docketing@steinip.com
By Thabiso Mutumhe
I. Introduction
On March 13, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published supplemental examination guidance that materially loosens the rules for obtaining design patents on graphical user interfaces, icons, and other computer-generated visual elements.[1] The guidance completes a policy trajectory that began with a 2020 request for public comment on the meaning of “article of manufacture” under 35 U.S.C. § 171 and marks the agency’s most significant relaxation of the article-of-manufacture requirement in over a decade.[2] 
II. Background: The Article-of-Manufacture Tether
Section 171 of the Patent Act limits design patent protection to “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.”[3] Because GUIs and icons are not tangible objects, the USPTO has historically required applicants to tether them to a physical article, typically a display screen or monitor, in both the claim language and the drawings.[4] Under prior practice codified in MPEP § 1504.01(a), applicants were required to depict a display panel in the drawings (shown in solid or broken lines) and to use claim language that placed the article of manufacture first: “The ornamental design for a display screen or a portion thereof with a graphical user interface, as shown and described.”[5]
This formulation treated the GUI as an ornamental feature of the display screen, rather than as a design for a display screen. The distinction determined the scope of what the design patent actually claimed and, by extension, shaped the infringement and damages analyses.[6]
III. The Three Changes
A. Elimination of the Display Panel Drawing Requirement
The guidance removes the longstanding requirement that drawings depict a display panel or portion thereof in solid or broken lines for applications directed to computer-generated interfaces or icons.[7] Under the old regime, the broken-line border served as the visual link between the ornamental design and its article of manufacture. Going forward, the title and claim language alone can carry that burden, provided they “properly identify an article of manufacture.”[8]
This change is the most practically significant of the three changes. The guidance streamlines drafting, reduces the risk of drawing-based rejections under § 112, and eliminates a formal requirement that added complexity without necessarily adding clarity to the prosecution record.[9]
B. Reversal on “For” Claim Language
The 2026 guidance reverses the agency’s 2023 position on the permissible grammar of design patent claims. Where the old practice required the article of manufacture to appear first (“display screen ... with a graphical user interface”), the guidance now expressly permits applicants to lead with the design element and connect it to the article using the preposition “for”: “The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a display screen, as shown and described.”[10]
The guidance also accepts broader formulations. An applicant may claim “the ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a computer, as shown and described,” omitting the display screen reference entirely. Similarly, “computer icon” is now treated as self-sufficient claim language, because the compound term inherently identifies a computer as the article of manufacture.[11]
The guidance provides the following acceptable examples of using the term for in connection with an article of manufacture:
- Icon for display screen
- GUI for display panel
- Projected interface for a computer
- Virtual reality interface for a computer[12]
C. Extension to Projected, Holographic, and XR Designs
Finally, the guidance extends design patent eligibility to projected and holographic interfaces and to virtual and augmented reality designs for computers and computer systems.[13] This is a forward-looking recognition that the screen is no longer the only surface on which a computer-generated interface appears. As augmented reality headsets, spatial computing platforms, and holographic displays proliferate, tethering a GUI design patent to a “display screen” would increasingly cabin the statute in ways that misalign with commercial reality.
IV. GUI Design Patents in Context
The relaxation arrives against a backdrop of steady growth in GUI-related design patenting. According to USPTO data compiled by Patently-O, roughly 27,660 GUI design patents issued between 2011 and 2025, with annual counts peaking at 3,111 in 2016 and rebounding to 2,787 in 2025 after a mid-decade dip.[14] However, as a share of total design patents, GUI patents have remained relatively stable at approximately five percent, suggesting that the growth in GUI patents has tracked, rather than outpaced, the broader expansion of the design patent system.[15] The new guidance may accelerate GUI design patent filings by lowering drafting costs and broadening eligible subject matter, but whether it materially shifts the GUI share of overall design patent volume remains to be seen.
References
[1] Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons, Docket No. PTO-P-2026-0133 (Mar. 13, 2026) [hereinafter 2026 Supplemental Guidance].
[2] See 35 U.S.C. § 171(a) (2024); Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions, 85 Fed. Reg. 64,132 (Oct. 9, 2020); see also Design Patent Application Guide, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., MPEP § 1504.01(a) (9th ed., Rev. 10, 2023).
[3] 35 U.S.C. § 171(a) (2024).
[4] MPEP § 1504.01(a) (9th ed., Rev. 10, 2023).
[5] 2026 Supplemental Guidance, supra note 1.
[6] See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53, 61–62 (2016) (interpreting “article of manufacture” broadly for design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289).
[7] 2026 Supplemental Guidance, supra note 1.
[8] Id.
[9] Compare MPEP § 1504.01(a) (9th ed., Rev. 10, 2023) (requiring display panel shown in broken or solid lines), with 2026 Supplemental Guidance, supra note 1 (eliminating that requirement).
[10] 2026 Supplemental Guidance, supra note 1.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Dennis Crouch, Untethered: USPTO Loosens the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Digital Designs, Patently-O (Mar. 12, 2026), https://patentlyo.com/patent/2026/03/untethered-uspto-loosens-the-article-of-manufacture-requirement-for-digital-designs.html.
[15] Id.