No More Display Screens in the Drawings: The Quiet Revolution in Design Patent Law

On March 13, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published supplemental guidance for the examination of design patent applications related to computer-generated interfaces and icons (91 FR 12394), effective immediately. The core change is straightforward: design patent applicants for GUIs and icons are no longer required to depict a physical display screen in their drawings.

Under the prior examination practice codified in MPEP 1504.01(a), applicants seeking design patents for computer-generated icons or interfaces were expected to include a display panel—or a portion thereof—in solid or broken lines in their drawings. This requirement stemmed from 35 U.S.C. § 171, which limits design patent protection to ornamental designs applied to an “article of manufacture.” As long as digital interfaces were displayed on physical screens, the screen drawing served as evidence tying the design to a tangible article.

The new guidance eliminates this screen-depiction requirement, subject to one condition: the application’s title and claim must adequately identify an article of manufacture—a computer, computer display, or computer system. In other words, the “article of manufacture” nexus is maintained through language rather than through visual depiction. Acceptable formulations include “Icon for a display screen,” “Graphical user interface for a computer,” “Projected interface for a computer system,” and “Virtual reality interface for a computer.”

The USPTO grounds this change in the Supreme Court’s decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (580 U.S. 53, 2016), which confirmed that the term “article of manufacture” carries a broad meaning and can encompass components of a product, not just the product as a whole. Under this expansive reading, GUI designs can qualify as designs for articles of manufacture without requiring a physical display screen in the drawings.

The most consequential aspect of the guidance is its explicit recognition of emerging display technologies. The USPTO now clearly states that the following interface types qualify as patent-eligible subject matter when tied to a computer system: projected interfaces (UIs displayed on walls or surfaces), holographic interfaces, virtual reality (VR) interfaces, and augmented reality (AR) interfaces. These are distinguished from “transient” designs—images that are not visual characteristics of an article of manufacture—and are treated as patent-eligible.

This directly impacts the major players in spatial computing. Apple is rapidly expanding spatial UI design for Vision Pro. Meta is building mixed-reality interfaces across its Quest platform. Snap is commercializing AR overlays through Spectacles. For all of these companies, design patents for screen-independent interfaces can now be filed with simpler drawings and more flexible claim structures. The reduced drafting burden and broader title options give applicants greater control over the scope of protection they seek.

Japanese companies should take note. Sony is developing immersive UIs for PlayStation VR2, and Panasonic is deploying industrial AR solutions. The elimination of the display-screen requirement in U.S. design patent filings reduces drafting overhead and introduces new flexibility in defining the scope of protection. Japan’s own Design Act, amended in 2019 to expand protection for image-based designs, still retains an “article” requirement. The USPTO’s new guidance signals that the U.S. is moving ahead in adapting design protection for the spatial computing era, potentially prompting Japan’s Patent Office—which revised its examination guidelines in April 2026—to consider further updates.

The USPTO is accepting public comments on this guidance for 60 days from publication, with a deadline of May 12, 2026. The guidance will be incorporated into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), 9th Edition. While technically an internal examination directive rather than substantive rulemaking, its practical effect is to liberate the concept of “article of manufacture” from physical constraints. What changed when the display screen disappeared from the drawings was not just a drafting formality. It was the quiet expansion of what design patents are for.