272–7727; or Carolyn Kosowski, Senior geophysical survey activities and Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal prescribe the permissible methods of BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Administration, at 571–272–7688. taking and other means of affecting the : The least practicable adverse impact on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONmarine mammal species or stocks and USPTO has prepared supplemental their habitat (often referred to as guidance for use by USPTO personnel mitigation), as well as requirements in determining whether a design patent pertaining to the monitoring and claim including a computer-generated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 16, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1

80278

mission of the USPTO to issue and (noting ‘‘that long-standing precedent, electronic image per se or a computer- maintain robust and reliable patents. unchallenged regulation, and agency generated electronic image shown on a For example, the USPTO has practice all consistently support the display panel (e.g., computer screen, determined that the public would view that design patents are granted monitor, computer display system, benefit from additional clarity that the only for a design applied to an article mobile phone screen, virtual reality/ guidance in MPEP section 1504.01(a)(I) of manufacture, and not a design per augmented reality goggles), or a portion thereof, satisfies the article of does not permit design patent protection se’’). Further, as discussed in MPEP manufacture requirement in 35 U.S.C. for a mere image on a screen. Thus, the section 1504.01, ‘‘a picture standing

1. This guidance supplements the USPTO is issuing this notice to alone is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. guidance provided in section supplement the guidance in MPEP 171. The factor which distinguishes 1504.01(a), subsection (I) of the Manual section 1504.01(a)(I). This supplemental statutory design subject matter from of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) guidance does not change the current mere picture or ornamentation, per se guidance but provides important (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, February 2023). (i.e., abstract design), is the embodiment This guidance does not constitute clarifications. The USPTO welcomes of the design in an article of substantive rulemaking and therefore public feedback on this supplemental manufacture. Consistent with 35 U.S.C. does not have the force and effect of guidance. Instructions for submitting 171, case law and USPTO practice, the law. It has been developed as a matter feedback are provided in the design must be shown as applied to or ADDRESSESof internal USPTO management and is embodied in an article of manufacture.’’ section of this notice. not intended to create any right or This supplemental guidance will raise See also Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d benefit, substantive or procedural, awareness regarding how to file for 1259 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992). enforceable by any party against the protection for subject matter related to III. Background Regarding MPEP USPTO. Rejections will continue to be computer-generated electronic images, if Section 1504.0(a), Computer-Generated based on the substantive law, and it is appropriate, including the proper claim Icons these rejections that are appealable. language and title to use when seeking In 1992, the Commissioner of Patents Consequently, any failure by USPTO such protection. Publishing these and Trademarks (the agency’s principal personnel to follow the guidance is guidelines will also promote consistent at that time) and Deputy Commissioner neither appealable nor petitionable. analysis by USPTO personnel of the sitting in an expanded panel of the This guidance is not intended to article of manufacture requirement in USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and announce any new USPTO practice or design patent applications and Interferences reviewed In re Schnell, 46 procedure, and is meant to be consistent reexamination proceedings and by the F.2d 203, 8 USPQ 19 (CCPA 1931) and with current USPTO policy. However, if Patent Trial and Appeal Board in both In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 any earlier guidance from the USPTO, ex parte appeals and post-patent (CCPA 1980) and determined that ‘‘a including any section of the current issuance proceedings. Thus, this notice picture standing alone is not protectable MPEP, is inconsistent with the guidance supports the USPTO’s mission of by a design patent,’’ and ‘‘[t]he factor set forth in this notice, USPTO promoting an efficient, effective, and which distinguishes statutory design personnel are to follow this guidance. fair intellectual property ecosystem. subject matter from mere picture or This guidance will be incorporated into II. General Principles Governing surface ornamentation per se (i.e., the MPEP in due course. Compliance With the Article of abstract designs) is the embodiment of I. Background Manufacture Requirement the design in an article of manufacture.’’ On December 21, 2020, the USPTO 35 U.S.C. 171 provides that Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at 1262. published a request for information ‘‘[w]hoever invents any new, original Applying prevailing case law to a new seeking public input on ‘‘whether its and ornamental design for an article of technology of presenting a picture on a interpretation of the article of manufacture may obtain a patent computer screen, the expanded Board manufacture requirement in the United therefor’’ (emphasis added). The panel in Strijland explained that: ‘‘[i]t States Code should be revised to protect language ‘‘new, original and ornamental should be noted, however, we do not digital designs that encompass new and design for an article of manufacture’’ set think that merely illustrating a picture emerging technologies.’’ See The Article forth in 35 U.S.C. 171 has been displayed on the screen of a computer of Manufacture Requirement, 85 FR interpreted to include at least three or other display device, such as a 83063. A summary of the public kinds of designs: (1) a design for an television or movie screen, is sufficient, comments is available to the public on ornament, impression, print, or picture alone, to convert a picture into a design the USPTO’s website at www.uspto.gov/ that is applied to or embodied in an for an article of manufacture. Mere article of manufacture (surface indicia); sites/default/files/documents/USPTO- display of a picture on a screen is not (2) a design for the shape or Articles-of-Manufacture-April2022.pdf. significantly different, in our view, from The USPTO appreciates the feedback configuration of an article of the display of a picture on a piece of the public provided. MPEP section manufacture; and (3) a combination of paper. Only the medium of display is 1504.01(a)(I) offers guidelines for the different.’’ Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at the first two categories. See In re examination of design patent 1263. The panel also noted that Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 8 USPQ 19 (CCPA applications for computer-generated appellants ‘‘provided declaration 1931); Ex parte Donaldson, 26 USPQ2d icons (also referred to as ‘‘computer evidence demonstrating that the icon is 1250 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992). See icons’’) that has also been used during an integral part of the operation of a also MPEP section 1504.01. the examination of design patent As discussed in MPEP section 1502, programmed computer’’ and that ‘‘[t]he applications related to graphical user a ‘‘[d]esign is inseparable from the declarations indicate that the intended interfaces (GUIs). In response to the article to which it is applied and cannot design is not merely a displayed picture, feedback received, the USPTO has exist alone merely as a scheme of but an integral and active component in determined that the public would the operation of a programmed surface ornamentation.’’ See Curver benefit from further clarifications to Luxembourg, SARL v. Home computer displaying the design.’’ Id. MPEP section 1504.01(a)(I). Such Expressions, Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1340, Thus, the expanded Board panel clarifications would also advance the 2019 USPQ2d 341902 (Fed. Cir. 2019) explained that such an icon, ‘‘if

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 16, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1

80279

but an integral and active component in properly presented and claimed would computer) shown on a display panel the operation of a programmed have constituted statutory subject matter does not constitute statutory subject computer displaying the image. See Ex under 35 U.S.C. 171.’’ Id. matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. However, Following the agency’s decision in Ex the USPTO considers a computer icon parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at 1263. parte Strijland, the USPTO issued a or a GUI shown on a display panel, or Therefore, a claim and title directed to notice of hearings and request for public a portion thereof, to be more than a a display screen with an icon or a GUI comments. Public Hearings and Request mere display of a picture on a screen adequately describes a design for an for Comments on Patent Protection for because a computer icon or a GUI is an article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. Software-Related Inventions, 58 FR integral and active component in the 171. (Note that though the underlying 66347 (December 20, 1993). Among article of manufacture for an icon or a operation of—i.e., embodied in and/or other questions, the USPTO sought GUI has functional properties, the applied to—a programmed computer public feedback on the language in Ex design of the icon or the GUI itself is not displaying the computer icon or the parte Strijland, specifically asking functional, and thus this subsection is GUI. Therefore, a computer icon or a whether ‘‘a description in a not in tension with, nor does it GUI is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 171, if specification indicating how a displayed contradict, the functionality doctrine, properly presented and claimed (e.g., image is an ‘integral and active which requires that design patent the drawing(s) fully discloses the design component in the operation of a protection extend only to the as embodied in the article of programmed computer displaying the ‘‘ornamental design’’ of an article of manufacture). design’ provide[s] a workable line Office personnel must consider the manufacture. See 35 U.S.C. 171(a); between statutory and non-statutory complete disclosure when evaluating MPEP section 1504.01(c), subsection design subject matter.’’ Id. at 66352. The whether a design claim that includes a (I)). 4. The following are examples of notice made clear that images displayed computer-generated electronic image claim language and titles that DO NOT on a computer screen standing alone complies with the article of manufacture adequately describe a design for an were treated the same as mere pictures requirement. More specifically, USPTO article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. and did not qualify as computer icons, personnel must read the disclosure to 171: ‘‘display screen with virtual which the agency had defined as determine what is claimed as the design and whether the design is embodied in image,’’ ‘‘virtual image for display on integral and active components in the an article of manufacture. USPTO computer screen,’’ ‘‘computer icon,’’ personnel must: and ‘‘icon for computer screen.’’ This displaying the design. Id. Thus, images a. Review the title and claim language list of examples is not exhaustive. These merely displayed on a computer screen to determine whether the title and claim types of claims and titles should be were not considered eligible under 35 adequately describe a design for an objected to under 37 CFR 1.153(a) for U.S.C. 171. Over the next few years, the USPTO article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. failing to designate a particular article of 171. USPTO personnel must also engaged with the public in a process manufacture, and the objection should consider the following and, where that resulted in the examination be maintained until the title and the appropriate, make the noted objections guidelines currently in MPEP section claim language are appropriately and rejections. 1504.01(a), subsection (I) in which amended. See MPEP section 707.07(e). 1. A computer-generated electronic computer icons (as opposed to mere Note that a determination must be made image shown on a display panel that is computer-generated images) are as to whether a rejection under 35 not a computer icon or a GUI (i.e., that considered by the USPTO to comply U.S.C. 171 is appropriate (e.g., the is not an integral and active component with the article of manufacture application fails to provide support for in the operation of a computer) is a mere requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171 because an icon or a GUI). See paragraph (i) illustration of a picture displayed they are integral and active components above; see also section (b) and example electronically. Therefore, a claim to the in the operation of a programmed 3 below. image per se, to a display panel (or a 5. The following are examples of computer displaying the design. These portion thereof) with the image, or to claim language and titles that DO guidelines have also been used in the the image for display on a display panel, adequately describe a design for an examination of design patent will not satisfy the article of article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. applications related to GUIs in which manufacture requirement, and such a 171: ‘‘computer screen with an icon,’’ GUIs are considered by the USPTO to be claim should be rejected under 35 ‘‘display panel with GUI,’’ ‘‘display integral and active components in the U.S.C. 171 for failing to comply with the screen or portion thereof with icon,’’ article of manufacture requirement. ‘‘portion of a computer screen with an displaying the design. Therefore, if 2. The USPTO considers computer icon,’’ ‘‘portion of a display panel with properly presented and claimed, a icons or GUIs to be two-dimensional an icon,’’ and ‘‘portion of a monitor display panel with a computer icon or images which standing alone are surface displayed with an icon.’’ This list of a GUI—as an integral and active ornamentation (i.e., an ornament, examples is not exhaustive. component in the operation of a impression, print, or picture). See MPEP b. Review the drawing to determine programmed computer displaying the whether a display panel, or a portion section 1504.01(a)(I). Therefore, the title design—constitutes statutory subject thereof, is shown in sufficient views to and the claim should not be for a matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. computer icon or a GUI alone, but must fully disclose the design as embodied in IV. Supplemental Guidelines for be for an article of manufacture, for the article. See Changes to Patent Examination of Design Patent Practice and Procedure, 62 FR 53132, example, a ‘‘display panel with Applications Related to Computer- 53164 (October 10, 1997). USPTO computer icon.’’ Generated Electronic Images 3. When a design claim is to a display personnel must also consider the In view of the above, the mere display panel with a computer-generated image, following and, where appropriate, make the USPTO considers the term ‘‘icon’’ or of a computer-generated electronic the noted rejections. ‘‘GUI’’ in the title and the claim to be 1. If the drawing does not depict a image that is not a computer icon or a computer icon or a GUI embodied in a GUI (i.e., that is not an integral and indicating that the image on the display panel is not merely a displayed picture, display panel, or a portion thereof, in active component in the operation of a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 16, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1

80280

either solid or broken lines, USPTO portion thereof, USPTO personnel must display screen form no part of the personnel must reject the claimed indicate that the drawing may be claimed design. design under 35 U.S.C. 171 for failing to amended to overcome the rejection Claim: The ornamental design for comply with the article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel computer display screen with icon as requirement. See MPEP section 1504(a), must also suggest amendments that shown and described subsection (I)(B). would bring the claim into compliance As presented, the claimed design in i. If the disclosure as a whole does not with 35 U.S.C. 171. this example complies with 35 U.S.C. suggest or describe the claimed subject 171 because: V. Examples matter as a computer icon or a GUI (1) the USPTO considers a computer embodied in a display panel, or a Example 1 ,~-------------------, icon or a GUI on a display panel to be portion thereof, USPTO personnel must an integral and active component in the indicate that: i A. The claim is fatally defective under displaying the design and more than a I 35 U.S.C. 171; and displayed picture; and B. Amendments to the written I I I description, drawings, and/or claim (2) the application fully discloses the I attempting to overcome a non-final design as embodied in an article of ) I _____________ I I rejection will ordinarily be entered; manufacture, as the drawing depicts the I ._.., however, any new matter will be design embodied in a computer screen required to be canceled from the written in broken lines. description, drawings, and/or claims. If In addition, the title and claim Title: Computer display screen with new matter is added, the claim should comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) because icon be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). the title and claim adequately designate ii. If the disclosure as a whole Description: The figure is a front view a particular article of manufacture (i.e., suggests or describes the claimed of a computer display screen with icon, the computer display screen). subject matter as a computer icon or a showing the new design. The broken GUI embodied in a display panel, or a lines showing a portion of the computer Example 2

' _____________ ... ,. / FIG. 1 FIG.2

displaying the design and more than a Title: Animated Icon Example 3 Description: Figure 1 is a front view displayed picture; and showing a first image in a sequence for (2) the application fully discloses the an animated icon showing a new design. design as embodied in an article of Figure 2 is a second image thereof. The manufacture, as the drawing depicts the appearance of the asimated image design embodied in a computer display sequentially transitions between the screen in broken lines and the images shown in Figs. 1–2. The process description (i.e., the broken line or period on which one image statement) describes a portion of a transitions to another image forms no computer display screen. part of the claimed design. The broken lines showing a portion of a computer To address the objections to the title display screen form no part of the and claim, the application could be Title: Virtual paper stack claimed design. amended as follows: Description: The figure is a front view Claim: The ornamental design for an of a computer display screen with a Title: Computer display screen with A animated Icon as shown and described. virtual paper stack showing the new animated Icon As presented, the title and claim design. The broken lines showing a should be objected to under 37 CFR Claim: The ornamental design for a portion of the computer display screen 1.153(a) for failing to designate a computer display screen with an form no part of the claimed design. particular article of manufacture. animated Icon as shown and described. Claim: The ornamental design for a However, as presented, the claimed The objections should be maintained virtual paper stack as shown and design in this example does comply until the title and the claim are described. with 35 U.S.C. 171 because: appropriately amended. (1) the USPTO considers a computer As presented, the claimed design in icon or a GUI on a display panel to be this example does not comply with 35 an integral and active component in the U.S.C. 171. The image is merely a picture displayed on a computer display

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 16, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1

EN17NO23.014 EN17NO23.015 EN17NO23.016

80281

screen. Because the original disclosure COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM does not provide support for amending PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR the claim to include a computer icon, SEVERELY DISABLED the claim is fatally defective under 35 Procurement List; Proposed Deletions U.S.C. 171 and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171, as set forth in MPEP : Committee for Purchase From AGENCYsection 1504.01(a), subsection (I)(B). In People Who Are Blind or Severely addition, the title and claim should be Disabled. objected to under 37 CFR 1.153(a) for _____ : Proposed Deletions from the failing to designate a particular article of ACTION , ' Example 5 Procurement List. manufacture. Example 4 : The Committee is proposing SUMMARY / ► to delete product(s) and service(s) from ·---------------------·~ [ \ =---~-:----- the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or l ___ _ have other severe disabilities. : Comments must be received on DATES ... or before: December 17, 2023. Title: Paper stack icon for use on a : Committee for Purchase I ADDRESSESmobile device screen. From People Who Are Blind or Severely Title: Icon for computer display Description: The figure is a front view Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, screen of a paper stack icon showing the new Washington, DC 20024. Description: The figure is a front view design. : For of a computer display screen with icon, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTClaim: The ornamental design for a further information or to submit showing the new design. The broken paper stack icon for use on a mobile comments contact: Michael R. lines showing a portion of the computer device screen as shown and described Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785–6404, display screen form no part of the As presented, the claimed design in or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. claimed design. this example would not comply with 35 Claim: The ornamental design for an : This U.S.C. 171 because the drawing does not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION icon for computer display screen as notice is published pursuant to 41 depict an article of manufacture (e.g., a shown and described U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its display panel) in either solid or broken As presented, the title and claim purpose is to provide interested persons lines. Therefore, the claim should be should be objected to under 37 CFR an opportunity to submit comments on rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171, as set forth 1.153(a) for failing to designate a the proposed actions. in MPEP section 1504.01(a), subsection particular article of manufacture. In (I)(B). In addition, the title and claim Deletions particular, the language ‘‘for computer should be objected to under 37 CFR display screen’’ does not adequately The following product(s) and 1.153(a) for failing to designate a designate a particular article of service(s) are proposed for deletion from particular article of manufacture. manufacture. the Procurement List: Specifically, the language ‘‘for use on a However, as presented, the claimed mobile device screen’’ does not design in this example complies with 35 Product(s) adequately designate a particular article U.S.C. 171 because: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): of manufacture. However, because the (1) the USPTO considers a computer 7530–01–463–2324—Folder, File, ⁄ Cut 1original disclosure provides support for 3 icon or a GUI on a display panel to be Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 2 a mobile device screen, the application an integral and active component in the Dividers, 6 Part, Earth Red, Legal could be amended as follows: 7530–01–463–2326—Folder, File, ⁄ Cut 1 3Title: Mobile device screen with a Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 2 displaying the design and more than a paper Paper stack icon for use on mobile Dividers, 6 Part, Blue, Legal displayed picture; and 7530–01–463–2330—Folder, File, ⁄ Cut device. (2) the application fully discloses the 1 3 Tab Classification, Pressboard, 1 Divider, Claim: The ornamental design for a design as embodied in an article of 4 Part, Light Green, Letter mobile device screen with a paper stack manufacture, as the description and 7530–01–517–1781—Folder, File, ⁄ Cut icon for use on a mobile device as 1 drawing depict the design embodied in 3 Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 2 shown and described. a computer display screen in broken Dividers, 6 Part, Green, Legal Description: The figure is a front view lines and the description (i.e., the 7530–01–523–4594—Folder, File, ⁄ Cut of a mobile device with a virtual paper 1 3 Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 1 broken line statement) describes a stack icon showing the new design. The Divider, 4 Part, Earth Red, Letter portion of a computer display screen. broken lines showing a portion of the Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN To address the objections to the title mobile device screen form no part of the SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, and claim, the application could be claimed design. NY amended as follows: Note that a replacement figure NSN(s)—Product Name(s): Title: Icon for computer Computer 8455–00–NIB–0139—Name Tape, showing the portion of a mobile device display screen with Icon Embroidered, USAF, Tigerstripe screen in either solid or broken lines 8455–00–NIB–0140—Service Tape, must not introduce new matter. The Katherine Kelly Vidal, Embroidered, USAF, Tigerstripe replacement figure shown represents a Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Mandatory Source of Supply: LIONS best practice for applicants as it is the Property and Director of the United States INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND, INC, Patent and Trademark Office. most likely amendment to be supported Kinston, NC by the original disclosure. Contracting Activity: FA3016 502 CONS CL [FR Doc. 2023–25473 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] Replacement Figure: JBSA, FORT SAM HOUSTON, TX BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 16, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM 17NON1

EN17NO23.017 EN17NO23.018 EN17NO23.019