Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Notices 80277 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final 

rule with regulations to govern the 

unintentional taking of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activities conducted by oil and 

gas industry operators, and those 

persons authorized to conduct activities 

on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry 

operators’’), in U.S. waters of the GOM 

over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, 

January 19, 2021). The rule was based 

on our findings that the total taking 

from the specified activities over the 5- 

year period will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or 

stock(s) of marine mammals and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of those species or 

stocks for subsistence uses. The rule 

became effective on April 19, 2021. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et 

seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to 

industry operators for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during 

geophysical survey activities and 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of affecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat (often referred to as 

mitigation), as well as requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 

217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations and a 

determination that the amount of take 

authorized under the LOA is of no more 

than small numbers. 

NMFS issued an LOA to CGG on 

March 24, 2023, for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to a threedimensional (3D) ocean bottom node 

(OBN) survey over approximately 200 

lease blocks in the Walker Ridge and 

Green Canyon areas of the central GOM, 

effective May 1 through December 31, 

2023. Please see the Federal Register 

notice of issuance (88 FR 17819, March 

24, 2023) for additional detail regarding 

the LOA and the survey activity. 

CGG initially anticipated that the 

activity would occur at some point 

between May 1 and December 31, 2023. 

CGG requested an initial modification to 

the expiration date on August 17, 2023, 

upon which basis NMFS modified the 

expiration date of the originally issued 

LOA by extending it to April 7, 2024 (88 

FR 70935, October 13, 2023). CGG 

subsequently informed NMFS that the 

survey would be further delayed, and 

requested a second modification to the 

expiration date of the LOA (from 

December 31, 2023 to October 17, 2024) 

to accommodate the delays. There are 

no other changes to CGG’s planned 

activity. Since issuance of the LOA, no 

survey work has occurred. 

Authorization 

NMFS has changed the expiration 

date of the LOA from April 7, 2024 to 

October 17, 2024. There are no other 

changes to the LOA as described in the 

March 24, 2023, Federal Register notice 

of issuance (88 FR 17819): the specified 

survey activity; estimated take by 

incidental harassment; and small 

numbers analysis and determination 

remain unchanged and are incorporated 

here by reference. 

Dated: November 14, 2023. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25434 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2023–0047] 

Supplemental Guidance for 

Examination of Design Patent 

Applications Related to ComputerGenerated Electronic Images, 

Including Computer-Generated Icons 

and Graphical User Interfaces 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Examination guidance. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is 

publishing supplemental guidance to be 

used by USPTO personnel in 

determining whether a design claim 

including a computer-generated 

electronic image is directed to statutory 

subject matter. This guidance reflects 

current USPTO practice. 

DATES: This supplemental guidance is 

applicable as of November 17, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, comments must be submitted 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the portal, enter docket 

number PTO–P–2023–0047 on the 

homepage and click ‘‘Search.’’ The site 

will provide a search results page listing 

all documents associated with this 

docket. Find a reference to this 

document and click on the ‘‘Comment’’ 

icon, complete the required fields, and 

enter or attach your comments. 

Attachments to electronic comments 

will be accepted in Adobe® portable 

document format (PDF) 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 in the comments. 

Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

for additional instructions on providing 

comments via the portal. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible 

due to a lack of access to a computer 

and/or the internet, please contact the 

USPTO using the contact information 

below for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Harriman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office 

of Patent Legal Administration, at 571– 

272–7727; or Carolyn Kosowski, Senior 

Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal 

Administration, at 571–272–7688. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

USPTO has prepared supplemental 

guidance for use by USPTO personnel 

in determining whether a design patent 

claim including a computer-generated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
80278 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Notices 

electronic image per se or a computergenerated electronic image shown on a 

display panel (e.g., computer screen, 

monitor, computer display system, 

mobile phone screen, virtual reality/ 

augmented reality goggles), or a portion 

thereof, satisfies the article of 

manufacture requirement in 35 U.S.C. 

171. This guidance supplements the 

guidance provided in section 

1504.01(a), subsection (I) of the Manual 

of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 

(9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, February 2023). 

This guidance does not constitute 

substantive rulemaking and therefore 

does not have the force and effect of 

law. It has been developed as a matter 

of internal USPTO management and is 

not intended to create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, 

enforceable by any party against the 

USPTO. Rejections will continue to be 

based on the substantive law, and it is 

these rejections that are appealable. 

Consequently, any failure by USPTO 

personnel to follow the guidance is 

neither appealable nor petitionable. 

This guidance is not intended to 

announce any new USPTO practice or 

procedure, and is meant to be consistent 

with current USPTO policy. However, if 

any earlier guidance from the USPTO, 

including any section of the current 

MPEP, is inconsistent with the guidance 

set forth in this notice, USPTO 

personnel are to follow this guidance. 

This guidance will be incorporated into 

the MPEP in due course. 

I. Background 

On December 21, 2020, the USPTO 

published a request for information 

seeking 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.’’ See The Article 

of Manufacture Requirement, 85 FR 

83063. A summary of the public 

comments is available to the public on 

the USPTO’s website at www.uspto.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/USPTOArticles-of-Manufacture-April2022.pdf. 

The USPTO appreciates the feedback 

the public provided. MPEP section 

1504.01(a)(I) offers guidelines for the 

examination of design patent 

applications for computer-generated 

icons (also referred to as ‘‘computer 

icons’’) that has also been used during 

the examination of design patent 

applications related to graphical user 

interfaces (GUIs). In response to the 

feedback received, the USPTO has 

determined that the public would 

benefit from further clarifications to 

MPEP section 1504.01(a)(I). Such 

clarifications would also advance the 

mission of the USPTO to issue and 

maintain robust and reliable patents. 

For example, the USPTO has 

determined that the public would 

benefit from additional clarity that the 

guidance in MPEP section 1504.01(a)(I) 

does not permit design patent protection 

for a mere image on a screen. Thus, the 

USPTO is issuing this notice to 

supplement the guidance in MPEP 

section 1504.01(a)(I). This supplemental 

guidance does not change the current 

guidance but provides important 

clarifications. The USPTO welcomes 

public feedback on this supplemental 

guidance. Instructions for submitting 

feedback are provided in the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. 

This supplemental guidance will raise 

awareness regarding how to file for 

protection for subject matter related to 

computer-generated electronic images, if 

appropriate, including the proper claim 

language and title to use when seeking 

such protection. Publishing these 

guidelines will also promote consistent 

analysis by USPTO personnel of the 

article of manufacture requirement in 

design patent applications and 

reexamination proceedings and by the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board in both 

ex parte appeals and post-patent 

issuance proceedings. Thus, this notice 

supports the USPTO’s mission of 

promoting an efficient, effective, and 

fair intellectual property ecosystem. 

II. General Principles Governing 

Compliance With the Article of 

Manufacture Requirement 

35 U.S.C. 171 provides that 

‘‘[w]hoever invents any new, original 

and ornamental design for an article of 

manufacture may obtain a patent 

therefor’’ (emphasis added). The 

language ‘‘new, original and ornamental 

design for an article of manufacture’’ set 

forth in 35 U.S.C. 171 has been 

interpreted to include at least three 

kinds of designs: (1) a design for an 

ornament, impression, print, or picture 

that is applied to or embodied in an 

article of manufacture (surface indicia); 

(2) a design for the shape or 

configuration of an article of 

manufacture; and (3) a combination of 

the first two categories. See In re 

Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 8 USPQ 19 (CCPA 

1931); Ex parte Donaldson, 26 USPQ2d 

1250 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992). See 

also MPEP section 1504.01. 

As discussed in MPEP section 1502, 

a ‘‘[d]esign is inseparable from the 

article to which it is applied and cannot 

exist alone merely as a scheme of 

surface ornamentation.’’ See Curver 

Luxembourg, SARL v. Home 

Expressions, Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1340, 

2019 USPQ2d 341902 (Fed. Cir. 2019) 

(noting ‘‘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’’). Further, as discussed in MPEP 

section 1504.01, ‘‘a picture standing 

alone is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 

171. The factor which distinguishes 

statutory design subject matter from 

mere picture or ornamentation, per se 

(i.e., abstract design), is the embodiment 

of the design in an article of 

manufacture. Consistent with 35 U.S.C. 

171, case law and USPTO practice, the 

design must be shown as applied to or 

embodied in an article of manufacture.’’ 

See also Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d 

1259 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992). 

III. Background Regarding MPEP 

Section 1504.0(a), Computer-Generated 

Icons 

In 1992, the Commissioner of Patents 

and Trademarks (the agency’s principal 

at that time) and Deputy Commissioner 

sitting in an expanded panel of the 

USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and 

Interferences reviewed In re Schnell, 46 

F.2d 203, 8 USPQ 19 (CCPA 1931) and 

In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 

(CCPA 1980) and determined that ‘‘a 

picture standing alone is not protectable 

by a design patent,’’ and ‘‘[t]he factor 

which distinguishes statutory design 

subject matter from mere picture or 

surface ornamentation per se (i.e., 

abstract designs) is the embodiment of 

the design in an article of manufacture.’’ 

Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at 1262. 

Applying prevailing case law to a new 

technology of presenting a picture on a 

computer screen, the expanded Board 

panel in Strijland explained that: ‘‘[i]t 

should be noted, however, we do not 

think that merely illustrating a picture 

displayed on the screen of a computer 

or other display device, such as a 

television or movie screen, is sufficient, 

alone, to convert a picture into a design 

for an article of manufacture. Mere 

display of a picture on a screen is not 

significantly different, in our view, from 

the display of a picture on a piece of 

paper. Only the medium of display is 

different.’’ Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at 

1263. The panel also noted that 

appellants ‘‘provided declaration 

evidence demonstrating that the icon is 

an integral part of the operation of a 

programmed computer’’ and that ‘‘[t]he 

declarations indicate that the intended 

design is not merely a displayed picture, 

but an integral and active component in 

the operation of a programmed 

computer displaying the design.’’ Id. 

Thus, the expanded Board panel 

explained that such an icon, ‘‘if 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Notices 80279 

properly presented and claimed would 

have constituted statutory subject matter 

under 35 U.S.C. 171.’’ Id. 

Following the agency’s decision in Ex 

parte Strijland, the USPTO issued a 

notice of hearings and request for public 

comments. Public Hearings and Request 

for Comments on Patent Protection for 

Software-Related Inventions, 58 FR 

66347 (December 20, 1993). Among 

other questions, the USPTO sought 

public feedback on the language in Ex 

parte Strijland, specifically asking 

whether ‘‘a description in a 

specification indicating how a displayed 

image is an ‘integral and active 

component in the operation of a 

programmed computer displaying the 

design’ provide[s] a workable line 

between statutory and non-statutory 

design subject matter.’’ Id. at 66352. The 

notice made clear that images displayed 

on a computer screen standing alone 

were treated the same as mere pictures 

and did not qualify as computer icons, 

which the agency had defined as 

integral and active components in the 

operation of a programmed computer 

displaying the design. Id. Thus, images 

merely displayed on a computer screen 

were not considered eligible under 35 

U.S.C. 171. 

Over the next few years, the USPTO 

engaged with the public in a process 

that resulted in the examination 

guidelines currently in MPEP section 

1504.01(a), subsection (I) in which 

computer icons (as opposed to mere 

computer-generated images) are 

considered by the USPTO to comply 

with the article of manufacture 

requirement of 35 U.S.C. 171 because 

they are integral and active components 

in the operation of a programmed 

computer displaying the design. These 

guidelines have also been used in the 

examination of design patent 

applications related to GUIs in which 

GUIs are considered by the USPTO to be 

integral and active components in the 

operation of a programmed computer 

displaying the design. Therefore, if 

properly presented and claimed, a 

display panel with a computer icon or 

a GUI—as an integral and active 

component in the operation of a 

programmed computer displaying the 

design—constitutes statutory subject 

matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. 

IV. Supplemental Guidelines for 

Examination of Design Patent 

Applications Related to ComputerGenerated Electronic Images 

In view of the above, the mere display 

of a computer-generated electronic 

image that is not a computer icon or a 

GUI (i.e., that is not an integral and 

active component in the operation of a 

computer) shown on a display panel 

does not constitute statutory subject 

matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. However, 

the USPTO considers a computer icon 

or a GUI shown on a display panel, or 

a portion thereof, to be more than a 

mere display of a picture on a screen 

because a computer icon or a GUI is an 

integral and active component in the 

operation of—i.e., embodied in and/or 

applied to—a programmed computer 

displaying the computer icon or the 

GUI. Therefore, a computer icon or a 

GUI is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 171, if 

properly presented and claimed (e.g., 

the drawing(s) fully discloses the design 

as embodied in the article of 

manufacture). 

Office personnel must consider the 

complete disclosure when evaluating 

whether a design claim that includes a 

computer-generated electronic image 

complies with the article of manufacture 

requirement. More specifically, USPTO 

personnel must read the disclosure to 

determine what is claimed as the design 

and whether the design is embodied in 

an article of manufacture. USPTO 

personnel must: 

a. Review the title and claim language 

to determine whether the title and claim 

adequately describe a design for an 

article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 

171. USPTO personnel must also 

consider the following and, where 

appropriate, make the noted objections 

and rejections. 

1. A computer-generated electronic 

image shown on a display panel that is 

not a computer icon or a GUI (i.e., that 

is not an integral and active component 

in the operation of a computer) is a mere 

illustration of a picture displayed 

electronically. Therefore, a claim to the 

image per se, to a display panel (or a 

portion thereof) with the image, or to 

the image for display on a display panel, 

will not satisfy the article of 

manufacture requirement, and such a 

claim should be rejected under 35 

U.S.C. 171 for failing to comply with the 

article of manufacture requirement. 

2. The USPTO considers computer 

icons or GUIs to be two-dimensional 

images which standing alone are surface 

ornamentation (i.e., an ornament, 

impression, print, or picture). See MPEP 

section 1504.01(a)(I). Therefore, the title 

and the claim should not be for a 

computer icon or a GUI alone, but must 

be for an article of manufacture, for 

example, a ‘‘display panel with 

computer icon.’’ 

3. When a design claim is to a display 

panel with a computer-generated image, 

the USPTO considers the term ‘‘icon’’ or 

‘‘GUI’’ in the title and the claim to be 

indicating that the image on the display 

panel is not merely a displayed picture, 

but an integral and active component in 

the operation of a programmed 

computer displaying the image. See Ex 

parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at 1263. 

Therefore, a claim and title directed to 

a display screen with an icon or a GUI 

adequately describes a design for an 

article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 

171. (Note that though the underlying 

article of manufacture for an icon or a 

GUI has functional properties, the 

design of the icon or the GUI itself is not 

functional, and thus this subsection is 

not in tension with, nor does it 

contradict, the functionality doctrine, 

which requires that design patent 

protection extend only to the 

‘‘ornamental design’’ of an article of 

manufacture. See 35 U.S.C. 171(a); 

MPEP section 1504.01(c), subsection 

(I)). 

4. The following are examples of 

claim language and titles that DO NOT 

adequately describe a design for an 

article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 

171: ‘‘display screen with virtual 

image,’’ ‘‘virtual image for display on 

computer screen,’’ ‘‘computer icon,’’ 

and ‘‘icon for computer screen.’’ This 

list of examples is not exhaustive. These 

types of claims and titles should be 

objected to under 37 CFR 1.153(a) for 

failing to designate a particular article of 

manufacture, and the objection should 

be maintained until the title and the 

claim language are appropriately 

amended. See MPEP section 707.07(e). 

Note that a determination must be made 

as to whether a rejection under 35 

U.S.C. 171 is appropriate (e.g., the 

application fails to provide support for 

an icon or a GUI). See paragraph (i) 

above; see also section (b) and example 

3 below. 

5. The following are examples of 

claim language and titles that DO 

adequately describe a design for an 

article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 

171: ‘‘computer screen with an icon,’’ 

‘‘display panel with GUI,’’ ‘‘display 

screen or portion thereof with icon,’’ 

‘‘portion of a computer screen with an 

icon,’’ ‘‘portion of a display panel with 

an icon,’’ and ‘‘portion of a monitor 

displayed with an icon.’’ This list of 

examples is not exhaustive. 

b. Review the drawing to determine 

whether a display panel, or a portion 

thereof, is shown in sufficient views to 

fully disclose the design as embodied in 

the article. See Changes to Patent 

Practice and Procedure, 62 FR 53132, 

53164 (October 10, 1997). USPTO 

personnel must also consider the 

following and, where appropriate, make 

the noted rejections. 

1. If the drawing does not depict a 

computer icon or a GUI embodied in a 

display panel, or a portion thereof, in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
80280 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Notices 

either solid or broken lines, USPTO 

personnel must reject the claimed 

design under 35 U.S.C. 171 for failing to 

comply with the article of manufacture 

requirement. See MPEP section 1504(a), 

subsection (I)(B). 

i. If the disclosure as a whole does not 

suggest or describe the claimed subject 

matter as a computer icon or a GUI 

embodied in a display panel, or a 

portion thereof, USPTO personnel must 

indicate that: 

A. The claim is fatally defective under 

35 U.S.C. 171; and 

B. Amendments to the written 

description, drawings, and/or claim 

attempting to overcome a non-final 

rejection will ordinarily be entered; 

however, any new matter will be 

required to be canceled from the written 

description, drawings, and/or claims. If 

new matter is added, the claim should 

be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 

ii. If the disclosure as a whole 

suggests or describes the claimed 

subject matter as a computer icon or a 

GUI embodied in a display panel, or a 

portion thereof, USPTO personnel must 

indicate that the drawing may be 

amended to overcome the rejection 

under 35 U.S.C. 171. USPTO personnel 

must also suggest amendments that 

would bring the claim into compliance 

with 35 U.S.C. 171. 

V. Examples 

Example 1 

Title: Computer display screen with 

icon 

Description: The figure is a front view 

of a computer display screen with icon, 

showing the new design. The broken 

lines showing a portion of the computer 

display screen form no part of the 

claimed design. 

Claim: The ornamental design for 

computer display screen with icon as 

shown and described 

As presented, the claimed design in 

this example complies with 35 U.S.C. 

171 because: 

(1) the USPTO considers a computer 

icon or a GUI on a display panel to be 

an integral and active component in the 

operation of a programmed computer 

displaying the design and more than a 

displayed picture; and 

(2) the application fully discloses the 

design as embodied in an article of 

manufacture, as the drawing depicts the 

design embodied in a computer screen 

in broken lines. 

In addition, the title and claim 

comply with 37 CFR 1.153(a) because 

the title and claim adequately designate 

a particular article of manufacture (i.e., 

the computer display screen). 

Example 2 

Title: Animated Icon 

Description: Figure 1 is a front view 

showing a first image in a sequence for 

an animated icon showing a new design. 

Figure 2 is a second image thereof. The 

appearance of the asimated image 

sequentially transitions between the 

images shown in Figs. 1–2. The process 

or period on which one image 

transitions to another image forms no 

part of the claimed design. The broken 

lines showing a portion of a computer 

display screen form no part of the 

claimed design. 

Claim: The ornamental design for an 

animated Icon as shown and described. 

As presented, the title and claim 

should be objected to under 37 CFR 

1.153(a) for failing to designate a 

particular article of manufacture. 

However, as presented, the claimed 

design in this example does comply 

with 35 U.S.C. 171 because: 

(1) the USPTO considers a computer 

icon or a GUI on a display panel to be 

an integral and active component in the 

operation of a programmed computer 

displaying the design and more than a 

displayed picture; and 

(2) the application fully discloses the 

design as embodied in an article of 

manufacture, as the drawing depicts the 

design embodied in a computer display 

screen in broken lines and the 

description (i.e., the broken line 

statement) describes a portion of a 

computer display screen. 

To address the objections to the title 

and claim, the application could be 

amended as follows: 

Title: Computer display screen with A 

animated Icon 

Claim: The ornamental design for a 

computer display screen with an 

animated Icon as shown and described. 

The objections should be maintained 

until the title and the claim are 

appropriately amended. 

Example 3 

Title: Virtual paper stack 

Description: The figure is a front view 

of a computer display screen with a 

virtual paper stack showing the new 

design. The broken lines showing a 

portion of the computer display screen 

form no part of the claimed design. 

Claim: The ornamental design for a 

virtual paper stack as shown and 

described. 

As presented, the claimed design in 

this example does not comply with 35 

U.S.C. 171. The image is merely a 

picture displayed on a computer display 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN17NO23.014</GPH> EN17NO23.015</GPH> EN17NO23.016</GPH>

,~-------------------, I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\._.., _____________ ) 

' _____________ ,. ... / 

FIG. 1 FIG.2 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Notices 80281 

screen. Because the original disclosure 

does not provide support for amending 

the claim to include a computer icon, 

the claim is fatally defective under 35 

U.S.C. 171 and should be rejected under 

35 U.S.C. 171, as set forth in MPEP 

section 1504.01(a), subsection (I)(B). In 

addition, the title and claim should be 

objected to under 37 CFR 1.153(a) for 

failing to designate a particular article of 

manufacture. 

Example 4 

Title: Paper stack icon for use on a 

mobile device screen. 

Description: The figure is a front view 

of a paper stack icon showing the new 

design. 

Claim: The ornamental design for a 

paper stack icon for use on a mobile 

device screen as shown and described 

As presented, the claimed design in 

this example would not comply with 35 

U.S.C. 171 because the drawing does not 

depict an article of manufacture (e.g., a 

display panel) in either solid or broken 

lines. Therefore, the claim should be 

rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171, as set forth 

in MPEP section 1504.01(a), subsection 

(I)(B). In addition, the title and claim 

should be objected to under 37 CFR 

1.153(a) for failing to designate a 

particular article of manufacture. 

Specifically, the language ‘‘for use on a 

mobile device screen’’ does not 

adequately designate a particular article 

of manufacture. However, because the 

original disclosure provides support for 

a mobile device screen, the application 

could be amended as follows: 

Title: Mobile device screen with a 

paper Paper stack icon for use on mobile 

device. 

Claim: The ornamental design for a 

mobile device screen with a paper stack 

icon for use on a mobile device as 

shown and described. 

Description: The figure is a front view 

of a mobile device with a virtual paper 

stack icon showing the new design. The 

broken lines showing a portion of the 

mobile device screen form no part of the 

claimed design. 

Note that a replacement figure 

showing the portion of a mobile device 

screen in either solid or broken lines 

must not introduce new matter. The 

replacement figure shown represents a 

best practice for applicants as it is the 

most likely amendment to be supported 

by the original disclosure. 

Replacement Figure: 

Example 5 

Title: Icon for computer display 

screen 

Description: The figure is a front view 

of a computer display screen with icon, 

showing the new design. The broken 

lines showing a portion of the computer 

display screen form no part of the 

claimed design. 

Claim: The ornamental design for an 

icon for computer display screen as 

shown and described 

As presented, the title and claim 

should be objected to under 37 CFR 

1.153(a) for failing to designate a 

particular article of manufacture. In 

particular, the language ‘‘for computer 

display screen’’ does not adequately 

designate a particular article of 

manufacture. 

However, as presented, the claimed 

design in this example complies with 35 

U.S.C. 171 because: 

(1) the USPTO considers a computer 

icon or a GUI on a display panel to be 

an integral and active component in the 

operation of a programmed computer 

displaying the design and more than a 

displayed picture; and 

(2) the application fully discloses the 

design as embodied in an article of 

manufacture, as the description and 

drawing depict the design embodied in 

a computer display screen in broken 

lines and the description (i.e., the 

broken line statement) describes a 

portion of a computer display screen. 

To address the objections to the title 

and claim, the application could be 

amended as follows: 

Title: Icon for computer Computer 

display screen with Icon 

Katherine Kelly Vidal, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25473 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Proposed Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Proposed Deletions from the 

Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing 

to delete product(s) and service(s) from 

the Procurement List that were 

furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before: December 17, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information or to submit 

comments contact: Michael R. 

Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785–6404, 

or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published pursuant to 41 

U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its 

purpose is to provide interested persons 

an opportunity to submit comments on 

the proposed actions. 

Deletions 

The following product(s) and 

service(s) are proposed for deletion from 

the Procurement List: 

Product(s) 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

7530–01–463–2324—Folder, File, 1⁄3 Cut 

Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 2 

Dividers, 6 Part, Earth Red, Legal 

7530–01–463–2326—Folder, File, 1⁄3 Cut 

Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 2 

Dividers, 6 Part, Blue, Legal 

7530–01–463–2330—Folder, File, 1⁄3 Cut 

Tab Classification, Pressboard, 1 Divider, 

4 Part, Light Green, Letter 

7530–01–517–1781—Folder, File, 1⁄3 Cut 

Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 2 

Dividers, 6 Part, Green, Legal 

7530–01–523–4594—Folder, File, 1⁄3 Cut 

Tab, Classification, Pressboard, 1 

Divider, 4 Part, Earth Red, Letter 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN 

SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, 

NY 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

8455–00–NIB–0139—Name Tape, 

Embroidered, USAF, Tigerstripe 

8455–00–NIB–0140—Service Tape, 

Embroidered, USAF, Tigerstripe 

Mandatory Source of Supply: LIONS 

INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND, INC, 

Kinston, NC 

Contracting Activity: FA3016 502 CONS CL 

JBSA, FORT SAM HOUSTON, TX 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN17NO23.017</GPH> EN17NO23.018</GPH> EN17NO23.019</GPH>

► ·---------------------·~ / _____ , ' 

[ =---~-:----- \ 

l 

I \... ___ _