[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-663829-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-663829-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","design-patent-application-prosecution-practice-note","Design Patent Application Prosecution - Practice Note","","Overview of US design patent application prosecution procedures at the USPTO, including pre-examination formalities, restriction practice, responding to office actions, and post-allowance strategies. Explains how design patent protection differs from utility patent prosecution in subject-matter scope, legal standards, enforceable aspects, typical rejections, and applicant response options. Highlights the legal and practical importance of drawings, the single-claim structure, claim-article linkage, and common pitfalls in building filing and prosecution strategies for ornamental, nonfunctional designs.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/design-patent-application-prosecution-practice-note/663829/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/design-patent-application-prosecution-practice-note/663829.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"cimolpedes","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-29",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does a US design patent protect, according to the note?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"A design patent protects an ornamental design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or a portion), not the article itself. It can include surface ornamentation and configurations, and may involve static or dynamic graphical user interfaces or computer-generated icons.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the note describe the link between a design patent claim and the drawings?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The note explains that a design patent’s essence is its drawings, which are linked to a single formal claim. That single claim typically incorporates the application’s drawing figures and associated descriptions from the specification.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What key differences does the note highlight between design and utility patent prosecution?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The note highlights differences in eligible subject matter and protection scope, the application of relevant legal standards and requirements, and typical USPTO rejections and applicant response options. It focuses on standards and pitfalls specific to nonfunctional, ornamental designs.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},663829,1793232631,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144},962094243610,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","PRACTICE NOTE  \nDesign Patent Application Prosecution  \nby Jeremy R. Kriegel, Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP, with Practical Law Intellectual Property & Technology  \nStatus: Maintained | Jurisdiction: United States  \nThis document is published by Practical Law and can [be found at:](be found at: content.next.westlaw.com/w-042-1714)[ content.next.westlaw.com/w-042-1714](be found at: content.next.westlaw.com/w-042-1714)  \nRequest a free trial and demonstration at: [tr.com/practicallaw-home](tr.com/practicallaw-home)  \nA Practice Note providing an overview of US design patent application prosecution procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (35 U.S.C. § 111(a); 37 C. F. R.  \n§ 1.53(b)) or the US national processing of an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement (35 U.S.C. §§ 382 and 389) . Topics include pre-examination formalities, restriction practice, responding to office actions, and post-allowance strategies. This Note highlights the significant differences between design and utility patent prosecution, focusing on the legal standards, application requirements, and potential pitfalls specific to protecting nonfunctional, ornamental designs. It also offers practical guidance for navigating common prosecution scenarios to maximize the value and likelihood of success for a design patent.  \nDesign patents, which protect nonfunctional ornamental designs embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture, can be a key protection strategy for a product that includes ornamental features, either independently or with complementary forms of protection, such as utility patents, copyright, trademark, and trade dress.  \nWhile the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examines design patent applications under many of the same statutes, rules, and procedures as for utility patents, there are significant differences in:  \n• The scope of eligible subject matter and protection.  \n• The application of the relevant legal standards and requirements.  \n• The typical USPTO rejections and applicant response options and considerations.  \nPatent counsel seeking design patent protection for their clients should understand the unique nature and scope of design patents, how to develop an effective filing strategy, and the specific rules and best practices for filing and prosecuting applications to enhance success rates and commercial value.  \nThis Note provides an overview of design patent prosecution procedures at the USPTO, including  \ncomparisons, differences, special considerations, and potential pitfalls relative to utility patent prosecution.  \nOverview of Design Patents and Prosecution  \nDesign Patent Fundamentals  \nDesign patents protect ornamental designs embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or a portion), not the article itself. A design can include surface ornamentation as well as configuration of an article and may include a display having a static or dynamic graphical user interface or computer-generated icon.(35 U.S.C. § 171; MPEP §§ 1502 and 1504.01(a).)  \nThe USPTO issues design patents under many of the same statutory and procedural requirements as utility patents, but with key differences in subject matter eligibility, enforceable term, and other aspects. For example, like utility patents, a claimed design must be original (novel) and nonobvious (35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 171 to 173).  \n© 2025 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.  \nDesign Patent Application Prosecution  \nWhile the scope of a utility patent is defined by its claim language, a design patent’s essence is its drawings, which are linked to a single claim.  \nThis single formal claim, typically reciting “[I/We] claim: The ornamental design for a/an [article of manufacture] as shown and described,” essentially incorporates the application’s drawing figures and the associated descriptions from the specification. However, case law has developed to emphasize the particular article recited in the claim in determining a desi","cbCaiupjEs7du5a9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiupjEs7du5a9","pdf",1228289,17,"English","# Overview of Design Patents and Prosecution\n## Design Patent Fundamentals\n## Comparison with Utility Patent Application Prosecution","[{\"question\":\"What does a US design patent protect, according to the note?\",\"answer\":\"A design patent protects an ornamental design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or a portion), not the article itself. It can include surface ornamentation and configurations, and may involve static or dynamic graphical user interfaces or computer-generated icons.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the note describe the link between a design patent claim and the drawings?\",\"answer\":\"The note explains that a design patent’s essence is its drawings, which are linked to a single formal claim. That single claim typically incorporates the application’s drawing figures and associated descriptions from the specification.\"},{\"question\":\"What key differences does the note highlight between design and utility patent prosecution?\",\"answer\":\"The note highlights differences in eligible subject matter and protection scope, the application of relevant legal standards and requirements, and typical USPTO rejections and applicant response options. It focuses on standards and pitfalls specific to nonfunctional, ornamental designs.\"}]","Design Patent Application Prosecution - Practice Note | PDF",43]