DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2-4, 7 and 8 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Claim 3 still recites the limitation " the video stream server ." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2, 4, 7 and 8 has been withdrawn and of claim 3, sustained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 3 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 3 and 7 has been withdrawn.
Examiner notes that a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is entered for introduction of new matter.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 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 claim(s) contains 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9, these claims recite the limitation “agency server(s)” but the specification, as filed, does not provide adequate support for this limitation. This limitation implies that a network architecture in which the surveillance server communicates directly with the agency server, which constitutes an essential feature of the claimed invention. However, upon reviewing the specification, there is no discussion, description, or mention of “agency server(s) or any server components under the control of the responding agencies. The disclosure instead describes a centralized surveillance system (e.g. server 101) that hosts virtual machines or application interfaces to which agency users may connect (See ¶¶[0047]-[0048]). The specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
Therefore, the specification as filed does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant point out where in the specification (i.e., paragraph, line number) support can be found for the aforementioned newly added limitations.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 8 and 10-14, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from an independent claim, which has been rejected for lack of written description. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 8 and 10-14 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites the limitation " the video stream server ." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights