On March 13, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer Generated Interfaces and Icons confirming that interfaces in newer digital design formats such as projected, virtual, and augmented reality are patent eligible. In addition, The Guidance increases the flexibility in titles and claims for designs directed to interfaces and removes the requirement to depict a display in the drawings. The changes raise several practical implications for applicants.
Key Takeaways From The Guidance
- Expanded design patent eligibility: The USPTO now expressly recognizes projected, holographic, VR, and AR interfaces (PHVAR) as patent eligible design subject matter when properly claimed.
- “For” claim language accepted: Claims and titles stating an interface or icon is “for” a computer, computer system, or display are sufficient to satisfy the article of manufacture requirement.
- No display panel required: GUI and icon designs no longer must depict a display panel in the drawings, provided the claim and title properly identify the article of manufacture.
Why It Matters to Industry
The USPTO’s expanded guidance is especially impactful for industries where innovation increasingly centers on digital, projected, and immersive user interfaces. Medical device companies can more confidently protect projected, touchless, and augmented reality interfaces used in clinical and surgical environments, while automotive manufacturers and suppliers may seek design protection for heads up displays, projected dashboards, and virtual cockpit experiences that are not confined to traditional instrument panels. Likewise, video game developers benefit from clearer pathways to design patent protection for virtual, three dimensional, and spatial interfaces—such as in game HUDs and immersive menus—that define user experience but may not appear on a conventional screen.
Practical Implications for Applicants
This Guidance is most useful when translated into filing decisions, and those decisions differ depending on whether you are filing a new application or managing a pending one. In new filings, applicants have immediate flexibility to modernize GUI/PHVAR templates and to build a repeatable capture process for immersive interfaces. For new filings, consider:
- Draft the title/claim to clearly anchor the design to an article of manufacture. Use the now accepted “for” formulations where appropriate (e.g., “icon for a computer display screen,” or “projected interface for a computer system”) and keep title and claim terminology consistent.
- Choose a drawings strategy deliberately (display panel optional). Decide whether depicting a display panel adds useful context or improves enforceability. If you omit the panel, ensure the title and claim do the work of identifying the article of manufacture and that the figures remain clear and complete.
- For PHVAR interfaces, capture the design in a repeatable form. Build an internal capture package (screenshots/renders/mockups) that reflects what a user perceives in the projected/virtual/AR environment.
- Consider multiple filings (and partial designs) for complex GUIs. If the experience includes key states (login, menu, HUD, settings) or modular components, separate applications can provide more resilient coverage than trying to capture everything in one set of figures. Partial design practice and broken lines can help focus protection on what matters most.
In pending matters, options are more limited. Amendments must be supported by the original disclosure to avoid raising new matter. For pending applications (and continuations), consider:
- Amend title/claim language where procedurally available to take advantage of the clarified “for” formulations. In cases that have not yet issued, applicants may be able to adjust claim/title language to more directly identify an article of manufacture and to address (or preempt) an examiner’s article of manufacture objection.
- Evaluate whether drawings changes are needed—and whether they are supported by the original disclosure. While the Guidance removes the need to show a display panel, changes to figures in a pending case should be approached carefully to avoid introducing new matter. Where the originally filed figures already support your preferred approach, consider amendments that improve clarity and align the figures with the title/claim strategy.
- Reframe responses to article of manufacture objections using the Guidance’s reasoning. Where examiners raise “transitory” or “disembodied” concerns for computer generated interfaces, applicants should align arguments with the Guidance’s confirmation that properly claimed GUIs/icons—including PHVAR interfaces—can satisfy § 171 when tied to an article of manufacture.
