USPTO Guidance for Design Patents on Computer-Generated Interfaces

12394

• Procedures for hiring and training list and within 30 days of receiving any choosing how to present a new, original, of competent program staff to carry out rebuttal, NMFS shall notify the EM and ornamental design for a computer- vendor of its decision. If no rebuttal is EM field services and data services, generated interface or icon when filing received by NMFS within the first 30- including procedures to train, and a design patent application with the day period, the EM vendor shall be maintain the skills of, EM data USPTO. automatically removed from the list of processing staff in: use of data : This supplemental guidance for DATES certified EM vendors. The decision to processing software; species examination of design patent remove an EM vendor from the list, identification; metadata reporting applications related to computer- either after reviewing a rebuttal or if no requirements; data processing generated interfaces and icons is rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final procedures; data tracking; and reporting effective on March 13, 2026 and applies decision of NMFS and the Department and data upload procedures. to all design patent applications or More detailed information about EM of Commerce. Removal from the list of proceedings under Chapter 30, 31 or 32 vendor responsibilities can be found at approved EM vendors does not filed before, on or after March 13, 2026. § 635.9(h)(2)(i) and in the compliance necessarily prevent an EM vendor from Comment Deadline Date: Comments guide on the website under . obtaining an approval in the future if a ADDRESSES must be received by May 12, 2026 to new application demonstrates the Application Evaluation and ensure consideration. reasons for removal are remedied. Certification : Written comments must be Additionally, an EM vendor can request ADDRESSESNMFS will review and evaluate each submitted through the Federal to be removed from the list of certified complete application and approve or eRulemaking Portal at EM vendors. More detailed information deny an application within 90 business www.regulations.gov. To submit about EM vendor responsibilities can be days of receipt of the complete comments via the portal, enter docket found at § 635.9(h)(2)(ii) and in the application by NMFS. Approval as an number PTO–P–2026–0133 on the compliance guide on the website under EM vendor will be based on applicant’s homepage and select the ‘‘Search’’ . ADDRESSESability to perform the responsibilities Button. The site will provide a search There is no deadline for submission of and duties, as demonstrated in the results page listing all documents an application to become a certified EM application information, and an absence associated with this docket. vendor. Unless superseded by a future of conflict of interest. Commenters can find a reference to this notice, interested parties can submit an If the application is not complete, document and select the ‘‘Comment’’ application at any time and NMFS shall NMFS will notify the applicant of any button, complete the required fields, review and evaluate each complete missing information. If the applicant and enter or attach your comments. application. fails to supplement the application with Attachments to electronic comments Dated: March 11, 2026. the information within 30 days of the will be accepted in Adobe portable ® David R. Blankinship, date of notification, NMFS will consider document format or Microsoft Word ® Acting Director, Office of Sustainable the application to be abandoned. format. Because comments will be made Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. If the application is complete and available for public inspection, approved, NMFS will notify the vendor [FR Doc. 2026–04976 Filed 3–11–26; 4:15 pm] information that the submitter does not that they are certified and will provide desire to make public, such as an BILLING CODE 3510–22–P any information pertinent to its address or phone number, should not be participation in the EM program. NMFS included in the comments. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE will then add the EM vendor’s name to Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal the list of certified EM vendor list found for additional instructions on providing United States Patent and Trademark on the NMFS website and in any comments via the portal. If electronic Office outreach information to the industry. submission of comments is not feasible If NMFS determines that the applicant [Docket No.: PTO–P–2026–0133] due to a lack of access to a computer is unable to perform the responsibilities and/or the internet, please contact the Supplemental Guidance for and duties or has conflicts of interest, USPTO using the contact information in Examination of Design Patent NMFS shall deny the application. If the the Applications Related to Computer- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTapplication is denied, NMFS will notify section of this notice for special Generated Interfaces and Icons the applicant of the reason for denial. instructions. Within 30 days of the applicant’s receipt : United States Patent and AGENCY : Erin of the denial notification, an applicant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Trademark Office, Commerce. Harriman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office may request reconsideration by : Examination guidance. ACTION of Patent Legal Administration at (571) submitting additional information to 272–7747 or Parikha Solanki, Senior : The United States Patent and rectify any deficiencies specified in the SUMMARY Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently written denial. Applicants that do not Administration, at (571) 272–3248. received feedback that previously- submit additional information within : With this issued guidance may unnecessarily the 30-day period must resubmit a new SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION limit flexibility for design applicants in supplemental guidance, the USPTO (1) application containing all required the field of computer-generated removes the requirement in Manual of information to be reconsidered for the interfaces and icons. Upon review, the Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) list of certified vendors. If NMFS determines that an EM USPTO has decided to update its (9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024, November vendor should be removed from the list guidance for determining whether a 2024) 1504.01(a) that the drawing depict of certified EM vendors, NMFS will design claim including a computer- the article of manufacture (e.g., notify the EM vendor of the specific generated electronic image constitutes computer or a portion thereof) in either reasons for removal. Within 30 days of statutory subject matter. The USPTO is solid or broken lines for design patent receiving such notification, an EM issuing this updated supplemental applications drawn to computer- vendor may submit written evidence to guidance to provide design patent generated interfaces or icons where both rebut the reasons for removal from the applicants with more flexibility in the title and claim properly identify an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

12395

the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, are article of manufacture; (2) clarifies that Examination of Design Patent to follow this guidance. This guidance a design of a computer-generated Applications Related to Computer- will be incorporated into the MPEP in interface or icon for a computer, Generated Electronic Images, Including due course. computer display, or computer system Computer-Generated Icons and is more than a mere transient or Graphical User Interfaces, 88 FR 80277 II. Supplemental Guidance for (November 17, 2023) and its corrected Examination of Design Patent dimensional image and is patent-eligible notice, 89 FR 5506 (January 29, 2024) Applications Related to Computer- subject matter when disclosed and (collectively, 2023 Supplemental Generated Interfaces and Icons claimed in accordance with the Guidance). The 2023 Supplemental The following supplemental guidance pertinent rules and statutory Guidance has been incorporated into has been developed to assist USPTO requirements; (3) clarifies that claim and section 1504.01(a), subsection (I) of the personnel in determining whether title language that indicates that an icon MPEP. The 2023 Supplemental design patent applications for a or interface is ‘‘for’’ a computer, Guidance did not provide guidance computer, computer display, or computer system, or computer display concerning designs involving PHVAR. computer system with computer- panel adequately describes a design for The USPTO received 7 comments in generated interfaces, including GUIs, an article of manufacture under 35 response to the 2023 Supplemental and icons comply with the article of U.S.C. 171 and examiners will no longer Guidance, which can be found at manufacture requirement of 35 U.S.C. be instructed to object to such claims https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 171. and titles under 37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR PTO-P-2023-0047/comments. Several 1.1067; (4) highlights additional types of commenters suggested that the USPTO A. General Principles Governing patent eligible designs based on the should not require that the drawings Compliance With the Article of USPTO’s expanded understanding of depict a display panel in solid or broken Manufacture Requirement design patent protection in light of new lines in order to comply with the article Historically, a picture standing alone design formats resulting from the of manufacture requirement under 35 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. continued modernization of technology; U.S.C. 171 when the design is directed 171. In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 209 and (5) provides guidance for examiners to a computer icon or graphical user (CCPA 1931) (‘‘[T]he design must be and applicants relating to these updates. interface (GUI) on a display panel. Other shown not to be the mere invention of These highlighted types of eligible commenters indicated that it would be a picture, irrespective of its manner of designs include computer-generated helpful for the USPTO to provide use . . .’’). The factor that distinguishes interfaces or icons, e.g., projections and additional guidance for designs statutory design subject matter from holograms, for computers, computer involving PHVAR because computer- such a transient or disembodied picture displays, and computer systems where generated interfaces have advanced or ornamentation has been the the appearance of the interfaces and beyond their display on traditional requirement that a claimed design be icons is separate from the claimed computer display screens or monitors. for, e.g., applied to or embodied in, an computer, computer display, or Many commenters suggested changes in article of manufacture. See Ex parte computer system that generates it. the drawing requirements, and other Strijland, 26 USPQ 2d 1259, 1263 (Bd. commenters provided other solutions I. Background Pat. App. & Int. 1992) (holding that for providing additional flexibility to computer-generated icons are patent On December 21, 2020, the USPTO applicants. Additionally, the USPTO eligible and afforded protection under published a request for information has continued to receive feedback from 35 U.S.C. 171 so long as the seeking public input on ‘‘whether its stakeholders that its guidance on 35 specification demonstrates, including interpretation of the article of U.S.C. 171 needed to be updated as specifically through drawings, the manufacture requirement in the United other intellectual property offices have design applied to an article as required States Code should be revised to protect done in response to the continued by 35 U.S.C. 171 and by 37 CFR 1.152.); digital designs that encompass new and modernization of technology. Schnell, 46 F.2d at 209. The term emerging technologies.’’ See The Article Accordingly, the USPTO is updating its ‘‘transient,’’ as used in this of Manufacture Requirement, 85 FR policies, as discussed above, with this supplemental guidance, means that the 83063. In response to the request for supplemental guidance. design is not a visual characteristic of information, a diverse range of This guidance does not constitute the article of manufacture. Subsequent stakeholders, including legal to Strijland, 37 CFR 1.152(a) was substantive rulemaking and hence does associations, companies, practitioners, not have the force and effect of law. It changed to require only the design to be academics, and individuals, submitted has been developed as a matter of depicted in the drawings. See Changes 19 comments, which set forth a wide internal USPTO management and is not to Patent Practice and Procedure, 62 FR variety of views. The 19 comments 53132, 53164 (Oct. 10, 1997) (final rule) intended to create any right or benefit, received in response to request for substantive or procedural, enforceable (‘‘The term ‘article’ of § 1.152(a) is information can be found at https://by any party against the USPTO. replaced by the term ‘design’ as 35 www.regulations.gov/document/PTO-C- U.S.C. 171 requires that the claim be Rejections will continue to be based 2020-0068-0001/comment. Twelve of upon the substantive law, and those directed to the ‘design for an article’ not the commenters advocated that designs rejections are appealable. Consequently, the article, per se.’’). Accordingly, when for projections, holograms, and virtual any failure by USPTO personnel to a computer-generated interface or icon and augmented reality (PHVAR) should is disclosed and claimed in accordance follow the guidance is neither be eligible for design patent protection. appealable nor petitionable. If any with the pertinent rules and statutory On November 17, 2023, the USPTO earlier guidance from the USPTO, requirements and in a manner that is published supplemental guidance to be consistent with this supplemental including any section of the current used to determine whether a design guidance, the USPTO considers such a MPEP, is inconsistent with the guidance claim including a computer-generated set forth herein regarding whether a computer-generated interface or icon to electronic image constitutes statutory design meets the requirements under 35 be patent eligible subject matter under subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. See 35 U.S.C. 171 because the design of the U.S.C. 171, USPTO personnel, including Supplemental Guidance for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

12396

interfaces and icons on a display panel the computer, computer display, or interface or icon is for a computer, as surface ornamentation under 35 computer system that generates it and computer display, or computer system U.S.C. 171 when they are properly (b) the interface or icon is for a and is more than a transient or claimed. The USPTO continues to treat computer, computer display, or these 2D interfaces and icons as surface computer system such that the interface dimensional image. ornamentation consistent with the or icon is more than a transient or B. Removal of the Requirement in MPEP supplemental guidance provided in the 1504.01(a) That the Drawing Depict a prior subsection. dimensional image. Providing updated Display Panel, or a Portion Thereof, in Designs of computer-generated guidance concerning these additional Either Solid or Broken Lines for Patent interfaces and icons now exist beyond types of patent eligible designs is Applications Directed to Computer- designs used on a display panel. The necessary as technology advances and Generated Interfaces or Icons Where the dependence of a design of a computer- in order to provide design patent Title and Claim Properly Identify an generated interface or icon on a central protection for computer-generated Article of Manufacture processing unit and computer program interfaces and icons that involve Currently, MPEP 1504.01(a) instructs for its existence is not itself a reason for PHVAR. examiners that, when examining design holding that the design is not for an D. Procedures for Evaluating Whether patent applications related to computer- article of manufacture. MPEP Design Patent Applications Directed to generated images, the claimed design § 1504.01(a)(I)(A). ‘‘We do not see that Computer-Generated Interfaces and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 the dependence of the existence of a Icons Comply With the Article of for failing to comply with the article of design on something outside itself is a Manufacture Requirement manufacture requirement if the drawing reason for holding it is not a design ‘for USPTO personnel shall adhere to the does not depict a display panel or a an article of manufacture.’ ’’ See In re following procedures when reviewing portion thereof in either solid or broken Hruby, 373 F.2d 997, 1001, 153 USPQ design patent applications drawn to lines. According to this supplemental 61, 66 (CCPA 1967) (design of water computer-generated interfaces and icons guidance, the depiction of a display fountain held to be patent eligible under for compliance with the article of screen or a portion thereof is no longer 35 U.S.C. 171 as a design for an article manufacture requirement of 35 U.S.C. required when both the title and claim of manufacture). The Supreme Court has 171. properly identify the article of recognized that the ‘‘article of The complete disclosure must be manufacture, e.g., a computer, a manufacture’’ requirement as used in considered when evaluating a design computer system, or a computer display the statutory provisions regarding claim directed to a computer-generated panel. If the article of manufacture is design patents is broad. See Samsung interface or icon. More specifically, properly identified in both the title and Elects. Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53, 60 USPTO personnel must read the claim but not shown in the drawings, (2016) (‘‘ ‘Article of manufacture’ has a disclosure to determine what is claimed the claim will be considered compliant broad meaning. An ‘article’ is just ‘a as the design and whether the design is with the article of manufacture particular thing’ . . . [a]nd for an article of manufacture under 35 requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171 provided ‘manufacture’ means ‘the conversion of U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel must: that the designs are properly disclosed raw materials by the hand, or by (1) Review the title and claim and claimed in accordance with the machinery, into articles suitable for the language to determine whether both the pertinent rules and statutory use of man’ and ‘the articles so made’ title and claim adequately describe a requirements and in a manner that is . . . [a]n article of manufacture, then, is design for an article of manufacture consistent with this supplemental simply a thing made by hand or under 35 U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel guidance. Alternatively, applicants may machine.’’). must also consider the following and, Just as the design for a water fountain continue to depict the display panel or where appropriate, make the noted was patent eligible in Hruby, analogous portions thereof in the drawings, such objections and rejections. digital designs—e.g., projections, as with a broken line display region (a) Statutory design subject matter holograms or other virtual and surrounding a computer-generated icon differs from a transient or disembodied augmented reality designs of interfaces or interface. picture or three-dimensional image in or icons for computer systems that are Applicants will need to remain that the design is for, e.g., applied to or not necessarily displayed on a mindful of all patentability embodied in, an article of manufacture. conventional display screen—are also requirements including 35 U.S.C. 102, See Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ 2d protectable, provided the designs are 103, and 112 when drafting their 1259, 1263 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992); properly disclosed and claimed in applications. For example, under this In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 209 (CCPA accordance with the pertinent rules and supplemental guidance applicants must 1931). In addition to the guidance statutory requirements and in a manner still comply with the clarity and provided in MPEP 1504, per this that is consistent with this enablement requirements and provide a supplemental guidance, a claim that supplemental guidance. Such a sufficient number of views to constitute reads, for example, ‘‘icon for display computer system is an integrated a complete disclosure of the appearance panel,’’ ‘‘projected interface for combination of hardware and software of the design (see 37 CFR 1.152), to the computer,’’ or ‘‘interface for computer and includes various types of computer extent that a skilled artisan would be on system’’ also meets the requirements of systems such as personal computers, reasonable notice as to the metes and 35 U.S.C. 171 since the term ‘‘for’’ handheld devices, servers, mainframes, bounds of the claimed design. indicates that the claim is not for an and supercomputers. As mentioned C. Guidance Related to Computer- interface or icon per se but a design for previously, the USPTO has identified Generated Interfaces or Icons the an article of manufacture, i.e., ‘‘a thing additional types of patent eligible Appearance of Which Are Separate made by hand or machine.’’ See designs that may provide design patent From the Computer, e.g., Projected or Samsung, 580 U.S. at 60. Accordingly, protection for computer-generated Holographic Interfaces or Icons interfaces and icons, e.g., projections examiners will no longer be instructed that these examples of claim language The USPTO has historically treated and holograms, when (a) the appearance and titles do not adequately describe a designs of two-dimensional (2D) of the interface or icon is separate from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

12397

Corp., 487 F.2d 859, 208 USPQ 242 Therefore, a claim and title directed to design for an article of manufacture (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (descriptive statement such terms, e.g., ‘‘computer with under 35 U.S.C. 171. Providing in design patent application narrows projected interface,’’ adequately applicants with this additional claim scope). describes a design for an article of flexibility in choosing claim and title manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. Note language is in accord with USPTO’s (3) Review the drawing to determine that while the underlying article of expanded understanding of design whether a design for an article of manufacture for an icon or interface has patent protection that accounts for manufacture is shown in sufficient functional properties, the design of the advances in technology. Applicants views to fully disclose the design. See icon or interface itself is not functional, continue to also have the option of Changes to Patent Practice and and thus this subsection is not in claiming the article according to prior Procedure, 62 FR 53132, 53164 (October tension with, nor does it contradict, the guidance, e.g., by reciting ‘‘a display 10, 1997). Since the claim must be in functionality doctrine, which requires panel with computer icon.’’ formal terms to the design ‘‘as shown, that design patent protection extend or as shown and described,’’ the (b) A computer-generated electronic only to the ‘‘ornamental design’’ of an drawing provides the best description of image that is not a design of an interface article of manufacture. See 35 U.S.C. the claim. 37 CFR 1.153 or 1.1025; see or icon for a computer, computer 171(a); MPEP 1504.01(c), subsection I. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Inc., 543 display, or computer system and that is F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (‘‘As the (d) The following are examples of not more than a transient or Supreme Court has recognized, a design claim language and titles that is better represented by an illustration adequately describe a design for an dimensional image will not satisfy the ‘than it could be by any description and article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. article of manufacture requirement a description would probably not be 171: ‘‘computer screen with an icon,’’ under this supplemental guidance, and intelligible without the illustration.’ ’’ ‘‘display panel with GUI,’’ ‘‘display such a claim should be rejected under (quoting Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, screen or portion thereof with icon,’’ 35 U.S.C. 171 for failing to comply with 14 (1886)). Note that the nature of the ‘‘portion of a computer screen with an the article of manufacture requirement. design (e.g., whether it is 2D or 3D) may icon,’’ ‘‘portion of a display panel with (c) An ‘‘icon,’’ as used in this impact what is considered to be a an icon,’’ ‘‘portion of a monitor supplemental guidance, refers to a sufficient number of views to fully displayed with an icon,’’ ‘‘icon for computer icon and is a visual symbol or disclose the design. See In re Maatita, display screen,’’ ‘‘GUI for display image that represents a computer 900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See panel,’’ ‘‘projected interface for a program, file, application, or function supra section 1.d. for examples of claim computer,’’ ‘‘virtual reality interface for and allows users to quickly access and language and titles that do adequately a computer,’’ ‘‘augmented reality interact with various items on their describe a design for an article of interface for a computer’’ and computer display. Likewise, an manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. ‘‘computer icon.’’ This list of examples ‘‘interface,’’ as used in this USPTO personnel must also consider is not exhaustive. supplemental guidance, refers to a whether the disclosure as a whole does (e) If it is determined that the claim computer interface and is the space or does not suggest or describe a design language and title do not adequately where interactions between users and for an article of manufacture and, where describe an article of manufacture, the computers, computer displays, and appropriate, make the noted rejections. claim and title should be objected to computer systems occur and If the disclosure as a whole does not pursuant to 37 CFR 1.153(a) or 37 CFR encompasses the visual and interactive suggest or describe a design for an 1.1067(a) for failing to designate a elements that users engage with such as article of manufacture, then indicate particular article of manufacture, and pages, screens, buttons, forms, and other that: the objection should be maintained visual components. Accordingly, when (a) The claim is rejected under 35 until the title and the claim language are a design claim and title are to a U.S.C. 171, along with a corresponding appropriately amended. See MPEP computer-generated interface or icon for explanation of why the current § 707.07(e). If the application fails to an article of manufacture, e.g., a disclosure does not adequately describe provide written description support for computer display screen, a computer a design for an article of manufacture; a computer-generated interface or icon, system, or a computer, the USPTO and the applicant will not be able to considers the terms ‘‘icon,’’ ‘‘computer overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. (b) Any subsequent amendments to icon,’’ ‘‘interface,’’ ‘‘computer 171. the written description, including the interface,’’ ‘‘graphical user interface’’ title, drawings and/or claim attempting (2) Review the specification to ‘‘projected interface’’ ‘‘virtual reality to overcome the above-noted 35 U.S.C. determine whether a characteristic interface,’’ or ‘‘augmented reality 171 rejection will ordinarily be entered. feature statement is present. If a interface’’ in the title and the claim to However, any new matter will be characteristic feature statement is be indicating that the image is not required to be canceled from the written present, determine whether it describes merely a displayed transient or description, drawings and/or claim. If the claimed subject matter as a new matter is later added that affects the computer-generated interface or icon dimensional image because the interface claim, the claim should then be rejected embodied in a display panel, or portion or icon is for a computer display screen, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). thereof. See McGrady v. Aspenglas a computer system, or a computer.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

12398

appropriate. Examples 1–4 and 6–10 outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. (4) Indicate all objections to the 171 based on failure to comply with the disclosure for failure to comply with the comply with 35 U.S.C. 171. Example 5, article of manufacture requirement (see requirements of the Rules of Practice in 11, and 12 do not comply with 35 U.S.C. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 Patent Cases. See, e.g., 37 CFR 1.71, 171. Note that per this supplemental USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)) 1.81–1.85, and 1.152–1.154. Where guidance, section 1504.01(a), subsection (‘‘After evidence or argument is possible, suggest amendments that I(C) of the MPEP will be updated to submitted by the applicant in response, would bring the disclosure into indicate that example 4 as shown here patentability is determined on the compliance with the requirements of the complies with 35 U.S.C. 171, 37 CFR totality of the record, by a Rules of Practice in Patent Cases. 1.152, and 37 CFR 1.153 (or 37 CFR (5) Upon reply by applicant: preponderance of evidence with due (a) Enter any appropriate consideration to persuasiveness of applications) because the term ‘‘for’’ amendments; and argument.’’). with an article of manufacture (e.g., (b) Review all arguments and the III. Examples computer display screen) indicates that entire record, including any the claim is not for a transient or The following examples illustrate the amendments, to determine whether the disembodied image but for a design for application of this guidance for the written description, including the title, an article of manufacture. This change purposes of 35 U.S.C. 171 and do not drawings, and/or claim clearly disclose in position is made by the USPTO in an address all patentability requirements, a computer-generated interface or icon. effort to expand the understanding of including 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112. (6) After a review of all arguments and design protection in light of The following examples are provided to the entire record including assist USPTO personnel in determining advancements in technology, such as amendments, if, by a preponderance of whether design patent applications for evidence, the applicant has adequately computer-generated interfaces and icons computer-generated interfaces and icons established that the design is directed to that have advanced beyond their display comply with the article of manufacture a computer-generated interface or icon on traditional computer display screens requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171 and for a computer, computer display, or or monitors. whether other objections are computer system, withdraw any

Title: Computer display screen with

icon. • the drawing depicts the design 171 for each of the following reasons: embodied in a computer display screen of a computer display screen with icon, in broken lines. showing the new design. The broken recite a ‘‘computer display screen,’’ which is an article of manufacture; lines showing a portion of the computer display screen form no part of the claimed design. recite a ‘‘computer display screen with icon,’’ which indicates that the image is appearance of the design, and the title computer display screen with icon as picture or three-dimensional image, but and claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.004

12399

(or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international and claim adequately designate an design applications) because the title

• the drawing depicts the design Title: Icon for a computer display screen. recite a ‘‘computer display screen,’’ embodied in a computer display screen which is an article of manufacture, and in broken lines. of an icon for a computer display the term ‘‘for’’ with ‘‘computer display screen, showing the new design. The screen’’ indicates that the claim is not broken lines showing a portion of the for an icon per se; computer display screen form no part of the claimed design. recite an ‘‘icon for a computer display appearance of the design, and the title Claim: The ornamental design for an screen,’’ which indicates that the icon is and claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) icon for a computer display screen as (or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the title and claim adequately designate an

Title: Paper stack icon. However, the title and claim do not 171 because, based on a review of the of a computer display screen with a complete disclosure, the description paper stack icon showing the new recites a ‘‘computer display screen,’’ design. The broken lines showing a which is an article of manufacture, and portion of the computer display screen the icon is for a computer, computer Because the original disclosure form no part of the claimed design. display, or computer system, such that provides support for a computer display it is more than a transient or screen as the article of manufacture, the paper stack icon as shown and application could be amended to read as follows: dimensional image.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.005 EN13MR26.006

12400

Title: Paper stack icon for computer paper stack icon showing the new display screen. design. The broken lines showing a paper stack icon for a computer display portion of the computer display screen screen as shown and described. of a computer display screen with a form no part of the claimed design.

• the term ‘‘for’’ with ‘‘computer Title: Paper stack icon for a computer the disclosed article and the title and display screen’’ indicates that the claim display screen. claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or is not for an icon per se; 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the title of a paper stack icon for a computer recite an ‘‘icon for a computer display and claim adequately designate an display screen showing the new design. screen,’’ which indicates that the icon is paper stack icon for a computer display picture or three-dimensional image, but screen as shown and described. display, or computer system. Applicants should also be mindful that a design shown and described in the manner illustrated by this example must still comply with the enablement and recite a ‘‘computer display screen’’ which is an article of manufacture and appearance of the design as embodied in clarity requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.

Title: Paper stack icon. Because no article of manufacture is this example does not comply with 35 disclosed in the application, the claim U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons: should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171, of a paper stack icon showing the new as set forth in subsection I.B above. design. In addition, the title and claim should be objected to pursuant to 37 CFR paper stack icon as shown and • the drawing also does not depict an 1.153(a) (or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.007 EN13MR26.008 EN13MR26.009

12401

failing to designate a particular article of

Title: Projected paper stack icon for a transient or disembodied image per se; and computer. recite an ‘‘icon for a computer,’’ which of a projected paper stack icon for a indicates that the icon is not merely a computer showing the new design. transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image but an icon for projected paper stack icon for a a computer, computer display, or computer as shown and described. computer system. projected icon on a curved or irregular surface. Applicants should also be assumed that the figure provides a recite a ‘‘computer,’’ which is an article mindful that a design shown and complete disclosure of the appearance of manufacture upon which the design relies for its existence;

• the term ‘‘for’’ with ‘‘computer’’ indicates that the claim is not for a

Title: Projected keyboard interface for For the purposes of this example recite a ‘‘computer,’’ which is an article a computer. of manufacture upon which the design Description: The figure is a relies for its existence, and the term assumed that the figure provides a perspective view of a projected ‘‘for’’ with ‘‘computer’’ indicates that complete disclosure of the appearance keyboard interface for a computer the claim is not for a transient or showing the new design. The broken disembodied image per se; and lines showing the computer form no part of the claimed design. The recite a keyboard ‘‘interface for a projected broken lines form no part of computer,’’ which by definition is not the claimed design. merely a transient or disembodied projected keyboard interface for a an interface for a computer, computer computer as shown and described.

• the drawing depicts the computer (shown in broken lines) that projects the design.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.010 EN13MR26.011

12402

projected interface on a curved or irregular surface. Applicants should also keep in mind that a design shown and

Title: Projected interface for a indicates that the claim is not for a transient or disembodied image per se; computer system Description: The figure is a and perspective view of a projected interface recite an ‘‘interface for a computer for a computer system showing the new system,’’ which by definition is not design. merely a transient or disembodied projected interface for a computer system as shown and described. an interface for a computer, computer display, or computer system. projected interface on a curved or irregular surface. Applicants should also keep in mind that a design shown and recite a ‘‘computer system,’’ which is an assumed that the figure provides a article of manufacture on which the complete disclosure of the appearance design relies upon for its existence, and the term ‘‘for’’ with ‘‘computer system’’

Title: Graphical User Interface for a complete disclosure of the appearance computer. recite a ‘‘graphical user interface for a computer’’ which, by definition, is not merely a transient or disembodied of a graphical user interface for a computer showing the new design. an interface for a computer, computer display, or computer system. graphical user interface for a computer as shown and described. assumed that the figure provides a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.012 EN13MR26.013

12403

manufacture upon which the design relies for its existence through reference graphical user interface on a curved or to the ‘‘graphical user interface for a BILLING CODE 3510–16–P irregular surface. Applicants should also computer’’. keep in mind that a design shown and

disclosure is present for a design in the BILLING CODE 3510–16–C Title: Virtual reality motorcycle application as filed. interface for a computer. Description: Fig. 1 is a top-down view assumed that Figs. 1–3 provide a of a virtual reality motorcycle interface sufficient number of views to constitute for a computer showing the new design; a complete disclosure of the appearance Fig. 2 is a front view thereof; Fig. 3 is recite a ‘‘a computer’’ and a computer is a perspective view thereof. Figures 1–3 an article of manufacture on which the disclose the complete 3-dimensional design relies upon for its existence; the virtual appearance of the design term ‘‘for’’ with ‘‘computer’’ indicates claimed. that the claim is not for a transient or disembodied image per se; and virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer as shown and described. For purposes of this example, it is recite a ‘‘virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer,’’ which by assumed that Figs. 1–3 provide a sufficient number of views to constitute definition is not merely a transient or a complete disclosure of the appearance dimensional image but an interface for manufacture through reference to ‘‘a a computer, computer display, or 1.152. But, as explained herein, the computer’’. applicant must ensure that a sufficient computer system.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.014

12404

Title: Virtual Reality Motorcycle In addition, the title and claim do not Interface. this example does not comply with 35 Description: Fig. 1 is a top-down view U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons: of a virtual reality motorcycle interface showing the new design; Fig. 2 is a front view thereof; Fig. 3 is a perspective • the drawings also do not depict an view thereof. Therefore, no article of manufacture is virtual reality motorcycle interface as disclosed in the application.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1

EN13MR26.015 EN13MR26.016

12405

: Written comments must be U.S. positions on issues before the Title: Digital motorcycle picture. DATESDescription: Fig. 1 is a perspective WIPO SCT. received on or before June 11, 2026. At its Fifty-Fifth (30th Extraordinary) view a digital motorcycle picture : For reasons of government ADDRESSES Session, held in Geneva on July 14–22, showing the new design. efficiency, comments should be 2022, the WIPO General Assembly submitted through the Federal motorcycle picture as shown and decided to convene a diplomatic eRulemaking Portal at https:// conference to conclude and adopt a www.regulations.gov. To submit Analysis: The claimed design does not Design Law Treaty. The diplomatic comments via the portal, enter docket comply with 35 U.S.C. 171 for the conference occurred on November 11– number PTO–C–2025–0018 on the following reasons: 22, 2024, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. On homepage and select ‘‘Search.’’ The site November 22, 2024, WIPO Member will provide a search results page listing States adopted the RDLT. The text of the all documents associated with this manufacture; RDLT is different in several respects docket. Find a reference to this request • the drawing, when read in light of from the draft text that served as the for information and select the the title, claim and description, also starting point for negotiations at the ‘‘Comment’’ button, complete the does not depict an article of diplomatic conference. The draft text required fields, and enter or attach your included draft Articles (known as the comments. Attachments to electronic • the picture appears to be a transient ‘‘Basic Proposal for the Design Law comments will be accepted in ADOBEor disembodied image. ® Treaty (DLT)’’), https://www.wipo.int/ portable document format or Therefore, no article of manufacture is edocs/mdocs/sct/en/dltdc/dltdcMICROSOFT WORD format. Because disclosed in the application. ® 3.pdf) and draft Regulations (known as comments will be made available for In addition, the title and claim do not the ‘‘Basic Proposal for the Regulations public inspection, information that the under the Design Law Treaty (DLT)’’), submitter does not desire to make https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/ public, such as an address or phone en/dltdc/dltdc4.pdf). On March 27, number, should not be included. 2024, following a Special Session and Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal Preparatory Committee meeting of the (www.regulations.gov) for additional SCT, the USPTO requested comments John A. Squires, instructions on providing comments via on the Basic Proposal for the DLT and the portal. If electronic submission of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual the Basic Proposal for the Regulations Property and Director of the United States comments is not feasible due to a lack under the DLT. See Notice and Request Patent and Trademark Office. of access to a computer and/or the for Comments, WIPO Diplomatic internet, please submit comments by [FR Doc. 2026–04987 Filed 3–12–26; 8:45 am] Conference on the Design Law Treaty, First-Class Mail or Priority Mail to: https://www.federalregister.gov/ BILLING CODE 3510–16–P Keith M. Mullervy, Patent Attorney, documents/2024/03/27/2024-06390/ Mail Stop OPIA, U.S. Patent and wipo-diplomatic-conference-on-the- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, design-law-treaty. Comments received Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. by the USPTO helped inform positions Patent and Trademark Office : taken by the United States at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT[Docket No. PTO–C–2025–0018] Keith M. Mullervy, Patent Attorney, diplomatic conference. Office of Policy and International The provisions of the RDLT pertain Request for Comments on the World Affairs (OPIA), at 571–272–7079. generally to formalities associated with Intellectual Property Organization applications for the protection of : Riyadh Design Law Treaty SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION industrial designs, and more specifically I. Background : United States Patent and to streamlining the global system for AGENCYTrademark Office, Department of protecting designs and helping WIPO is a specialized United Nations designers to more easily obtain Commerce. agency based in Geneva, Switzerland, protection for their designs—both in that focuses on the promotion and : Request for comments. ACTION home markets and abroad. Similar protection of intellectual property : The United States Patent and treaties also exist in the area of patents worldwide. The WIPO Standing SUMMARYTrademark Office (USPTO) requests (Patent Law Treaty of 2000) and Committee on the Law of Trademarks, input from all interested parties on the trademarks (Trademark Law Treaty of Industrial Designs and Geographical World Intellectual Property 1994 and Singapore Treaty on the Law Indications (SCT) is a forum where Organization (WIPO) Riyadh Design of Trademarks of 2006). WIPO Member States and accredited 1Law Treaty (RDLT) adopted by WIPO Article 4 of the RDLT establishes a observers facilitate coordination and Member States in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia closed list of elements that a Contracting provide guidance on the development of on November 22, 2024. In particular, the Party may require in an industrial international law on trademarks, USPTO welcomes written comments on design application, such as the name industrial designs, and geographical whether the United States should and address of an applicant, the name indications, including the become a party to the RDLT and any and address of an applicant’s harmonization of national laws and impacts from doing so. The provisions representative (if any), a representation procedures. Within the U.S. of the RDLT pertain generally to of the industrial design, etc. The closed Government, the USPTO, based on list outlines the maximum permissible formalities associated with applications authority delegated by the U.S. for the protection of industrial designs, set of required elements and Contracting Department of State, takes the lead in and more specifically to streamlining Parties are prohibited from requiring the WIPO SCT among other Federal additional elements not contained in the global system for protecting designs agencies and coordinates and develops and helping designers to more easily this closed list. Based on this maximum obtain protection for their designs—both list of elements, an applicant who WIPO currently has 194 Member States. https:// 1in home markets and abroad. wishes to file an industrial application www.wipo.int/members/en/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 12, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM 13MRN1