USPTO Modernizes Design Patent Examination for GUIs, Icons, and VR/AR – Dropping the Strijland-Era Screen Requirement

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published its Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons in the Federal Register on March 13, 2026 (91 FR 12394). The public comment period closed at midnight on May 12, 2026, and the Office will finalize practice after reviewing the submissions. The guidance represents a substantive departure from the 1992 Board decision in Ex parte Strijland and the MPEP 1504.01(a) framework that has governed graphical user interface (GUI) prosecution in the United States for more than three decades.

The most consequential change is the elimination of the requirement that drawings depict a display panel in either solid or broken lines. Under the prior regime, satisfying the “article of manufacture” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 171 effectively forced applicants to treat a GUI or icon as surface ornamentation applied to a physical screen. The customary practice was to draw a laptop, monitor, or smartphone housing in broken lines and place the claimed GUI on its display.

In place of that drawing convention, the new guidance shifts the burden to the title and claim language. An applicant cannot simply claim “an icon” or “a graphical user interface.” The application must make explicit that the design is for a computer or computer system. Acceptable formulations include “Graphical user interface for a computer” or simply “Computer icon.” The Office characterizes this not as a change in the law but as a modernized interpretation of § 171 that reflects the reality of contemporary computing.

A second major development is the explicit recognition of design protection for Projections, Holograms, and Virtual/Augmented Reality interfaces — collectively, PHVAR. Digital design has moved well beyond flat-panel monitors, and applicants are increasingly filing for projected interfaces and three-dimensional spatial computing environments. By untethering the claimed GUI from a physical display, the USPTO is opening a viable path for U.S. design protection of VR and AR interfaces.

The guidance revives the 1967 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals decision In re Hruby, which held that a water fountain design was patent-eligible despite depending on water pressure and plumbing external to the claimed design itself. The USPTO applies the same logic to digital designs: the dependence of a computer-generated interface on a CPU and software is not, by itself, a basis to reject the claim under § 171. Example 10 in the Notice, a “Virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer,” is treated as fully statutory even if the figures show only the three-dimensional virtual elements with no physical headset or screen.

The practical implications are broad. First, the documentation burden for software and UI design applications drops materially. Applicants can omit the obligatory broken-line housing and direct the figures to the GUI itself. Second, design protection strategies for the metaverse, spatial computing, and head-mounted display interfaces become realistic options. Filers who previously risked rejection on the ground that no physical display was depicted gain meaningful predictability in the U.S. market.

Third, U.S. design practice moves closer — at least formally — to the GUI design regimes in Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has long permitted standalone registration of GUIs and icons under the Registered Community Design system. The Japan Patent Office’s 2019 design law amendment and the operational guidelines that took effect in April 2020 expanded image design protection along similar lines. Narrowing the gap between the U.S. system and these major jurisdictions should help companies with global portfolios standardize their filing strategies.

Several transition questions remain. The relationship between the new framework and existing applications or registered designs prosecuted under MPEP 1504.01(a) is not fully resolved, the scope of § 171 may face renewed litigation, and individual examiner interpretation during the transition period bears watching. The USPTO is expected to update the MPEP formally after considering the comments, and the timing and substance of that revision will be the next milestone. For foreign applicants — Japanese companies among them — the moment is right to reassess U.S. design filing strategy and to re-evaluate filing opportunities in PHVAR domains.