[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12394-12405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04987]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2026-0133]
Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent
Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Examination guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has
recently received feedback that previously-issued guidance may
unnecessarily limit flexibility for design applicants in the field of
computer-generated interfaces and icons. Upon review, the USPTO has
decided to update its guidance for determining whether a design claim
including a computer-generated electronic image constitutes statutory
subject matter. The USPTO is issuing this updated supplemental guidance
to provide design patent applicants with more flexibility in choosing
how to present a new, original, and ornamental design for a computer-
generated interface or icon when filing a design patent application
with the USPTO.
DATES: This supplemental guidance for examination of design patent
applications related to computer-generated interfaces and icons is
effective on March 13, 2026 and applies to all design patent
applications or proceedings under Chapter 30, 31 or 32 filed before, on
or after March 13, 2026.
Comment Deadline Date: Comments must be received by May 12, 2026 to
ensure consideration.
ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the
portal, enter docket number PTO-P-2026-0133 on the homepage and select
the ``Search'' Button. The site will provide a search results page
listing all documents associated with this docket. Commenters can find
a reference to this document and select the ``Comment'' button,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Adobe[supreg]
portable document format or Microsoft Word[supreg] format. Because
comments will be made available for public inspection, information that
the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or
phone number, should not be included in the comments.
Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal for additional instructions on
providing comments via the portal. If electronic submission of comments
is not feasible due to a lack of access to a computer and/or the
internet, please contact the USPTO using the contact information in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice for special
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Harriman, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration at (571) 272-7747 or Parikha
Solanki, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration,
at (571) 272-3248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With this supplemental guidance, the USPTO
(1) removes the requirement in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) (9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024, November 2024) 1504.01(a) that the
drawing depict the article of manufacture (e.g., computer or a portion
thereof) in either solid or broken lines for design patent applications
drawn to computer-generated interfaces or icons where both the title
and claim properly identify an
[[Page 12395]]
article of manufacture; (2) clarifies that a design of a computer-
generated interface or icon for a computer, computer display, or
computer system is more than a mere transient or disembodied picture or
three-dimensional image and is patent-eligible subject matter when
disclosed and claimed in accordance with the pertinent rules and
statutory requirements; (3) clarifies that claim and title language
that indicates that an icon or interface is ``for'' a computer,
computer system, or computer display panel adequately describes a
design for an article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171 and examiners
will no longer be instructed to object to such claims and titles under
37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1067; (4) highlights additional types of
patent eligible designs based on the USPTO's expanded understanding of
design patent protection in light of new design formats resulting from
the continued modernization of technology; and (5) provides guidance
for examiners and applicants relating to these updates. These
highlighted types of eligible designs include computer-generated
interfaces or icons, e.g., projections and holograms, for computers,
computer displays, and computer systems where the appearance of the
interfaces and icons is separate from the claimed computer, computer
display, or computer system that generates it.
I. Background
On December 21, 2020, the USPTO published a request for information
seeking public input on ``whether its interpretation of the article of
manufacture requirement in the United States Code should be revised to
protect digital designs that encompass new and emerging technologies.''
See The Article of Manufacture Requirement, 85 FR 83063. In response to
the request for information, a diverse range of stakeholders, including
legal associations, companies, practitioners, academics, and
individuals, submitted 19 comments, which set forth a wide variety of
views. The 19 comments received in response to request for information
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/PTO-C-2020-0068-0001/comment. Twelve of the commenters advocated that designs for
projections, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality (PHVAR)
should be eligible for design patent protection.
On November 17, 2023, the USPTO published supplemental guidance to
be used to determine whether a design claim including a computer-
generated electronic image constitutes statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. 171. See Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design
Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Electronic Images,
Including Computer-Generated Icons and Graphical User Interfaces, 88 FR
80277 (November 17, 2023) and its corrected notice, 89 FR 5506 (January
29, 2024) (collectively, 2023 Supplemental Guidance). The 2023
Supplemental Guidance has been incorporated into section 1504.01(a),
subsection (I) of the MPEP. The 2023 Supplemental Guidance did not
provide guidance concerning designs involving PHVAR. The USPTO received
7 comments in response to the 2023 Supplemental Guidance, which can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-P-2023-0047/comments.
Several commenters suggested that the USPTO should not require that the
drawings depict a display panel in solid or broken lines in order to
comply with the article of manufacture requirement under 35 U.S.C. 171
when the design is directed to a computer icon or graphical user
interface (GUI) on a display panel. Other commenters indicated that it
would be helpful for the USPTO to provide additional guidance for
designs involving PHVAR because computer-generated interfaces have
advanced beyond their display on traditional computer display screens
or monitors. Many commenters suggested changes in the drawing
requirements, and other commenters provided other solutions for
providing additional flexibility to applicants. Additionally, the USPTO
has continued to receive feedback from stakeholders that its guidance
on 35 U.S.C. 171 needed to be updated as other intellectual property
offices have done in response to the continued modernization of
technology. Accordingly, the USPTO is updating its policies, as
discussed above, with this supplemental guidance.
This guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and hence
does not have the force and effect of law. It has been developed as a
matter of internal USPTO management and is not intended to create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party
against the USPTO. Rejections will continue to be based upon the
substantive law, and those rejections are appealable. Consequently, any
failure by USPTO personnel to follow the guidance is neither appealable
nor petitionable. If any earlier guidance from the USPTO, including any
section of the current MPEP, is inconsistent with the guidance set
forth herein regarding whether a design meets the requirements under 35
U.S.C. 171, USPTO personnel, including the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, are to follow this guidance. This guidance will be incorporated
into the MPEP in due course.
II. Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications
Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons
The following supplemental guidance has been developed to assist
USPTO personnel in determining whether design patent applications for a
computer, computer display, or computer system with computer-generated
interfaces, including GUIs, and icons comply with the article of
manufacture requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171.
A. General Principles Governing Compliance With the Article of
Manufacture Requirement
Historically, a picture standing alone is not patent eligible under
35 U.S.C. 171. In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 209 (CCPA 1931) (``[T]he
design must be shown not to be the mere invention of a picture,
irrespective of its manner of use . . .''). The factor that
distinguishes statutory design subject matter from such a transient or
disembodied picture or ornamentation has been the requirement that a
claimed design be for, e.g., applied to or embodied in, an article of
manufacture. See Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ 2d 1259, 1263 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1992) (holding that computer-generated icons are patent
eligible and afforded protection under 35 U.S.C. 171 so long as the
specification demonstrates, including specifically through drawings,
the design applied to an article as required by 35 U.S.C. 171 and by 37
CFR 1.152.); Schnell, 46 F.2d at 209. The term ``transient,'' as used
in this supplemental guidance, means that the design is not a visual
characteristic of the article of manufacture. Subsequent to Strijland,
37 CFR 1.152(a) was changed to require only the design to be depicted
in the drawings. See Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure, 62 FR
53132, 53164 (Oct. 10, 1997) (final rule) (``The term `article' of
Sec. 1.152(a) is replaced by the term `design' as 35 U.S.C. 171
requires that the claim be directed to the `design for an article' not
the article, per se.''). Accordingly, when a computer-generated
interface or icon is disclosed and claimed in accordance with the
pertinent rules and statutory requirements and in a manner that is
consistent with this supplemental guidance, the USPTO considers such a
computer-generated interface or icon to be patent eligible subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. 171 because the design of the
[[Page 12396]]
interface or icon is for a computer, computer display, or computer
system and is more than a transient or disembodied picture or three-
dimensional image.
B. Removal of the Requirement in MPEP 1504.01(a) That the Drawing
Depict a Display Panel, or a Portion Thereof, in Either Solid or Broken
Lines for Patent Applications Directed to Computer-Generated Interfaces
or Icons Where the Title and Claim Properly Identify an Article of
Manufacture
Currently, MPEP 1504.01(a) instructs examiners that, when examining
design patent applications related to computer-generated images, the
claimed design should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 for failing to
comply with the article of manufacture requirement if the drawing does
not depict a display panel or a portion thereof in either solid or
broken lines. According to this supplemental guidance, the depiction of
a display screen or a portion thereof is no longer required when both
the title and claim properly identify the article of manufacture, e.g.,
a computer, a computer system, or a computer display panel. If the
article of manufacture is properly identified in both the title and
claim but not shown in the drawings, the claim will be considered
compliant with the article of manufacture requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171
provided that the designs are properly disclosed and claimed in
accordance with the pertinent rules and statutory requirements and in a
manner that is consistent with this supplemental guidance.
Alternatively, applicants may continue to depict the display panel or
portions thereof in the drawings, such as with a broken line display
region surrounding a computer-generated icon or interface.
Applicants will need to remain mindful of all patentability
requirements including 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112 when drafting their
applications. For example, under this supplemental guidance applicants
must still comply with the clarity and enablement requirements and
provide a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete
disclosure of the appearance of the design (see 37 CFR 1.152), to the
extent that a skilled artisan would be on reasonable notice as to the
metes and bounds of the claimed design.
C. Guidance Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces or Icons the
Appearance of Which Are Separate From the Computer, e.g., Projected or
Holographic Interfaces or Icons
The USPTO has historically treated designs of two-dimensional (2D)
interfaces and icons on a display panel as surface ornamentation under
35 U.S.C. 171 when they are properly claimed. The USPTO continues to
treat these 2D interfaces and icons as surface ornamentation consistent
with the supplemental guidance provided in the prior subsection.
Designs of computer-generated interfaces and icons now exist beyond
designs used on a display panel. The dependence of a design of a
computer-generated interface or icon on a central processing unit and
computer program for its existence is not itself a reason for holding
that the design is not for an article of manufacture. MPEP Sec.
1504.01(a)(I)(A). ``We do not see that the dependence of the existence
of a design on something outside itself is a reason for holding it is
not a design `for an article of manufacture.' '' See In re Hruby, 373
F.2d 997, 1001, 153 USPQ 61, 66 (CCPA 1967) (design of water fountain
held to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 171 as a design for an
article of manufacture). The Supreme Court has recognized that the
``article of manufacture'' requirement as used in the statutory
provisions regarding design patents is broad. See Samsung Elects. Co.
v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53, 60 (2016) (`` `Article of manufacture' has
a broad meaning. An `article' is just `a particular thing' . . . [a]nd
`manufacture' means `the conversion of raw materials by the hand, or by
machinery, into articles suitable for the use of man' and `the articles
so made' . . . [a]n article of manufacture, then, is simply a thing
made by hand or machine.'').
Just as the design for a water fountain was patent eligible in
Hruby, analogous digital designs--e.g., projections, holograms or other
virtual and augmented reality designs of interfaces or icons for
computer systems that are not necessarily displayed on a conventional
display screen--are also protectable, provided the designs are properly
disclosed and claimed in accordance with the pertinent rules and
statutory requirements and in a manner that is consistent with this
supplemental guidance. Such a computer system is an integrated
combination of hardware and software and includes various types of
computer systems such as personal computers, handheld devices, servers,
mainframes, and supercomputers. As mentioned previously, the USPTO has
identified additional types of patent eligible designs that may provide
design patent protection for computer-generated interfaces and icons,
e.g., projections and holograms, when (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 for
a computer, computer display, or computer system such that the
interface or icon is more than a transient or disembodied picture or
three-dimensional image. Providing updated guidance concerning these
additional types of patent eligible designs is necessary as technology
advances and in order to provide design patent protection for computer-
generated interfaces and icons that involve PHVAR.
D. Procedures for Evaluating Whether Design Patent Applications
Directed to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons Comply With the
Article of Manufacture Requirement
USPTO personnel shall adhere to the following procedures when
reviewing design patent applications drawn to computer-generated
interfaces and icons for compliance with the article of manufacture
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171.
The complete disclosure must be considered when evaluating a design
claim directed to a computer-generated interface or icon. More
specifically, USPTO personnel must read the disclosure to determine
what is claimed as the design and whether the design is for an article
of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel must:
(1) Review the title and claim language to determine whether both
the title and claim adequately describe a design for an article of
manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel must also consider the
following and, where appropriate, make the noted objections and
rejections.
(a) Statutory design subject matter differs from a transient or
disembodied picture or three-dimensional image in that the design is
for, e.g., applied to or embodied in, an article of manufacture. See Ex
parte Strijland, 26 USPQ 2d 1259, 1263 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992); In
re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 209 (CCPA 1931). In addition to the guidance
provided in MPEP 1504, per this supplemental guidance, a claim that
reads, for example, ``icon for display panel,'' ``projected interface
for computer,'' or ``interface for computer system'' also meets the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171 since the term ``for'' indicates that the
claim is not for an interface or icon per se but a design for an
article of manufacture, i.e., ``a thing made by hand or machine.'' See
Samsung, 580 U.S. at 60. Accordingly, examiners will no longer be
instructed that these examples of claim language and titles do not
adequately describe a
[[Page 12397]]
design for an article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. Providing
applicants with this additional flexibility in choosing claim and title
language is in accord with USPTO's expanded understanding of design
patent protection that accounts for advances in technology. Applicants
continue to also have the option of claiming the article according to
prior guidance, e.g., by reciting ``a display panel with computer
icon.''
(b) A computer-generated electronic image that is not a design of
an interface or icon for a computer, computer display, or computer
system and that is not more than a transient or disembodied picture or
three-dimensional image will not satisfy the article of manufacture
requirement under this supplemental guidance, and such a claim should
be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 for failing to comply with the article
of manufacture requirement.
(c) An ``icon,'' as used in this supplemental guidance, refers to a
computer icon and is a visual symbol or image that represents a
computer program, file, application, or function and allows users to
quickly access and interact with various items on their computer
display. Likewise, an ``interface,'' as used in this supplemental
guidance, refers to a computer interface and is the space where
interactions between users and computers, computer displays, and
computer systems occur and encompasses the visual and interactive
elements that users engage with such as pages, screens, buttons, forms,
and other visual components. Accordingly, when a design claim and title
are to a computer-generated interface or icon for an article of
manufacture, e.g., a computer display screen, a computer system, or a
computer, the USPTO considers the terms ``icon,'' ``computer icon,''
``interface,'' ``computer interface,'' ``graphical user interface''
``projected interface'' ``virtual reality interface,'' or ``augmented
reality interface'' in the title and the claim to be indicating that
the image is not merely a displayed transient or disembodied picture or
three-dimensional image because the interface or icon is for a computer
display screen, a computer system, or a computer. Therefore, a claim
and title directed to such terms, e.g., ``computer with projected
interface,'' adequately describes a design for an article of
manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 171. Note that while the underlying article
of manufacture for an icon or interface has functional properties, the
design of the icon or interface itself is not functional, and thus this
subsection is not in tension with, nor does it contradict, the
functionality doctrine, which requires that design patent protection
extend only to the ``ornamental design'' of an article of manufacture.
See 35 U.S.C. 171(a); MPEP 1504.01(c), subsection I.
(d) The following are examples of claim language and titles that
adequately describe a design for an article of manufacture under 35
U.S.C. 171: ``computer screen with an icon,'' ``display panel with
GUI,'' ``display screen or portion thereof with icon,'' ``portion of a
computer screen with an icon,'' ``portion of a display panel with an
icon,'' ``portion of a monitor displayed with an icon,'' ``icon for
display screen,'' ``GUI for display panel,'' ``projected interface for
a computer,'' ``virtual reality interface for a computer,'' ``augmented
reality interface for a computer'' and ``computer icon.'' This list of
examples is not exhaustive.
(e) If it is determined that the claim language and title do not
adequately describe an article of manufacture, the claim and title
should be objected to pursuant to 37 CFR 1.153(a) or 37 CFR 1.1067(a)
for failing to designate a particular article of manufacture, and the
objection should be maintained until the title and the claim language
are appropriately amended. See MPEP Sec. 707.07(e). If the application
fails to provide written description support for a computer-generated
interface or icon, the applicant will not be able to overcome a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171.
(2) Review the specification to determine whether a characteristic
feature statement is present. If a characteristic feature statement is
present, determine whether it describes the claimed subject matter as a
computer-generated interface or icon embodied in a display panel, or
portion thereof. See McGrady v. Aspenglas Corp., 487 F.2d 859, 208 USPQ
242 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (descriptive statement in design patent application
narrows claim scope).
(3) Review the drawing to determine whether a design for an article
of manufacture is shown in sufficient views to fully disclose the
design. See Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure, 62 FR 53132,
53164 (October 10, 1997). Since the claim must be in formal terms to
the design ``as shown, or as shown and described,'' the drawing
provides the best description of the claim. 37 CFR 1.153 or 1.1025; see
Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(``As the Supreme Court has recognized, a design is better represented
by an illustration `than it could be by any description and a
description would probably not be intelligible without the
illustration.' '' (quoting Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)).
Note that the nature of the design (e.g., whether it is 2D or 3D) may
impact what is considered to be a sufficient number of views to fully
disclose the design. See In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
See supra section 1.d. for examples of claim language and titles that
do adequately describe a design for an article of manufacture under 35
U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel must also consider whether the disclosure
as a whole does or does not suggest or describe a design for an article
of manufacture and, where appropriate, make the noted rejections. If
the disclosure as a whole does not suggest or describe a design for an
article of manufacture, then indicate that:
(a) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171, along with a
corresponding explanation of why the current disclosure does not
adequately describe a design for an article of manufacture; and
(b) Any subsequent amendments to the written description, including
the title, drawings and/or claim attempting to overcome the above-noted
35 U.S.C. 171 rejection will ordinarily be entered. However, any new
matter will be required to be canceled from the written description,
drawings and/or claim. If new matter is later added that affects the
claim, the claim should then be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
[[Page 12398]]
(4) Indicate all objections to the disclosure for failure to comply
with the requirements of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases. See,
e.g., 37 CFR 1.71, 1.81-1.85, and 1.152-1.154. Where possible, suggest
amendments that would bring the disclosure into compliance with the
requirements of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases.
(5) Upon reply by applicant:
(a) Enter any appropriate amendments; and
(b) Review all arguments and the entire record, including any
amendments, to determine whether the written description, including the
title, drawings, and/or claim clearly disclose a computer-generated
interface or icon.
(6) After a review of all arguments and the entire record including
amendments, if, by a preponderance of evidence, the applicant has
adequately established that the design is directed to a computer-
generated interface or icon for a computer, computer display, or
computer system, withdraw any outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171
based on failure to comply with the article of manufacture requirement
(see In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)) (``After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record,
by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness
of argument.'').
III. Examples
The following examples illustrate the application of this guidance
for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 171 and do not address all patentability
requirements, including 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112. The following
examples are provided to assist USPTO personnel in determining whether
design patent applications for computer-generated interfaces and icons
comply with the article of manufacture requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171 and
whether other objections are appropriate. Examples 1-4 and 6-10 comply
with 35 U.S.C. 171. Example 5, 11, and 12 do not comply with 35 U.S.C.
171. Note that per this supplemental guidance, section 1504.01(a),
subsection I(C) of the MPEP will be updated to indicate that example 4
as shown here complies with 35 U.S.C. 171, 37 CFR 1.152, and 37 CFR
1.153 (or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications)
because the term ``for'' with an article of manufacture (e.g., computer
display screen) indicates that the claim is not for a transient or
disembodied image but for a design for an article of manufacture. This
change in position is made by the USPTO in an effort to expand the
understanding of design protection in light of advancements in
technology, such as computer-generated interfaces and icons that have
advanced beyond their display on traditional computer display screens
or monitors.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.004
Title: Computer display screen with icon.
Description: The figure is a front view of a computer display
screen with icon, showing the new design. The broken lines showing a
portion of the computer display screen form no part of the claimed
design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a computer display screen with
icon as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for each of the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer
display screen,'' which is an article of manufacture;
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer
display screen with icon,'' which indicates that the image is not
merely a transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image,
but an icon for a computer, computer display, or computer system; and
the drawing depicts the design embodied in a computer
display screen in broken lines.
In addition, the drawing complies with 37 CFR 1.152 as the drawing
contains a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete
disclosure of the appearance of the design, and the title and claim
comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a)
[[Page 12399]]
(or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the
title and claim adequately designate an article of manufacture.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.005
Title: Icon for a computer display screen.
Description: The figure is a front view of an icon for a computer
display screen, showing the new design. The broken lines showing a
portion of the computer display screen form no part of the claimed
design.
Claim: The ornamental design for an icon for a computer display
screen as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer
display screen,'' which is an article of manufacture, and the term
``for'' with ``computer display screen'' indicates that the claim is
not for an icon per se;
the title, claim, and description recite an ``icon for a
computer display screen,'' which indicates that the icon is not merely
a transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image but an
icon for a computer, computer display, or computer system; and
the drawing depicts the design embodied in a computer
display screen in broken lines.
In addition, the drawing complies with 37 CFR 1.152 as the drawing
contains a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete
disclosure of the appearance of the design, and the title and claim
comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international
design applications) because the title and claim adequately designate
an article of manufacture.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.006
Title: Paper stack icon.
Description: The figure is a front view of a computer display
screen with a paper stack icon showing the new design. The broken lines
showing a portion of the computer display screen form no part of the
claimed design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon as shown and
described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 because, based on a review of the complete disclosure, the
description recites a ``computer display screen,'' which is an article
of manufacture, and the icon is for a computer, computer display, or
computer system, such that it is more than a transient or disembodied
picture or three-dimensional image.
However, the title and claim do not comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or
37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the
title and claim do not identify an article of manufacture.
Because the original disclosure provides support for a computer
display screen as the article of manufacture, the application could be
amended to read as follows:
[[Page 12400]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.007
Title: Paper stack icon for computer display screen.
Description: The figure is a front view of a computer display
screen with a paper stack icon showing the new design. The broken lines
showing a portion of the computer display screen form no part of the
claimed design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon for a computer
display screen as shown and described.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.008
Title: Paper stack icon for a computer display screen.
Description: The figure is a front view of a paper stack icon for a
computer display screen showing the new design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon for a computer
display screen as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer
display screen'' which is an article of manufacture and
the term ``for'' with ``computer display screen''
indicates that the claim is not for an icon per se;
the title, claim, and description recite an ``icon for a
computer display screen,'' which indicates that the icon is not merely
a transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image, but an
icon for a computer, computer display, or computer system.
In addition, the drawing complies with 37 CFR 1.152 as the drawing
contains a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete
disclosure of the appearance of the design as embodied in the disclosed
article and the title and claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or 37 CFR
1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the title and
claim adequately designate an article of manufacture.
Applicants are advised that the scope of the claim will be limited
to the overall appearance shown in the figures. 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 clarity
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.009
Title: Paper stack icon.
Description: The figure is a front view of a paper stack icon
showing the new design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a paper stack icon as shown and
described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example does not comply
with 35 U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
none of the title, claim, and description recite an
article of manufacture; and
the drawing also does not depict an article of
manufacture.
Because no article of manufacture is disclosed in the application,
the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171, as set forth in
subsection I.B above.
In addition, the title and claim should be objected to pursuant to
37 CFR 1.153(a) (or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design
applications) for
[[Page 12401]]
failing to designate a particular article of manufacture.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.010
Title: Projected paper stack icon for a computer.
Description: The figure is a front view of a projected paper stack
icon for a computer showing the new design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a projected paper stack icon for a
computer as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer,''
which is an article of manufacture upon which the design relies for its
existence;
the term ``for'' with ``computer'' indicates that the
claim is not for a transient or disembodied image per se; and
the title, claim, and description recite an ``icon for a
computer,'' which indicates that the icon is not merely a transient or
disembodied picture or three-dimensional image but an icon for a
computer, computer display, or computer system.
For purposes of this example regarding whether the design satisfies
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171, it is assumed that the figure
provides a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design as
required by 37 CFR 1.152. Applicants should remain mindful to provide a
sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the
appearance of the design as required by 37 CFR 1.152.
In addition, the title and claim adequately designate an article of
manufacture.
Applicants are advised that the scope of the claim will be limited
to the overall appearance shown in the figures. For example, the scope
of the claim may not protect the appearance of the projected icon on a
curved or irregular surface. 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 clarity requirements of 35
U.S.C. 112.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.011
Title: Projected keyboard interface for a computer.
Description: The figure is a perspective view of a projected
keyboard interface for a computer showing the new design. The broken
lines showing the computer form no part of the claimed design. The
projected broken lines form no part of the claimed design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a projected keyboard interface for
a computer as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer,''
which is an article of manufacture upon which the design relies for its
existence, and the term ``for'' with ``computer'' indicates that the
claim is not for a transient or disembodied image per se; and
the title, claim, and description recite a keyboard
``interface for a computer,'' which by definition is not merely a
transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image but an
interface for a computer, computer display, or computer system; and
the drawing depicts the computer (shown in broken lines)
that projects the design.
For the purposes of this example regarding whether the design
satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171, it is assumed that the
figure provides a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design
as required by 37 CFR 1.152. Applicants should remain mindful to
provide a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete
disclosure of the appearance of the design as required by 37 CFR 1.152.
In addition, the title and claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or 37
CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the title
and claim
[[Page 12402]]
adequately designate an article of manufacture.
Applicants are advised that the scope of the claim will be limited
to the overall appearance shown in the figures. For example, the scope
of the claim may not protect the appearance of the projected interface
on a curved or irregular surface. Applicants should also keep in mind
that a design shown and described in the manner illustrated by this
example must still comply with the enablement and clarity requirements
of 35 U.S.C. 112.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.012
Title: Projected interface for a computer system
Description: The figure is a perspective view of a projected
interface for a computer system showing the new design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a projected interface for a
computer system as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``computer
system,'' which is an article of manufacture on which the design relies
upon for its existence, and the term ``for'' with ``computer system''
indicates that the claim is not for a transient or disembodied image
per se; and
the title, claim, and description recite an ``interface
for a computer system,'' which by definition is not merely a transient
or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image but an interface for
a computer, computer display, or computer system.
For purposes of this example regarding whether the design satisfies
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171, it is assumed that the figure
provides a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design as
required by 37 CFR 1.152. Applicants should remain mindful to provide a
sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the
appearance of the design as required by 37 CFR 1.152.
Applicants are advised that the scope of the claim will be limited
to the overall appearance shown in the figures. For example, the scope
of the claim may not protect the appearance of the projected interface
on a curved or irregular surface. Applicants should also keep in mind
that a design shown and described in the manner illustrated by this
example must still comply with the enablement and clarity requirements
of 35 U.S.C. 112.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.013
Title: Graphical User Interface for a computer.
Description: The figure is a front view of a graphical user
interface for a computer showing the new design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a
computer as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``graphical
user interface for a computer'' which, by definition, is not merely a
transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional image but an
interface for a computer, computer display, or computer system.
For purposes of this example regarding whether the design satisfies
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171, it is assumed that the figure
provides a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design as
required by 37 CFR 1.152. Applicants should remain mindful to provide a
sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the
appearance of the design as required by 37 CFR 1.152.
In addition, the title and claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or 37
CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the title
and claim
[[Page 12403]]
adequately designate an article of manufacture upon which the design
relies for its existence through reference to the ``graphical user
interface for a computer''.
Applicants are advised that the scope of the claim will be limited
to the overall appearance shown in the figures. For example, the scope
of the claim may not protect the appearance of the graphical user
interface on a curved or irregular surface. Applicants should also keep
in mind that a design shown and described in the manner illustrated by
this example must still comply with the enablement and clarity
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.014
BILLING CODE 3510-16-C
Title: Virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer.
Description: Fig. 1 is a top-down view of a virtual reality
motorcycle interface for a computer showing the new design; Fig. 2 is a
front view thereof; Fig. 3 is a perspective view thereof. Figures 1-3
disclose the complete 3-dimensional virtual appearance of the design
claimed.
Claim: The ornamental design for a virtual reality motorcycle
interface for a computer as shown and described.
For purposes of this example, it is assumed that Figs. 1-3 provide
a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the
appearance of the design as required by 37 CFR 1.152. But, as explained
herein, the applicant must ensure that a sufficient disclosure is
present for a design in the application as filed.
As presented, the claimed design in this example complies with 35
U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
the title, claim, and description recite a ``a computer''
and a computer is an article of manufacture on which the design relies
upon for its existence; the term ``for'' with ``computer'' indicates
that the claim is not for a transient or disembodied image per se; and
the title, claim, and description recite a ``virtual
reality motorcycle interface for a computer,'' which by definition is
not merely a transient or disembodied picture or three-dimensional
image but an interface for a computer, computer display, or computer
system.
For purposes of this example regarding whether the design satisfies
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171, it is assumed that Figs. 1-3 provide
a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the
appearance of the design as required by 37 CFR 1.152. Applicants should
remain mindful to provide a sufficient number of views to constitute a
complete disclosure of the appearance of the design as required by 37
CFR 1.152.
In addition, the title and claim comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) (or 37
CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the title
and claim adequately designate an article of manufacture through
reference to ``a computer''.
[[Page 12404]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.015
Title: Virtual Reality Motorcycle Interface.
Description: Fig. 1 is a top-down view of a virtual reality
motorcycle interface showing the new design; Fig. 2 is a front view
thereof; Fig. 3 is a perspective view thereof.
Claim: The ornamental design for a virtual reality motorcycle
interface as shown and described.
As presented, the claimed design in this example does not comply
with 35 U.S.C. 171 for the following reasons:
none of the title, claim, and description recite an
article of manufacture; and
the drawings also do not depict an article of manufacture.
Therefore, no article of manufacture is disclosed in the
application.
In addition, the title and claim do not comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a)
(or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the
title and claim do not identify an article of manufacture.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13MR26.016
[[Page 12405]]
Title: Digital motorcycle picture.
Description: Fig. 1 is a perspective view a digital motorcycle
picture showing the new design.
Claim: The ornamental design for a motorcycle picture as shown and
described.
Analysis: The claimed design does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 171 for
the following reasons:
none of the title, claim, and description recite an
article of manufacture;
the drawing, when read in light of the title, claim and
description, also does not depict an article of manufacture; and
the picture appears to be a transient or disembodied
image.
Therefore, no article of manufacture is disclosed in the
application.
In addition, the title and claim do not comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a)
(or 37 CFR 1.1067(a) for international design applications) because the
title and claim do not identify an article of manufacture.
John A. Squires,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2026-04987 Filed 3-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P