Broken Lines are Dashed: USPTO Finally Modernizes Design Patent Guidance for GUIs, VR and AR

For years, design patent practitioners dealing with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and icons have been shackled to the ghost of Ex parte Strijland. If you wanted to get a case through the USPTO for a GUI or an icon, you had to meticulously include a broken line depicting a display screen or monitor. Under the old MPEP 1504.01(a) regime, the effect of the GUI was treated essentially as surface ornamentation applied to that specific physical screen to satisfy the “article of manufacture” requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 171.

While the rest of the world modernized its design systems to recognize that software interfaces exist independently of traditional monitors, the United States has lagged in this area. The Office put out a request for comments a few years ago, but nothing came from it. Now, progress has finally arrived. On March 13, 2026, the USPTO formally published its Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons (91 FR 12394). Public comments are due by midnight on May 12, 2026.

The Death of the Mandatory Broken-Line Screen

The most immediate practice change is that the Office is officially removing the MPEP requirement that drawings depict a display panel in solid or broken lines. However, the USPTO didn’t just open the floodgates to patenting disembodied images. They picked a middle ground: to satisfy the Section 171 article of manufacture requirement without drawing a screen, the burden now shifts to the title and claim language. You cannot simply claim an “icon” or a “graphical user interface.” You must make it explicitly clear in the application that the design is for a computer or computer system.

Under the new guidance, applicants should still designate the article of manufacture within the title or claim. But “Graphical user interface for a computer” or simply “Computer icon” are now perfectly acceptable. You no longer need to wrap everything in broken lines and rely on clunky phrasing like “Display screen with a graphical user interface.” The Office notes that this isn’t a change in the law; rather, it’s a modernized interpretation of Section 171 that acknowledges what computers and user interfaces actually are today.

Opening the Door for VR, AR and Holograms (PHVAR)

Another interesting development in the Notice is the explicit protection afforded to Projections, Holograms, and Virtual/Augmented Reality (PHVAR).  Digital designs have advanced far beyond traditional flat-panel monitors, and applicants are increasingly filing designs for projected interfaces and 3D spatial computing environments. By untethering the GUI from a physical display screen, the USPTO is paving the way for robust VR and AR design protection.

The Notice revives the logic of the 1967 In re Hruby decision—which held that the design of a water fountain was patent-eligible despite depending on water pressure and plumbing outside itself. The USPTO clarifies that the dependence of a computer-generated interface on a central processing unit and software for its existence is not a valid reason to reject it under Section 171. Consequently, a claim for a “Virtual reality motorcycle interface for a computer” (Example 10 in the Notice) is fully statutory, even if the application strictly illustrates the 3D virtual elements without any physical headset or screen depicted in the drawings.

The Bottom Line

In its Notice, the Office recognizes the critical importance of digital designs to the modern economy and has updated its guidance to reflect reality. This is a win for software developers and encourages innovation in emergent fields like projected design.