Design Patents for Software Interfaces

Written from 35 U.S.C. 171 and USPTO supplemental guidance at 91 FR 12394, effective 13 March 2026. The statute is law. The guidance is not: it says in its own text that it does not have the force and effect of law. Current as of 29 September 2026.

What changed

A design application for a computer-generated interface or icon no longer has to depict a display panel in the drawings, provided the title and the claim both identify the article of manufacture. The requirement did not disappear. It moved from the drawings into the words.

A design patent protects the way a thing looks. The statutory hook is short, and every word of it is doing work:

"Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor" (35 U.S.C. 171(a)).

The phrase that decides whether a screen interface qualifies is for an article of manufacture. A design floating free of any article is not eligible, and for two decades the Patent Office implemented that requirement through the drawings: show the screen the interface sits on, in solid or broken lines, or expect an objection.

Guidance effective 13 March 2026 removed that. Nothing in the statute changed, because nothing in the statute ever mentioned display panels.

What the Guidance Did

The change, from 91 FR 12394, effective 13 March 2026 and applying to applications filed before, on or after that date. As of 29 September 2026.
Before After
The drawings Had to depict a display panel, in solid or broken lines, for a design directed to an icon or GUI "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"
If the article is named but not drawn Objection "the claim will be considered complia[nt]"
Examiner instruction Object under the drawing requirement Examiners "will no longer be instructed to object to such claims and titles under 37 CFR 1.153"
Drawing the panel anyway Required Still permitted. A requirement was removed, not reversed

The examples the notice gives of an article properly identified are a computer, a computer system, and a computer display panel.

The Requirement Moved, It Did Not Go Away

The drafting burden shifted from the illustrator to the words. The article of manufacture requirement did not go away. It used to be met by depicting the display panel; now the title and the claim carry it, and "properly identify" is the whole test. What the notice does not say is how much identifying is enough.

What counts as properly identifying is not defined in the notice. It gives examples and no rule, which is the honest state of it.

The guidance also came from somewhere. The Office asked in 2020 "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." It issued guidance in November 2023 on whether "a design claim including a computer-generated electronic image constitutes statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171." This supplements that, rather than replacing it, so the two are read together.

The stated reason for moving now is plain: the Office "has recently received feedback that previously-issued guidance may unnecessarily limit flexibility for design applicants in the field of computer-generated interfaces and icons."

What This Does Not Decide

This is guidance, and it says so itself. "This guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and hence does not have the force and effect of law." It tells examiners what to accept. It does not bind a court later asked whether a granted design patent claims eligible subject matter under section 171.
  • It does not say whether any particular interface, icon or design is protectable.
  • It does not define what properly identifying the article of manufacture means.
  • It has nothing to do with utility patents, section 101, or whether the function behind an interface is patentable. A design patent covers appearance.
  • Design patents have their own obviousness test, which the Federal Circuit reset in LKQ v. GM. Eligibility and obviousness are different questions.
  • What a drawing must look like, when one is filed, is 37 C.F.R. 1.84, which this guidance does not touch.

Educational, not legal advice. Whether a design is eligible, and how to claim it, is work for a registered practitioner with the design in front of them.

Sources

  • 35 U.S.C. 171, Patents for designs
  • Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons, 91 FR 12394 (Mar. 13, 2026)
  • Supplemental guidance on computer-generated electronic images (Nov. 17, 2023), which this supplements
  • LKQ v. GM: design patent obviousness, reset

Related

LKQ v. GM Design patents became easier to challenge when the near-identical-reference requirement went away. That cuts in both directions, including yours. Read the Case Drawing rules and colour A coloured architecture diagram is not a small formatting choice. Read the Page How your application is put together Format rules sound like housekeeping and two of these are not. Engineers get the flow-chart rule wrong by default, because putting a diagram beside its explanation is correct everywhere else. Read the Cluster Software Patents After Alice Alice changed the rules, not the game. 58% of software patents still get approved. A guide to what survives, prosecution strategies, and what developers should document. Read the Guide