DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 1 of the response in essence that: Donahue describes a static, network-dependent digital retrieval system that merely associates pre-stored content with fixed identifiers and does not provide any mechanism for interacting with real-world physical inputs, performing local, offline computation, or dynamically responding to environmental or biometric data.
Donoho discloses a user interface that allows document readers to interact with the document and perform actions—such as document sharing, access control, access log review, signature, signature request, and verification—from the document itself, without “dragging” the document to an exo-document system (paragraph 2037). Donoho further discloses that such proxies or local manifestations may include local files in an operating system (paragraph 2067). Donoho further discloses that these devices may have biometric capabilities to identify a human user (paragraph 596).
The Applicant argues on page 1 of the response in essence that: Donahue is limited to recognizing static digital identifiers and provides no teaching, suggestion, or mechanism for capturing or analyzing dynamic, physical signature data in real time. Furthermore, claim 1 explicitly requires offline augmented reality activation, which is incompatible with Donahue's network-dependent design.
Donoho discloses that in a possible embodiment, an interaction that a user makes with an NGD (such as signing a signature or adding an attachment) is instantly reflected in all other Outlets or Twins of the same NGD (paragraph 2086). Donoho further discloses that such proxies or local manifestations may include local files in an operating system (paragraph 2067).
The Applicant argues on pages 1-2 of the response in essence that: Donahue is limited to retrieving content associated with pre-indexed digital identifiers and cannot perform local, spontaneous analysis of newly captured, non-pre-indexed visual data.
Donoho discloses a user interface that allows document readers to interact with the document and perform actions—such as document sharing, access control, access log review, signature, signature request, and verification—from the document itself, without “dragging” the document to an exo-document system (paragraph 2037).
The Applicant argues on page 2 of the response in essence that: Donahue discloses no physical anchor, no sensor-based feedback, and no interactive system capable of continuously updating augmented reality content based on real-time motion.
Donoho discloses that specifically, when an augmented reality device uniquely recognizes a location or an object (for example, using GPS location or a machine-readable code on a physical or digital object) it may present, through a user interface, any of the following:
Identities of persons who have interacted with the objects—by leaving a comment, owning it, or renting it in the past Identities of other objects associated with it
Additional information regarding the object (user manuals, repair, and service history, etc.)
Objects in legal and financial reality associated with it (for example, contracts, liens, etc.) (paragraphs 1884-88).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/29/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The drawings filed on 12/29/2025 include a cell phone. The Applicant’s disclosure does not contain any description of the use of a cell phone in connection with the augmented reality features of the claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Elijha Ammon Bronaugh watkins is also the inventor of the augmented reality handwritten autograph and all augmented reality handwritten to ever exist… (on page 1 of the Specification).
Aline all minutiae point to know character use algorithm for template point features matching algorithm is important to do with the augmented reality … (on page 3 of the Specification).
The pages of the specification including claims and abstract must be numbered consecutively, starting with 1, the numbers being centrally located above or preferably, below, the text. The lines of the specification, and any amendments to the specification, must be 1 1/2 or double spaced. The text must be written in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) (37 CFR1.52(b)(2)(ii) ). The text may not be written solely in capital letters.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Biometric Handwritten Augmented Reality Signature Stamp, an Instant AR Photo System, and an AR Pet Tag System.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings consist solely of photographs.
Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation, which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The specification provides no details on how to:
encode biometric data and identify information;
provide augmented reality features including videos, NFTs, e-commerce store feature, games and more;
encrypt content and identify information;
integrate with online and offline experiences; and
perform verification with a stamp.
The specification does not disclose any details or circuitry for designing a system that associates a physical object with augmented reality features. While a person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing a system that associates a physical object with augmented reality features, the lack of any discussion of how to achieve the above features fails to apprise one of ordinary skill how to make and use the system.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification provides no details on how to:
encode biometric data and identify information;
provide augmented reality features including videos, NFTs, e-commerce store feature, games and more;
encrypt content and identify information;
integrate with online and offline experiences; and
perform verification with a stamp.
The specification does not disclose any details or circuitry for designing a system that associates a physical object with augmented reality features. One of ordinary skill would not have reasonably considered the inventor to be in possession of the claimed limitations based on the inventor’s limited description of designing an augmented reality system.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the original person" and “the key”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the biometric handwritten Augmented Reality Signature Stamp System", “the AR content” and “the physical autograph”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the biometric handwritten Augmented Reality Signature Stamp System", “the autograph”, “the owner's name”, “the pets image” and “the relationship”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donoho et al. US Publication 2023/0237349 (hereafter “Donoho”).
Referring to claim 1, Donoho discloses a biometric handwritten Augmented Reality Signature Stamp System comprising a physical, handwritten autograph that is trademarked and branded (paragraph 2064, Importing a blue-pen signature. In a possible embodiment, a blue-pen signature on a hardcopy Outlet of an NGD may be imported as a signature on the NGD itself), encoded with features including offline-first (paragraph 2067, Such proxies or local manifestations may include local files in an operating system) augmented reality experiences (paragraph 1894, The unique digital object may expose a user interface (in addition to its API) that specifies its behaviors, actions, and reactions on augmented reality), video content, interactive media (paragraph 2037, the NGD is implemented as a unique digital object whose payload contains both the human-readable format and the Key Document Information in machine-readable form. In possible embodiments, the NGD also includes a user interface that allows document readers to interact with the document and perform actions—such as document sharing, access control, access log review, signature, signature request, and verification—from the document itself, without “dragging” the document to an exo-document system), and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (paragraph 567, Nonfungible Tokens (NFTs) and the notion of permanent unique digital object. We have discussed above the original document notion from document shared reality); a signature stamp associated exclusively with the original person, enabling real-time verification of authenticity and ownership (paragraph 719, Bank employee puts a verified stamp or clicks a verified button—affidavit that she has performed the required tasks and everything checks out); a security framework integrating biometric verification (paragraph 596, These devices may have biometric capabilities to identify a human user), encrypted access, video call features, and in-person validation (paragraph 1746, The system design can and should make sure that the storage authorities themselves do not have the encryption keys to sensitive payload data or to all payload data for that matter, so that it will be impossible for anyone including a cyber attacker or a government to seize control over all payload data); wherein the physical autograph serves as the key to access augmented reality experiences, NFTs, video content, and associated physical merchandise, ensuring that only authorized users can access the system (paragraph 2037, the NGD is implemented as a unique digital object whose payload contains both the human-readable format and the Key Document Information in machine-readable form. In possible embodiments, the NGD also includes a user interface that allows document readers to interact with the document and perform actions—such as document sharing, access control, access log review, signature, signature request, and verification—from the document itself, without “dragging” the document to an exo-document system).
Referring to claim 2, Donoho discloses an Instant Augmented Reality Photo System linked to the biometric handwritten Augmented Reality Signature Stamp System, updating in real time (paragraph 2086, In a possible embodiment, an interaction that a user makes with an NGD (such as signing a signature or adding an attachment) is instantly reflected in all other Outlets or Twins of the same NGD) to provide interactive AR visuals (paragraph 1894, The unique digital object may expose a user interface (in addition to its API) that specifies its behaviors, actions, and reactions on augmented reality) and biometric verification , wherein access to the AR content is enabled only by the physical autograph and associated encrypted biometric data (paragraph 596, These devices may have biometric capabilities to identify a human user), preventing replication or unauthorized access (paragraph 2037, the NGD is implemented as a unique digital object whose payload contains both the human-readable format and the Key Document Information in machine-readable form. In possible embodiments, the NGD also includes a user interface that allows document readers to interact with the document and perform actions—such as document sharing, access control, access log review, signature, signature request, and verification—from the document itself, without “dragging” the document to an exo-document system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoho et al. US Publication 2023/0237349 and Simari et al. US Publication 2019/0371067.
Referring to claim 3, Donoho discloses an Augmented Reality asset Tag System integrated with the biometric handwritten Augmented Reality Signature Stamp System, wherein each asset tag is connected to the asset and linked to the asset owner (paragraph 1861, the interacting establishes the original owner of the media asset) through the autograph, the owner's name, or the asset's image (paragraph 2037, the NGD is implemented as a unique digital object whose payload contains both the human-readable format and the Key Document Information in machine-readable form. In possible embodiments, the NGD also includes a user interface that allows document readers to interact with the document and perform actions—such as document sharing, access control, access log review, signature, signature request, and verification—from the document itself, without “dragging” the document to an exo-document system); the system provides real-time interactive AR engagement (paragraph 1894, The unique digital object may expose a user interface (in addition to its API) that specifies its behaviors, actions, and reactions on augmented reality), NFT authentication (paragraph 567, Nonfungible Tokens (NFTs) and the notion of permanent unique digital object. We have discussed above the original document notion from document shared reality), and secure interaction, ensuring unique and verifiable access to augmented reality experiences while confirming the relationship between the asset and its owner (paragraph 1861, the interacting establishes the original owner of the media asset).
While Donoho discloses an Augmented Reality asset Tag, Donoho does not disclose expressly an Augmented Reality Pet Tag.
Simari discloses an Augmented Reality Pet Tag System, wherein each pet tag is connected to the pet and linked to the pet owner through the autograph, the owner's name, or the pet's image; the system ensuring unique and verifiable access to augmented reality experiences while confirming the relationship between the pet and its owner (paragraph 73, The dog node 303 is also connected to a pet tag content object node 374 that represents a pet ID tag 116 on which the dog's name may be inscribed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to encode a pet tag with augmented reality features. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow associating a large amount of information onto a physically small object worn by a pet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Simari with Donoho to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682