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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Titus et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 645, 350 hereinafter referred as Titus).
Regarding claim 2, Titus discloses an information providing method comprising: controlling a display to display a video at a first position (see figure 15 displaying video of an object or a person on a first position; see col. 17 lines 7-19 the configuration object is observed by the video surveillance system as the object moves around or is displayed in the scene; see col. 27 lines 35-63 video image displayed);
controlling the display to display, at a second position, which is different from the first position, information regarding a first person who appeared in the video (see figure 15 which shows the persons’ ID or Object ID and the amount of time the person spent in the area is showing on the display; see col.15 lines 50-63); and
controlling the display to update the information regarding the first person in response to detecting the first person performing a first type of action (see figure 15 which shows an amount of time a person spending on particular area and the system updates the information s time progresses),
wherein the information regarding the first person comprises a total value regarding the first type of action (see figure 15 which shows the length of spent time in area and time at point).
Regarding claim 3, Titus discloses the information regarding the first person further comprises an identifier which is assigned for the first person (see figure 15 and col. 27 lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 4, Titus discloses the first type of action comprises moving in a particular direction see col. 19 lines 33-53, col. 27 lines 40-49 and also col. 20 lines 46-64 and col. 25 lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 5, Titus discloses controlling the display to display, at a third position, which is different from the first position and the second position, information regarding a second person who appeared in the video, the second person being different from the first person (see figure 15 and col. 27 lines 35-63).
Regarding claim 6, Titus discloses controlling the display to change a display position of the information regarding the first person (see col. 17 lines 29-43 and col. 26 lines 31-63 and also col. 19 lines 33-53).
Regarding claim 7, Titus discloses the controlling the display to change the display position of the information regarding the first person is based on a priority (see col. 26 lines 5-23 and line 64-col. 27 line 26).
Regarding claim 8, Titus discloses controlling the display to display the video in a first area; and controlling the display to display the information regarding the first person in a second area, which does not overlap with the first area (see figure 15 and col. 27 lines 26-63).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of claim 9 can be found in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 9 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 2 above. It is also noted that Titus discloses a memory storing instructions and a processor as claimed (see the applied prior art’s claim 32).
Claims 10-15 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 3-8 respectively above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 January 22, 2026