Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 83063 

January 13, 2020, from 11 a.m. until 2 

p.m. EST. The established times may be 

adjusted as necessary to accommodate 

the timely completion of discussion 

relevant to the assessment process. Such 

adjustments may result in the meeting 

being extended from or completed prior 

to the time established by this notice. 

Additional SEDAR 73 workshops and 

webinar dates and times will publish in 

a subsequent issue in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: The SEDAR 73 Assessment 

Webinar 1 will be held via webinar. The 

webinar is open to members of the 

public. Registration is available online 

at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/ 

register/6561279974832951051. 

SEDAR address: South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, 4055 

Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. 

Charleston, SC 29405; 

www.sedarweb.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Howington, SEDAR 

Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, 

Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; 

phone: (843) 571–4373; email: 

Kathleen.howington@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions, 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a threestep process including: (1) Data 

Workshop; (2) Assessment Process 

utilizing webinars; and (3) Review 

Workshop. The product of the Data 

Workshop is a data report which 

compiles and evaluates potential 

datasets and recommends which 

datasets are appropriate for assessment 

analyses. The product of the Assessment 

Process is a stock assessment report 

which describes the fisheries, evaluates 

the status of the stock, estimates 

biological benchmarks, projects future 

population conditions, and recommends 

research and monitoring needs. The 

assessment is independently peer 

reviewed at the Review Workshop. The 

product of the Review Workshop is a 

Summary documenting panel opinions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of the stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, 

Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division, and Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center. Participants include: 

data collectors and database managers; 

stock assessment scientists, biologists, 

and researchers; constituency 

representatives including fishermen, 

environmentalists, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); 

international experts; and staff of 

Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

The items of discussion at the 

Assessment Webinar I: 

• Finalize any data decisions 

remaining 

• Continue discussion on modelling 

issues and decisions. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the intent to take final action 

to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is accessible to people 

with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary 

aids should be directed to the SAFMC 

office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 

business days prior to the meeting. 

Note: The times and sequence specified in 

this agenda are subject to change. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: December 16, 2020. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28072 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–C–2020–0068] 

The Article of Manufacture 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) seeks public 

input on 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. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m. EST on February 4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and responses to the questions below by 

one of the following methods: 

(a) Electronic Submissions: Comments 

can be submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the portal, enter docket 

number PTO–C–2020–0068 on the home 

page and click ‘‘search.’’ The site will 

provide a search results page listing all 

documents associated with this docket. 

Find a reference to this notice and click 

on the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

ADOBE® portable document format or 

MICROSOFT WORD® format. Because 

comments will be made available for 

public inspection, information that the 

submitter does not desire to make 

public, such as an address or phone 

number, should not be included. 

(b) Written/Paper Submissions: Send 

all written/paper submissions to: Mail 

Stop OPIA, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22314, ATTN: Elizabeth 

Shaw. Submission packaging should 

clearly indicate that materials are 

responsive to Docket No. PTO–C–2020– 

0068, Office of Policy and International 

Affairs, Comment Request: Article of 

Manufacture Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 

171. Although comments may be 

submitted by postal mail, electronic 

submissions are encouraged. 

Submissions of Business Confidential 

Information: Any submissions 

containing business confidential 

information must be delivered in a 

sealed envelope marked ‘‘confidential 

treatment requested’’ to the address 

listed above. Submitters should provide 

an index listing the document(s) or 

information that they would like the 

Department of Commerce to withhold. 

The index should include information 

such as numbers used to identify the 

relevant document(s) or information, 

document title and description, and 

relevant page numbers and/or section 

numbers within a document. Submitters 

should provide a statement explaining 

their grounds for objecting to the 

disclosure of the information to the 

public as well. The USPTO also requests 

that submitters of business confidential 

information include a non-confidential 

version (either redacted or summarized) 

that will be available for public viewing 

and posted on https://

www.regulations.gov. In the event that 

the submitter cannot provide a nonconfidential version of its submission, 

83064 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 

1Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions 

Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019) 

(confirming that ‘‘long-standing precedent, 

unchallenged regulation, and agency practice all 

consistently support the view that design patents 

are granted only for a design applied to an article 

of manufacture, and not a design per se’’); Manual 

of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 1504.01. 

2MPEP 1504.01(a)(I)(A). Note that a computergenerated icon is considered to be integral to the 

operation of a computer. See Ex parte Strijland, 26 

U.S.P.Q.2d 1259, *4–5 (B.P.A.I. 1992). 

3MPEP 1504.01(a)(I)(A). 

4Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. 

Ct. 429, 435 n.3 (2016) (explaining the legislative 

history behind the ‘‘article of manufacture’’ 

requirement in section 171, ‘‘[a]s originally enacted, 

the provision protected ‘any new and original 

design for a manufacture.’ [sec] 3, 5 Stat. 544. The 

provision listed examples, including a design 

‘worked into or worked on, or printed or painted 

or cast or otherwise fixed on, any article of 

manufacture’ and a ‘shape or configuration of any 

article of manufacture.’ Ibid. A streamlined version 

enacted in 1902 protected ‘any new, original, and 

ornamental design for an article of manufacture.’ 

Ch. 783, 32 Stat. 193. The Patent Act of 1952 

retained that language. See [sec] 171, 66 Stat. 

813.’’); In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 209 (C.C.P.A. 

1931); MPEP 1504.01. 

5Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. 

Ct. 429, 432 (2016) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 

U.S. 511, 525 (1871)). 

6Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. 

Ct. 429 (2016). 

7 Id. at 436. 

8 Id. at 434–435 (for ‘‘article,’’ citing J. Stormonth, 

A Dictionary of the English Language 53 (1885) and 

American Heritage Dictionary, at 101 (‘‘[a]n 

individual thing or element of a class; a particular 

object or item’’)); id. at 435 (for ‘‘manufacture,’’ 

citing Stormonth, at 589 and American Heritage 

Dictionary, at 1070 (‘‘[t]he act, craft, or process of 

manufacturing products, especially on a large 

scale’’ or ‘‘[a] product that is manufactured’’)). 

9 Id. at 435 (quoting 8 D. Chisum, Patents 

23.03[2], pp. 23–12 to 23–13 (2014)); see also In re 

Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(determining that the Supreme Court’s ‘‘definitions 

address ‘articles’ of ‘manufacture’ as being tangible 

articles or commodities,’’ and thus concluding that 

‘‘[a] transient electric or electromagnetic 

transmission does not fit within that definition’’ 

because during transmission, ‘‘energy embodying 

the claimed signal is fleeting and is devoid of any 

semblance of permanence,’’ and does not meet the 

definitions of ‘‘articles’’ of ‘‘manufacture’’). Indeed, 

the Nuijten court noted the Supreme Court had 

defined ‘‘manufacture’’ in the context of utility 

patents as ‘‘the production of articles for use from 

raw or prepared materials by giving to these 

materials new forms, qualities, properties, or 

combinations, whether by hand-labor or by 

machinery.’’ 500 F.3d at 1356 (quoting Diamond v. 

Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980)). Note that 

this definition is similar to the ones for ‘‘article,’’ 

‘‘manufacture,’’ and ‘‘article of manufacture’’ 

espoused by the Supreme Court in Samsung as 

applied to design patents. 

10Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home 

Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1340 (2019) 

(quoting Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 524–25 

(1871) for this proposition). In Gorham, the Court 

discussed the reach of design protection as follows: 

‘‘The acts of Congress which authorize the grant of 

patents for designs were plainly intended to give 

encouragement to the decorative arts. They 

contemplate not so much utility as appearance, and 

that, not an abstract impression, or picture, but an 

aspect given to those objects mentioned in the acts’’ 

81 U.S. at 524–25 (emphasis added). See also MPEP 

1504.01. 

11MPEP 1504.01. see also Ex parte Strijland, 26 

U.S.P.Q.2d 1259, *4–5 (B.P.A.I. 1992). 

12MPEP 1504.01. see also supra note 5; Samsung, 

137 S. Ct. at 435 (citing Application of Zahn, 617 

F.2d 261, 268 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (‘‘Section 171 

authorizes patents on ornamental designs for 

articles of manufacture. While the design must be 

embodied in some articles, the statute is not limited 

to designs for complete articles, or ‘discrete’ 

articles, and certainly not to articles separately sold 

the USPTO requests that the submitter 

post a notice in the docket stating that 

it has provided the USPTO with 

business confidential information. 

Should a submitter either fail to docket 

a non-confidential version of its 

submission or to post a notice that 

business confidential information has 

been provided, the USPTO will note the 

receipt of the submission on the docket 

with the submitter’s organization or 

name (to the degree permitted by law) 

and the date of submission. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Shaw, USPTO, Office of 

Policy and International Affairs, at 

Elizabeth.Shaw2@uspto.gov or 571– 

272–9300. Please direct media inquiries 

to the USPTO’s Office of the Chief 

Communications Officer at 571–272– 

8400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 171 of title 35 United States 

Code, provides that ‘‘[w]hoever invents 

any new, original and ornamental 

design for an article of manufacture 

may obtain a patent therefor’’ (emphasis 

added). To satisfy the requirement that 

the design must be for an article of 

manufacture, applicants have been 

required to show the design as applied 

to or embodied in an article of 

manufacture.1

The USPTO considers designs for 

computer-generated icons embodied in 

articles of manufacture to be statutory 

subject matter eligible for design patent 

protection under section 171.2 For 

example, a claim for a computergenerated icon that is integral to the 

operation of the computer and that is 

shown on a computer screen, monitor, 

or other display panel complies with the 

article of manufacture requirement.3

Because certain new and emerging 

technologies, such as projections, 

holographic imagery, or virtual/ 

augmented reality do not require a 

physical display screen or other tangible 

article to be viewable, the USPTO is 

exploring whether its practice should be 

revised to protect such digital designs. 

Although current jurisprudence has 

not addressed whether a digital design 

not applied to or embodied in a physical 

article is eligible for design patent 

protection, the following section 

outlines current law and practice 

regarding the article of manufacture 

requirement. 

35 U.S.C. 171—Patents for Designs 

The language ‘‘new, original and 

ornamental design for an article of 

manufacture’’ set forth in section 171 

has been interpreted by the courts to 

include at least three kinds of designs: 

(A) A design for an ornament, 

impression, print, or picture applied to 

or embodied in an article of 

manufacture (surface indicia); 

(B) a design for the shape or 

configuration of an article of 

manufacture; and 

(C) a combination of the first two 

categories.4

A patentable design ‘‘gives a peculiar 

or distinctive appearance to the 

manufacture, or article to which it may 

be applied, or to which it gives form.’’ 5

Defining Article of Manufacture 

The 2016 decision by the Supreme 

Court in Samsung Electronics Co. v. 

Apple Inc. is instructive on the ‘‘article 

of manufacture’’ requirement of section 

171.6 In that decision, the Court 

analyzed the term ‘‘article of 

manufacture’’ under 35 U.S.C. 289, a 

provision that provides additional 

remedy for infringement of a design 

patent. It found that the term ‘‘article of 

manufacture’’ has a broad meaning, and 

as used in section 289, encompasses 

both a product sold to a consumer and 

a component of that product.7 The Court 

found that an ‘‘article’’ is just ‘‘a 

particular thing,’’ and ‘‘manufacture’’ 

means ‘‘the conversion of raw materials 

by the hand, or by machinery, into 

articles suitable for the use of man’’ and 

‘‘the articles so made,’’ and concluded 

that an ‘‘article of manufacture’’ is 

‘‘simply a thing made by hand or 

machine.’’ 8 Moreover, the Court 

confirmed that its definition of ‘‘article 

of manufacture’’ comported with 35 

U.S.C. 171 and 101, specifically noting 

that ‘‘‘article of manufacture’ in 

[section] 171 includes ‘what would be 

considered a ‘‘manufacture’’ within the 

meaning of [s]ection 101.’ ’’ 9

A Picture Alone Is Not Eligible for 

Design Patent Protection 

Historically, a picture standing alone 

is not patentable under section 171.10

The factor that distinguishes statutory 

design subject matter from a mere 

picture or ornamentation has been the 

embodiment of the design in an article 

of manufacture.11 For this reason, the 

USPTO has required that the design 

must be shown as applied to or 

embodied in an article of manufacture.12

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 83065 

. . . ’’); Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home 

Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1340 (2019) 

(affirming this principle by relying on In re Schnell, 

46 F.2d 203, 209 (C.C.P.A. 1931) (‘‘[I]t is the 

application of the design to an article of 

manufacture that Congress wishes to promote, and 

an applicant has not reduced his invention to 

practice and has been of little help to the art if he 

does not teach the manner of applying his design.’’), 

and Ex Parte Cady, 232 O.G. 619, 621–22 (Comm’r 

Pat. 1916) (‘‘[a] disembodied design or a mere 

picture is not the subject of [design] patent’’)). 

13MPEP 1504.01(a)(I). 

14Ex parte Strijland, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1259 (B.P.A.I. 

1992). 

15MPEP 1504.01(a)(I)(A); Ex parte Strijland, 26 

U.S.P.Q.2d 1259, at *4–5 (B.P.A.I. 1992). 

Furthermore, section 1504.01(a)(I)(A) of the MPEP 

applies the holding in In re Hruby, 373 F.2d 997 

(C.C.P.A. 1967) to icons, noting that ‘‘the 

dependence of a computer-generated icon on a 

central processing unit and computer program for 

its existence itself is not a reason for holding that 

the design is not for an article of manufacture.’’ 

However, section 1504.01(a)(IV) explains that 

computer-generated icons that include ‘‘images that 

change appearance during viewing’’ may be eligible 

for design patent protection, but ‘‘no ornamental 

aspects are attributed to the process or period in 

which one image changes into another.’’ 

16MPEP 1504.01(a)(III). 

17 Id. Traditionally, type fonts have been 

generated by solid blocks from which each letter or 

symbol was produced. Consequently, the USPTO 

has historically granted design patents drawn to 

type fonts. USPTO personnel should not reject 

claims for type fonts under 35 U.S.C. 171 for failure 

to comply with the ‘‘article of manufacture’’ 

requirement on the basis that more modern 

methods of typesetting, including computer 

generation, do not require solid printing blocks. 

18See Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, 

Practice Direction No. 4 of 2018 (June 20, 2018); cf. 

Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, Practice 

Direction No. 4 of 2014 (Dec. 10, 2014). 

19 Id. 

20See Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 

(METI), Cabinet Decision on the Bill for the Act of 

Partial Revision of the Patent Act (Mar. 1, 2019), 

https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2019/0301_

003.html (last visited July 16, 2019). 

21 Id. 

22WIPO, Analysis of the Returns to the Second 

Questionnaire on Graphical User Interface (GUI), 

Icon and Typeface/Type Font Designs, SCT/43/2, 

Feb. 5, 2020, at 37, available at https://

www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_43/sct_43_

2.pdf. 

Guidelines for Computer-Generated 

Icons and Type Fonts 

In 1995, the USPTO introduced 

examination guidelines for design 

patent applications claiming computergenerated icons.13 These guidelines are 

based on the USPTO’s understanding of 

the case law and the USPTO Appeal 

Board’s decision in 1992 in Ex parte 

Strijland regarding a ‘‘design for an 

information icon for the display screen 

of a programmed computer system.’’ 14

To be eligible for protection, the USPTO 

currently requires that a design for a 

computer-generated icon be: (1) 

Embodied in a computer screen, 

monitor, other display panel, or portion 

thereof; (2) more than a mere picture on 

a screen; and (3) integral to the 

operation of the computer displaying 

the design.15

The guidance with respect to type 

fonts is different.16 Examiners are 

instructed not to reject claims for type 

fonts under section 171 for failure to 

comply with the ‘‘article of 

manufacture’’ requirement on the basis 

that more modern methods of computergenerated fonts do not require physical 

printing blocks.17

Absence of Precedent Directly 

Addressing New Technologies 

Recent technological advances have 

allowed the development of designs that 

are not applied to or embodied in a 

physical product but can perform a 

utilitarian function, such as controlling 

electronic devices rather than just 

serving as merely a displayed picture. 

Examples include virtual laser 

keyboards used in receiving key strokes 

and hand movements as inputs and 

projected images for an automobile or 

for augmented and virtual reality 

applications. The USPTO is not aware 

of any judicial decision that addresses 

whether a claimed design that lacks a 

static ‘‘physical form’’ but is used as an 

integral part of the function of a digital 

product satisfies section 171. 

Global Trends 

Other jurisdictions have updated their 

laws and practices to accommodate 

design protection for new technologies. 

For example, Singapore modified its law 

to eliminate a requirement that a design 

must be applied to a physical article in 

order to be protected. Its law now 

provides protection for both nonanimated and animated graphical user 

interface (GUI) designs that are applied 

to an article or a ‘‘non-physical 

product.’’ 18 In defining a ‘‘non-physical 

product,’’ Singapore law recognizes 

‘‘anything that (a) does not have a 

physical form; (b) is produced by the 

projection of a design on a surface or 

into a medium (including air); and (c) 

has an intrinsic utilitarian function that 

is not merely to portray the appearance 

of the thing or to convey 

information.’’ 19 Likewise, Japan 

modified its law to broaden the scope of 

subject matter for design protection to 

include digital images that are not 

displayed on an article, such as graphic 

designs viewed or provided through a 

computer network and projected 

images,20 including images on screen, 

and images appearing through virtual 

and augmented reality.21

In addition, there have been 

discussions at the World Intellectual 

Property Organization (WIPO) about 

design protection for new technologies, 

and a summary of a WIPO questionnaire 

on the matter included the following 

observation: 

The majority of responding jurisdictions do 

not require a link between a GUI/icon design 

and an article as a prerequisite for 

registration. This is mainly because of the 

nature of new technological designs, which 

may be used in different articles/ 

environments. In most of these jurisdictions, 

the indication of an article is optional. In all 

of them, a patent design/design registration 

can be obtained for a GUI/icon design per se 

if it is represented alone. In most of them, the 

patent design/design registration covers the 

use of the claimed GUI/icon design in any 

article/environment.22

Topics for Public Comment 

The public is invited to submit 

comments on any topics related to 35 

U.S.C. 171 that they deem relevant. The 

USPTO is particularly interested in 

receiving views and comments on the 

questions presented below. The tenor 

and substance of the questions should 

not be taken as an indication that the 

USPTO is predisposed to any particular 

views, positions, or actions. The USPTO 

also invites the public to share their 

views and insights on other aspects of 

section 171 that are not addressed in the 

questions. 

To be eligible for patent protection, a 

design must comply with the ‘‘article of 

manufacture’’ requirement of section 

171. The USPTO has interpreted the 

jurisprudence to require that designs for 

computer-generated icons meet the 

following criteria: (1) They must be 

embodied in a computer screen, 

monitor, other display panel, or portion 

thereof; (2) They must be more than a 

mere picture on a screen; and (3) They 

must be integral to the operation of the 

computer displaying the design. Some 

stakeholders have expressed that they 

are unable to obtain design protection 

for certain new and emerging 

technologies (e.g., projections, 

holographic imagery, and virtual/ 

augmented reality) because they do not 

meet the current criteria. 

1. Please identify the types of designs 

associated with new and emerging 

technologies that are not currently 

eligible for design patent protection but 

that you believe should be eligible. For 

these types of designs, please explain 

why these designs should be eligible, 

how these designs satisfy the 

requirements of section 171, and how 

these designs differ from a mere picture 

or abstract design. In addition, if you 

believe that these types of designs 

83066 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 

should be eligible, but a statutory 

change is necessary, please explain the 

basis for that view. 

2. If the projection, holographic 

imagery, or virtual/augmented reality is 

not displayed on a computer screen, 

monitor, or other display panel but is 

integral to the operation of a device 

(e.g., a virtual keyboard that provides 

input to a computer), is this sufficient 

to render the design eligible under 

section 171 in view of the current 

jurisprudence? If so, please explain how 

the article of manufacture requirement 

is satisfied and how these designs differ 

from a mere picture or abstract design. 

If you believe that these designs do not 

meet the requirements of section 171, 

please explain the basis for that view. 

3. If the projection, holographic 

imagery, or virtual/augmented reality is 

not displayed on a computer screen, 

monitor, or other display panel but is 

interactive with a user or device (e.g., a 

hologram moves according to a person’s 

movement), is this sufficient to render a 

design eligible under section 171 in 

view of the current jurisprudence? If so, 

please explain how the article of 

manufacture requirement is satisfied 

and how these designs differ from a 

mere picture or abstract design. If you 

believe that these designs do not meet 

the requirements of section 171, please 

explain the basis for that view. 

4. If the projection, holographic 

imagery, or image appearing through 

virtual/augmented reality is not 

displayed on a computer screen, 

monitor, or other display panel but is 

projected onto a surface or into a 

medium (including air) and is not 

otherwise integral to the operation of a 

device or interactive with a user or 

device (e.g., is a static image), is this 

sufficient to render a design eligible 

under section 171 in view of the current 

jurisprudence? If so, please explain how 

the article of manufacture requirement 

is satisfied and how these designs differ 

from a mere picture or abstract design. 

If you believe that these designs do not 

meet the requirements of section 171, 

please explain the basis for that view. 

5. Do you support a change in 

interpretation of the article of 

manufacture requirement in 35 U.S.C. 

171? If so, please explain the changes 

you propose and your reasons for those 

proposed changes. If not, please explain 

why you do not support a change in 

interpretation. 

6. Please provide any additional 

comments you may have in relation to 

section 171, interpretation or 

application of section 171, or industrial 

design rights in digital and new and 

emerging technologies. 

Andrei Iancu, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28110 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2020–0027] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Warning Label 

Comprehension and Interpretation by 

Consumers for Children’s Sleep 

Environments 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) is announcing an 

opportunity for public comment on a 

new proposed collection of information 

by the agency. Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal 

agencies are required to publish notice 

in the Federal Register for each 

proposed collection of information, and 

to allow 60 days for public comment in 

response to the notice. This notice 

solicits comments on a proposed survey 

to evaluate consumer awareness of 

infant sleep product warning labels. The 

Commission will consider all comments 

received in response to this notice 

before submitting this collection of 

information to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval. 

DATES: Submit written or electronic 

comments on the collection of 

information by February 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2020– 

0027, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC does not accept comments 

submitted by electronic mail (email), 

except through https://

www.regulations.gov. CPSC encourages 

you to submit electronic comments by 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

as described above. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: (301) 504–7479; 

email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. CPSC may post 

all comments received without change, 

including any personal identifiers, 

contact information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically: Confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for mail/hand 

delivery/courier written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https:// 

www.regulations.gov, insert Docket No. 

CPSC–2020–0027 into the ‘‘Search’’ box, 

and follow the prompts. A copy of the 

proposed survey is available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

CPSC–2020–0027, Supporting and 

Related Material. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 

504–7991, or by email to: cgillham@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined 

in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 

1320.3(c) and includes agency proposed 

surveys. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires 

federal agencies to provide a 60-day 

notice in the Federal Register 

concerning each proposed collection of 

information before submitting the 

collection to OMB for approval. 

Accordingly, CPSC is publishing notice 

of the proposed collection of 

information set forth in this document. 

A. Warning Label Comprehension 

Survey 

CPSC is authorized under section 5(a) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), to conduct 

studies and investigations relating to the 

causes and prevention of deaths, 

accidents, injuries, illnesses, other 

health impairments, and economic 

losses associated with consumer 

products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that