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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 6/8/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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.
Claims 1-18 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 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. Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “generate(ing) map information in which the heat map and camera information are superimposed on an indoor map, the camera information including position information of the camera; determine(ing) a surveillance-desired area based on the map information” (claim 1, 6 and 11) and “wherein the camera information includes capturing direction information of the camera” (claims 16-18) in the application as filed.
When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. MPEP 2163.06 I.
More specifically, Examiner only found and icons indicating the position information of “portable terminals” (i.e. The map may display, in a superimposed manner, for example, an icon I indicating position information of a portable terminal 20, a heat map HM (a map indicating the distribution of the degree of congestion), and the like which are generated using an analysis result of an image captured by a fixed-point surveillance camera or a portable terminal 20 as material for determining the surveillance-desired area- ¶0041, fig. 2); from this the claim construction seems to necessarily suggest heat map is constructed from a camera of one of the “candidate terminals”. The Examiner did not find superimposing “direction information of the camera” of one of the “candidate terminals” on the heat map.
The claims further seem to suggest that “determining a surveillance-desired area” based on “map information in which the heat map and camera information are superimposed on an indoor map, the camera information including position information of the camera”. Examiner only found “determining a surveillance-desired area” based on a distribution of degree of congestion, position information of portable terminals (i.e. The area information acquisition unit 101 can discriminate the surveillance-desired area based on, for example, distribution of the degree of congestion calculated by analyzing an image captured by a fixed-point surveillance camera or a portable terminal 20, distribution of pieces of position information of portable terminals 20 carried by surveilling persons, or the like- ¶0042). No support was found for a “surveillance system” that determines a “surveillance-desired area” based on a diagram illustrating an example of the map displayed in a display of the center apparatus 10 (fig. 2; ¶0041). The diagram in fig. 2 seems to be a graphical interface for the operator to select the “surveillance-desired area” (i.e. The surveillance operator draws the figure, for example, by using an input device such as a mouse or a touch panel. In a case where the map of the place to be surveilled is previously divided into a plurality of areas, the area information acquisition unit 101 can also acquire an area selected by the surveillance operator from among the plurality of areas using the input device as the surveillance-desired area- ¶0041); not as parameter to the “surveillance system” to determine a “surveillance-desired area”.
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 CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights