Untethered: USPTO Loosens the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Digital Designs

Design Patent, Patent

The USPTO today published new examination guidance that relaxes the rules for obtaining design patents on computer-generated interfaces and icons, completing a policy arc that began with a 2020 request for public comment on the meaning of "article of manufacture" in 35 U.S.C. § 171. Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons, Docket No. PTO-P-2026-0133 (Mar. 13, 2026). The guidance makes three practical changes that design patent prosecutors should take note of immediately.

  • First, it removes the longstanding requirement in MPEP § 1504.01(a) that drawings depict a display panel or portion thereof in solid or broken lines for applications directed to computer-generated interfaces or icons, so long as the title and claim properly identify an article of manufacture.
  • Second, it reverses the 2023 position on claim language, now holding that titles and claims using the preposition "for" (such as "icon for display screen" or "projected interface for computer") adequately describe a design for an article of manufacture under § 171.
  • Third, it extends design patent eligibility to projected and holographic interfaces and to virtual and augmented reality designs for computers and computer systems.

Under the old practice, the claim put the article of manufacture first and described the GUI as being "with" or "on" it: "The ornamental design for a display screen or a portion thereof with a graphical user interface, as shown and described." And the drawings had to include a broken-line border showing the display panel. Under the new guidance, applicants now have the option to flip the grammar so the design element leads and the article follows the word "for": "The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a display screen, as shown and described." Or broader still: "The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a computer, as shown and described." The guidance also accepts "computer icon" standing alone as adequate claim language, since the word "computer" in that compound term is treated as identifying the article of manufacture.

GUI Design Patents Are Growing — But So Is Everything Else
U.S. design patents issued for graphical user interfaces, icons & display screens (2011–2025)
Source: USPTO Patent Public Search (calendar year grant dates)GUI patents classified in USPC D14/485–495
PATENTLY-O
27,660
Total GUI Patents2011–25
2,787
2025GUI Patents
3,111
Peak Year2016
5%
2025GUI Share

(function(){ var container=document.getElementById('gui-chart-container'); var cvs=document.createElement('canvas'); cvs.id='gui-chart-canvas'; cvs.style.width='100%'; cvs.style.height='380px'; container.appendChild(cvs); var btnDiv=document.getElementById('gui-chart-buttons'); var btnC=document.createElement('button'); btnC.id='btn-count'; btnC.textContent='Count + Share'; btnC.style.cssText='padding:5px 14px;font-size:11.5px;font-weight:700;background:#1a1a1a;color:#fff;border:1px solid #ccc;border-radius:3px 0 0 3px;cursor:pointer;font-family:inherit;'; var btnT=document.createElement('button'); btnT.id='btn-totals'; btnT.textContent='GUI vs. Total'; btnT.style.cssText='padding:5px 14px;font-size:11.5px;font-weight:400;background:#fafafa;color:#555;border:1px solid #ccc;border-left:none;border-radius:0 3px 3px 0;cursor:pointer;font-family:inherit;'; btnDiv.appendChild(btnC); btnDiv.appendChild(btnT); btnC.addEventListener('click',function(){showChart('count');}); btnT.addEventListener('click',function(){showChart('totals');}); var labels=[2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2022,2023,2024,2025]; var gui=[367,540,975,1082,1488,3111,2132,1729,1800,1877,2170,2121,1468,2003,2787]; var total=[21356,21951,23468,23657,25986,28873,30870,30497,34808,34906,33167,34174,35189,46966,51652]; var pct=[2,2,4,5,6,11,7,6,5,5,7,6,4,4,5]; var ctx=cvs.getContext('2d'); var currentChart=null; window.showChart=function(view){ if(currentChart)currentChart.destroy(); if(view==='count'){ btnC.style.background='#1a1a1a';btnC.style.color='#fff';btnC.style.fontWeight='700'; btnT.style.background='#fafafa';btnT.style.color='#555';btnT.style.fontWeight='400'; currentChart=new Chart(ctx,{ type:'bar', data:{labels:labels,datasets:[ {label:'GUI Design Patents',data:gui,backgroundColor:'rgba(194,54,22,0.85)',borderRadius:2,barPercentage:0.7,yAxisID:'y',order:2}, {label:'% of All Design Patents',data:pct,type:'line',borderColor:'#2980b9',backgroundColor:'#2980b9',borderWidth:2.5,pointRadius:4,pointBackgroundColor:'#2980b9',pointBorderColor:'#fff',pointBorderWidth:2,tension:0.25,yAxisID:'y1',order:1} ]}, options:{responsive:true,maintainAspectRatio:false,interaction:{mode:'index',intersect:false}, plugins:{legend:{display:true,position:'bottom',labels:{font:{size:11},boxWidth:12,padding:16}}, tooltip:{backgroundColor:'#fff',titleColor:'#1a1a1a',bodyColor:'#333',borderColor:'#ddd',borderWidth:1,titleFont:{weight:'bold',size:13},bodyFont:{size:12},padding:10, callbacks:{label:function(c){return c.dataset.yAxisID==='y1'?' GUI Share: '+c.parsed.y+'%':' GUI Patents: '+c.parsed.y.toLocaleString();}}}}, scales:{x:{grid:{display:false},ticks:{font:{size:11}}}, y:{position:'left',grid:{color:'#eee'},ticks:{font:{size:10.5},callback:function(v){return v.toLocaleString();}},title:{display:true,text:'GUI Design Patents Issued',font:{size:11},color:'#888'}}, y1:{position:'right',grid:{drawOnChartArea:false},ticks:{font:{size:10.5,color:'#2980b9'},callback:function(v){return v+'%';}},title:{display:true,text:'Share of All Design Patents',font:{size:11},color:'#2980b9'},min:0,max:14}}} }); } else { btnT.style.background='#1a1a1a';btnT.style.color='#fff';btnT.style.fontWeight='700'; btnC.style.background='#fafafa';btnC.style.color='#555';btnC.style.fontWeight='400'; currentChart=new Chart(ctx,{ type:'bar', data:{labels:labels,datasets:[ {label:'Total Design Patents',data:total,type:'line',borderColor:'#aaa',backgroundColor:'rgba(200,200,200,0.3)',borderWidth:1.5,pointRadius:3,pointBackgroundColor:'#aaa',fill:true,tension:0.25,order:1}, {label:'GUI Design Patents',data:gui,backgroundColor:'rgba(194,54,22,0.88)',borderRadius:2,barPercentage:0.65,order:2} ]}, options:{responsive:true,maintainAspectRatio:false,interaction:{mode:'index',intersect:false}, plugins:{legend:{display:true,position:'bottom',labels:{font:{size:11},boxWidth:12,padding:16}}, tooltip:{backgroundColor:'#fff',titleColor:'#1a1a1a',bodyColor:'#333',borderColor:'#ddd',borderWidth:1,titleFont:{weight:'bold',size:13},bodyFont:{size:12},padding:10, callbacks:{label:function(c){return ' '+c.dataset.label+': '+c.parsed.y.toLocaleString();}}}}, scales:{x:{grid:{display:false},ticks:{font:{size:11}}}, y:{grid:{color:'#eee'},ticks:{font:{size:10.5},callback:function(v){return v>=1000?(v/1000)+'k':v;}},title:{display:true,text:'Design Patents Issued',font:{size:11},color:'#888'}}}} }); } }; showChart('count'); })();

This new guidance gives applicants (at least) two additional degrees of freedom.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Guest Post: Design Patents at the ITC

Design Patent, ITC, Patent

By Sarah Fackrell, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law

In the Matter of Certain Cameras, Camera Systems, and Accessories Used Therewith, No. 337-TA-1400 (ITC 2026).

Last week, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order in a dispute between GoPro, Inc. and Arashi Vision, Inc. (d/b/a Insta360). The order covered “certain cameras and camera systems” which, in the Commission’s view, infringed U.S. Patent No. D789,435.  In reaching this conclusion, the ITC appears to be requiring a much lower standard of visual similarity than the Federal Circuit does.

In deciding that the D’435 patent was infringed, the Commission affirmed—without  further discussion—the finding of infringement in the Initial Determination that was issued by ALJ Doris Johnson Hines on July 10, 2025. In that decision, Judge Hines seems to have been persuaded to not only require a lower overall level of similarity than the Federal Circuit currently requires, but to also effectively ignore several claimed design elements, disregarding them as visually “minor,” “trivial,” or otherwise unimportant.

It is true that there is a longstanding line of Federal Circuit cases saying that “minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement.” See Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). But that doesn’t—and shouldn’t—mean that a judge (or a jury) can completely read claimed visual elements out of a design patent claim. (For more on how I’m using the word “element” here, see Intelligent Design & Egyptian Goddess, 68 Duke L.J. Online 94, 109 (2019)).

For example, consider this image (from GoPro’s expert report) that Judge Hines included in her decision:

(more…)