IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Patent of
`
`Patent No.
`
`Issued
`
`Title
`
`Peter L. VENETIANER et al.
`
`7,868,912
`
`January 11, 2011
`
`VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM EMPLOYING
`VIDEO PRIMITIVES
`
`Application Serial No.
`
`Filed
`
`Requester
`
`11/098,385
`
`April 5, 2005
`
`Bosch Security Systems, Inc.
`
`VIAEFS-WEB
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,868,912 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915
`
`SIR:
`
`Bosch Security Systems, Inc. ("Requester"), through its undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`respectfully requests inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 et seq. and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.902 et seq.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(l) .................................... 1
`
`COPY OF '912 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(5) ........................... 1
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(7) ...................................... 1
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTY IN INTEREST PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`1.915(b)(8) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`V.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO '912 PATENT .......................................................... I
`
`VI.
`
`THE '912 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION .......................................................... 3
`
`VII. CITATIONS OF PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS THAT
`ARE PRESENTED TO PROVIDE A SHOWING THAT THERE
`IS A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE REQUESTER WILL PREVAIL WITH
`RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE OF THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED IN THIS
`REQUEST PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(2) ................................................ 13
`
`VIII. STATEMENTS POINTING OUT EACH SHOWING OF A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE REQUESTER WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO
`AT LEAST ONE OF THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED IN THIS REQUEST
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(3) ................................................................... 17
`
`IX.
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.915(b)(3) ............... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 Are Anticipated by Gilge Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 .. 19
`
`Claims 4 and 5 Are Unpatentable in View of Gilge Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .. 24
`
`Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 Are Anticipated by Lipton et al. Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102 .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 5 Is Unpatentable in View of Lipton et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...... 29
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 Are Anticipated by Courtney
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................... 29
`
`Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21 Are Unpatentable in View of Courtney Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................... 34
`
`Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 Are Anticipated by Black et al. Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102 .................................................................................................................... 35
`
`Claims 4 and 5 Are Unpatentable in View of Black et al. Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 .................................................................................................................... 37
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 Are Anticipated by Brodsky
`et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................ 38
`
`10.
`
`Claim 5 Is Unpatentable in View of Brodsky et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .. .40
`
`1
`
`

`

`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`1 7.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 21 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of
`Brodsky et al. and Liu et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................... .41
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 Are Anticipated by Olson et
`al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................ 43
`
`Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21 Are Unpatentable in View of Olson et al. Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 46
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Shotton et al.
`and Liu et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................. .47
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Greenhill et
`al. and Rottman Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................... 51
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.
`and Gilge Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................... 57
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.
`and Lipton et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................... 63
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.
`and Courtney Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................. 64
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.
`and Black et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................... 66
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.
`and Brodsky et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................... 67
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.
`and Olson et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................... 68
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.,
`Shotton et al., and Liu et al. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................... 70
`
`Claims 1 to 22 Are Unpatentable in View of the Combination of Brown et al.,
`Greenhill et al., and Rottman Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................... 71
`
`X.
`
`REQUESTER'S PROPOSED GROUNDS OF REJECTION ..................................... 72
`
`XI.
`
`FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.915(a) ................................................................ 74
`
`XII. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.915(b)(6) .................................... 74
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 75
`
`11
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`Exhibit 10
`
`Exhibit 11
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 entitled "Video Surveillance System
`Employing Video Primitives," issued January 11, 2011 to Peter L.
`Venetianer, Alan J. Lipton, Andrew J. Chosak, Matthew F. Frazier,
`Niels Haering, Gary W. Myers, Weihong Yin, and Zhong Zhang.
`
`"Complaint" filed on June 29, 2011 in In the Afatter of Certain Video
`Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products
`Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation
`No. 337-TA-795.
`
`"Notice of Institution of Investigation" issued on July 27, 2011 for
`U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-795.
`
`"Response of Bosch Security Systems, Inc. and Robert Bosch GmbH
`to the Complaint of Object Video, Inc. Under Section 337 of the Tariff
`Act of 1930, as Amended, and Notice of Investigation" filed
`September 6, in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation
`No. 337-TA-795.
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions of Requester and Robert Bosch GmbH,
`filed October 26, 2011 in U.S. International Trade Commission
`Investigation No. 337-TA-795.
`
`"Joint Claim Construction Chart" filed October 28, 2011 in U.S.
`International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-795.
`
`"Amended Complaint" filed May 11, 2011 in OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v.
`ROBERT BOSCH GA!fBH et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00217-JAG (E.D.
`Va.).
`
`"Bosch Security Systems, Inc.' s Answer and Counterclaims to
`ObjectVideo Inc.'s Amended Complaint" filed June 8, 2011
`in
`OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH et al., Case No.
`3:11-cv-00217-JAG (E.D. Va.).
`
`"Reply to Counterclaims of Bosch Security Systems, Inc.," filed June
`22, 2011 in OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GivJBH et al.,
`Case No. 3:11-cv-00217-JAG (E.D. Va.).
`
`in
`"Order" Granting Motion to Stay, dated August 10, 2011
`OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GA-'JBH et al., Case No.
`3: 11-cv-00217-JAG (E.D. Va.).
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/098,385, filed April 5, 2005 by
`Peter L. Venetianer, Alan J. Lipton, Andrew J. Chosak, Matthew F.
`Frazier, Niels Haering, Gary W. Myers, Weihong Yin, and Zhong
`Zhang.
`
`Exhibit 12
`
`Listing of Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications that Provide a
`Showing that There Is a Reasonable Likelihood that the Requester Will
`
`111
`
`

`

`Prevail With Respect To At Least One of the Claims of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,868,912.
`
`German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al by Gilge.
`
`Certified English Translation of German Patent Publication No. DE
`101 53 484 Al.
`
`"ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval
`For Physical Security Applications," Lipton et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755 to Courtney.
`
`"Wide Area Surveillance with a Multi Camera Network," Black et al.
`
`"Visual Surveillance in Retail Stores and in the Horne," Brodsky et al.
`
`"A New Network-Based Intelligent Surveillance System," Liu et al.
`
`"Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`Smart Cameras," Olson et al.
`
`"Object Tracking and Event Recognition m Biological Microscopy
`Videos," Shotton et al.
`
`"VIGILANT: Content-Querying of Video Surveillance Streams,"
`Greenhill et al.
`
`German Patent Publication No. DE 198 48 490 by Rottman.
`
`Certified English Translation of German Patent Application
`Publication DE 198 48 49.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,447,331 to Brown et al.
`
`Certificate of Service Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(6)
`
`Exhibit 13
`
`Exhibit 14
`
`Exhibit 15
`
`Exhibit 16
`
`Exhibit 17
`
`Exhibit 18
`
`Exhibit 19
`
`Exhibit 20
`
`Exhibit 21
`
`Exhibit 22
`
`Exhibit 23
`
`Exhibit 24
`
`Exhibit 25
`
`Exhibit 26
`
`IV
`
`

`

`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915{b)(l)
`
`Inter partes reexamination of all of the claims, i.e., claims 1 to 22, of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,868,912 ("the '912 patent") is requested.
`
`II.
`
`COPY OF '912 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915{b){5)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(5), annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the
`
`entire '912 patent including the front face, drawings, specification and claims (in double
`
`column format) for which inter partes reexamination is requested. To the best of Requester's
`
`knowledge, as of the date of this request, no terminal disclaimer, certificate of correction, or
`
`reexamination certificate has been issued in connection with the '912 patent.
`
`III.
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915{b){7)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.915(b)(7), Requester certifies that the estoppel provisions of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.907 do not prohibit the inter partes reexamination.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTY IN
`INTEREST PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.915{b){8)
`
`The real party in interest is BOSCH SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. ("Requester"),
`
`which is a subsidiary of ROBERT BOSCH GMBH.
`
`V.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO '912 PATENT
`
`The '912 patent issued on January 11, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
`
`11/098,385 ("the '385 application"), filed April 5, 2005, and states on its face that it is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/057,154 ("the
`
`'154
`
`application"), filed February 15, 2005, which is stated to be a continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Patent Application Serial No. 09/987,707 ("the '707 application"), filed November 15, 2001
`
`1
`
`

`

`and now abandoned, which is stated to be a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 09/694,712 ("the '712 application), filed October 24, 2000 and issued as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,954,498 ("the '498 patent"). Although Requester is not obligated to inform the
`
`Office of proceedings related to the '912 and '498 patents, the Office is hereby informed of
`
`the following proceedings, which are pending as of the date of this Request, that relate to the
`
`'912 and '498 patents:
`
`In the 1\1atter of Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems,
`Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, U.S.
`International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-795
`(Complaint filed on June 29, 2011) ("the OBJECTVIDEO
`investigation"). Requester and its German parent corporation,
`Robert Bosch GmbH, are parties to the OBJECTVIDEO
`investigation. A copy of the "Complaint" filed on June 29,
`2011 is annexed hereto as Exhibit 2. A copy of the "Notice of
`Institution oflnvestigation" issued on July 27, 2011 is annexed
`hereto as Exhibit 3. A copy of the "Response of Bosch
`Security Systems, Inc. and Robert Bosch GmbH to the
`Complaint of Object Video, Inc. Under Section 337 of the Tariff
`Act of 1930, as Amended, and Notice of Investigation" filed
`September 6, 2011,
`is annexed hereto as Exhibit 4.
`Additionally, the proposed claim constructions of Requester
`and Robert Bosch GmbH, filed October 26, 2011, and the
`"Joint Claim Construction Chart" filed October 28, 2011, are
`annexed hereto as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively.
`
`OBJECTVIDEO, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH GA1BH et al., Case
`No. 3: 11-cv-00217-JAG (E.D. Va. - Complaint Filed on April
`6, 2011) ("the OBJECTVIDEO district court case"). Requester
`and its German parent corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, are
`parties to the OBJECTVIDEO district court case. A copy of the
`"Amended Complaint" filed on May 11, 2011 is annexed
`hereto as Exhibit 7. A copy of "Bosch Security Systems, Inc.' s
`Answer and Counterclaims to ObjectVideo Inc.'s Amended
`Complaint" filed June 8, 2011 is annexed hereto as Exhibit 8.
`A copy of ObjectVideo Inc.'s "Reply to Counterclaims of
`Bosch Security Systems, Inc.," filed June 22, 2011, is annexed
`hereto as Exhibit 9. The OBJECTVIDEO district court case has
`been stayed pending disposition of the OBJECTVIDEO
`investigation case, and a copy of the order granting stay, dated
`August 10, 2011, is annexed hereto as Exhibit 10.
`
`2
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`THE '912 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`
`As stated above, the '385 application, annexed hereto as Exhibit 11, was filed on
`
`April 5, 2005. As originally filed, the '645 application contained twenty-six claims, of which
`
`claims 1 and 18 were the only independent claims. Application claims 1 and 18 as filed are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A video processing apparatus comprising:
`
`a video content analysis module to analyze an input
`video sequence and to derive at least
`
`one video primitive; and
`
`a video encoder to receive said input video sequence
`and to output compressed video.
`
`18. A method of video processing comprising:
`
`detecting whether or not there are one or more activities
`in a video sequence;
`
`encoding a video sequence to obtain encoded video; and
`
`transmitting said encoded video;
`
`wherein at least one of the group consisting of said
`encoding and said transmitting
`
`depends upon at least one result of said detecting.
`
`On December 23, 2007, the applicants filed a Preliminary Amendment adding six new
`
`paragraphs to the specification of the '385 application. The new paragraphs were numbered
`
`144.1 to 144.6 for insertion into the specification following paragraph 144, and are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`[144.1] In block 31, one or more objects types of interests are
`identified in terms of video primitives or abstractions thereof.
`Examples of one or more objects include: an object; a person; a
`red object; two objects; two persons; and a vehicle.
`
`[144.2] In block 32, one or more spatial areas of interest are
`identified. An area refers to one or more portions of an image
`
`3
`
`

`

`from a source video or a spatial portion of a scene being viewed
`by a video sensor. An area also includes a combination of areas
`from various scenes and/or images. An area can be an image(cid:173)
`based space (e.g., a line, a rectangle, a polygon, or a circle in a
`video image) or a three-dimensional space (e.g., a cube, or an
`area of floor space in a building).
`
`[144.3] Figure 12 illustrates identifying areas along an aisle in
`a grocery store. Four areas are
`identified: coffee; soda
`promotion; chips snacks; and bottled water. The areas are
`identified via a point-and-click interface with the system.
`
`[ 144 .4] In block 3 3, one or more temporal attributes of interest
`are optionally identified. Examples of a temporal attribute
`include: every 15 minutes; between 9:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.; less
`than 5 minutes; longer than 30 seconds; over the weekend; and
`within 20 minutes of.
`
`[144.5]
`In block 34, a response is optionally identified.
`Examples of a response includes the following: activating a
`visual and/or audio alert on a system display; activating a visual
`and/or audio alarm system at the location; activating a silent
`alarm; activating a rapid response mechanism; locking a door;
`contacting a security service; forwarding data (e.g., image data,
`video data, video primitives; and/or analyzed data) to another
`computer system via a network, such as the Internet; saving
`such data
`to a designated computer-readable medium;
`activating some other sensor or surveillance system; tasking the
`computer system 11 and/or another computer system; and
`directing the computer system 11 and/or another computer
`system.
`
`[144.6] In block 35, one or more discriminators are identified
`by describing interactions between video primitives ( or their
`abstractions), spatial areas of interest, and temporal attributes of
`interest. An interaction is determined for a combination of one
`or more objects identified in block 31, one or more spatial areas
`of interest identified in block 32, and one or more temporal
`attributes of interest identified in block 33. One or more
`responses identified in block 34 are optionally associated with
`each event discriminator.
`
`In the first Office Action, mailed on August 20, 2009, the Examiner rejected claims
`
`25 and 26 for failure to recite statutory subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
`
`Examiner also rejected claims 1 to 8 and 18 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,227,893 ("Srinivasa et al."). The Examiner further rejected
`
`claims 9 to 17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the
`
`4
`
`

`

`combination of Srinivasa et al. and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0161133 ("Elazar et
`
`al."). Additionally, the Examiner rejected claims 22 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable in view of the combination of Srinivasa et al. and U.S. Patent No. 7,197,072
`
`("Hsu et al.").
`
`According to the prosecution history of the '385 application, the applicants held an
`
`interview with the Examiner on November 24, 2009 to "discuss[] newly added claims 27-
`
`70."
`
`(Interview Summary mailed December 2, 2009, page 1.)
`
`In an "Amendment and
`
`Interview Summary" filed December 22, 2009, the applicants cancelled claims 1 to 26 and
`
`added new claims 27 to 53. The applicants stated that "[s]upport for these new claims can be
`
`found throughout the disclosure, including without limitation, for example with Figures 23,
`
`24 and 25 and the corresponding description starting at paragraph [0087]" on page 9 of the
`
`Amendment and Interview Summary. Of the newly added claims, claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and
`
`48 are the only independent claims; claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 as presented are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`27. A video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor
`being in communication with a first communications link to
`transfer the determined attributes over the communications
`link; and
`
`a second processor, separate from the first processor, in
`communication with the first communications link to receive
`the determined attributes transferred from the first processor
`over the first communications link, which determines a first
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received determined attributes
`
`first processor determines attributes
`the
`wherein
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor.
`
`3 3. A video system, comprising:
`
`an input in communication with a communications
`channel;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a
`stream of detected attributes received over the communications
`
`5
`
`

`

`channel, the attributes being attributes of one or more objects
`detected in a video, the processor configured to determine an
`event that is not one of the detected attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received attributes,
`
`the
`over
`received
`attributes
`the
`wherein
`communications channel are independent of the event to be
`determined by the processor.
`
`3 7. A method of detecting an event from a video,
`compnsmg:
`
`rece1vmg a stream of detected attributes over a
`communications channel, the detected attributes representing
`attributes of an object detected in a video;
`
`performing an analysis of a combination of the detected
`attributes to detect an event that is not one of the detected
`attributes,
`
`wherein the detected attributes received in the stream of
`attributes are independent of a selection of the event to be
`detected.
`
`41. A method comprising:
`
`analyzing a video to detect an object;
`
`creating a stream of attributes at a first location by
`determining attributes of the detected object by analyzing the
`video;
`
`transmitting the stream of attributes to a second location
`removed from the first location for subsequent analysis,
`
`wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the
`second location over a communications channel, and
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow the
`subsequent analysis to detect an event of the video, the event
`not being one of the determined attributes.
`
`48. (New) A video device, comprising:
`
`a processor which analyzes a video to detect an object
`and to determine attributes of the object detected in the video;
`
`6
`
`

`

`the attributes
`transmit
`to
`an output configured
`determined by the processor over a communications link,
`
`transmit the
`the output is configured to
`wherein
`attributes to a second location removed from the processor for a
`subsequent analysis of a combination of the attributes at the
`second location,
`
`attributes
`determines
`processor
`the
`wherein
`independently of a subsequent analysis of a combination of
`attributes to determine an event that is not one of the
`determined attributes, and
`
`wherein the attributes are sufficient to allow detection
`of an event that is not one of the determined attributes by
`analyzing the combination of the attributes.
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action, mailed March 22, 2010. In the
`
`Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 27 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,447,331 ("Brown et al."). According to the prosecution
`
`history of the '385 application, the applicants held another interview with the Examiner on
`
`July 22, 2010 and discussed "[a]mendments to claim 27 by incorporated claim 30 and an
`
`action taken response to the detected event." (Interview Summary mailed July 27, 2010,
`
`page 1.) Subsequently, in an "Amendment and Interview Summary" filed July 29, 2010, the
`
`applicants cancelled claims 30, 36, 40, 46, and 52, and amended independent claims 27, 33,
`
`37, 41, and 48. The amended independent claims are reproduced below:
`
`27. A video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor
`being in communication with a first communications link to
`transfer the determined attributes over the communications
`link; and
`
`a second processor, separate from the first processor, in
`communication with the first communications link to receive
`the determined attributes transferred from the first processor
`over the first communications link, which determines a first
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received determined attributes and which
`provides, in response to a determination of the first event, at
`least one of an alert to a user, information for a report, and an
`instruction for taking an action,
`
`7
`
`

`

`first processor determines attributes
`the
`wherein
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor, and
`
`wherein the second processor determines the first event
`without reprocessing the video analyzed by the first processor.
`
`3 3. A video system, comprising:
`
`an input in communication with a communications
`channel;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a
`stream of detected attributes received over the communications
`channel, the attributes being attributes of one or more objects
`detected in a video, the processor configured to determine an
`event that is not one of the detected attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received attributes and configured to
`provide, upon a determination of the event, at least one of an
`alert to a user, information for a report and an instruction for
`taking an action,
`
`the
`over
`received
`attributes
`the
`wherein
`communications channel are independent of the event to be
`determined by the processor, and
`
`wherein the processor is configured to determine the
`event without reprocessing the video.
`
`3 7. A method of detecting an event from a video,
`compnsmg:
`
`rece1vmg a stream of detected attributes over a
`communications channel, the detected attributes representing
`attributes of an object previously detected in [[a]] the video at a
`remote location;
`
`performing an analysis of a combination of the detected
`attributes to detect an event that is not one of the detected
`attributes without reprocessing the video,
`
`upon detecting the event, providing at least one of an
`alert to a user, information for a report and an instruction for
`taking an action,
`
`wherein the detected attributes received in the stream of
`attributes are independent of a selection of the event to be
`detected.
`
`8
`
`

`

`41. A method comprising:
`
`analyzing a video to detect an object;
`
`creating a stream of attributes at a first location by
`determining attributes of the detected object by analyzing the
`video;
`
`transmitting the stream of attributes to a second location
`removed from the first location for subsequent analysis,
`
`wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the
`second location over a communications channel, and
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow the
`subsequent analysis to detect an event of the video to provide at
`least one of an alert to a user, information for a report and an
`instruction for taking an action, the event not being one of the
`determined attributes,
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow
`detection of the event that is not one of the determined
`attributes without reprocessing the video of the first location.
`
`48. A video device, comprising:
`
`a processor at a first location which analyzes a video to
`detect an object and to determine attributes of the object
`detected in the video;
`
`the attributes
`transmit
`to
`an output configured
`determined by the processor over a communications link,
`
`transmit the
`wherein the output is configured to
`attributes to a second location removed from the processor for a
`subsequent analysis of a combination of the attributes at the
`second location,
`
`attributes
`determines
`processor
`the
`wherein
`independently of a subsequent analysis of a combination of
`attributes to determine an event that is not one of the
`determined attributes, and
`
`wherein the attributes are sufficient to allow detection
`of an event to provide at least one of an alert to a user,
`information for a report and an instruction for taking an action,
`the event not being that is H:ot one of the determined attributes
`and being determinable by analyzing the combination of the
`attributes.,_
`
`9
`
`

`

`wherein the attributes are sufficient to allow detection
`of an event without reprocessing the video of the first location.
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on August 31, 2010. The
`
`Notice of Allowance included the following statement of the Examiner's reasons for
`
`allowance:
`
`[T]he prior art of records [sic] does not disclose a video system
`comprising: a first processor which analyzes a video to
`determine attributes of objects detected in the video, the first
`processor being in communication with a first communications
`link
`to
`transfer
`the determined
`attributes over
`the
`communications link; and a second processor, separate from
`the
`first processor,
`in communication with
`the
`first
`communications link to receive the determined attributes
`transferred
`from
`the
`first
`processor over
`the
`first
`communications link, which determines a first event that is not
`one of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of
`the received determined attributes and which provides, in
`response to a determination of the first event, at least one of an
`alert to a user, information for a report, and an instruction for
`taking an action, wherein the first processor determines
`attributes independent of a selection of the first event by the
`second processor, and wherein the second processor determines
`the first event without reprocessing the video analyzed by the
`first processor. (Notice of Allowance, page 2.)
`
`The '912 patent issued with twenty-two claims on January 22, 2011, of which claims
`
`1, 6, 9, 12, and 18 are the only independent claims. Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18 are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`1. A video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor
`being in communication with a first communications link to
`transfer the determined attributes over the communications
`link; and
`
`a second processor, separate from the first processor, in
`communication with the first communications link to receive
`the determined attributes transferred from the first processor
`over the first communications link, which determines a first
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received determined attributes and which
`10
`
`

`

`provides, in response to a determination of the first event, at
`least one of an alert to a user, information for a report, and an
`instruction for taking an action,
`
`first processor determines attributes
`the
`wherein
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor, and
`
`wherein the second processor determines the first event
`without reprocessing the video analyzed by the first processor.
`
`6. A video system, comprising:
`
`an input in communication with a communications
`channel;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a
`stream of detected attributes received over the communications
`channel, the attributes being attributes of one or more objects
`detected in a video, the processor configured to determine an
`event that is not one of the detected attributes by analyzing a
`combination of the received attributes and configured to
`provide, upon a determination of the event, at least one of an
`alert to a user, information for a report and an instruction for
`taking an action,
`
`the
`over
`received
`attributes
`the
`wherein
`communications channel are independent of the event to be
`determined by the processor, and
`
`wherein the processor is configured to determine the
`event without reprocessing the video.
`
`9. A method of detecting an event from a video,
`compnsmg:
`
`rece1vmg a stream of detected attributes over a
`communications channel, the detected attributes representing
`attributes of an object previously detected in the video at a
`remote location;
`
`performing an analysis of a combination of the detected
`attributes to detect an event that is not one of the detected
`attributes without reprocessing the video,
`
`upon detecting the event, providing at least one of an
`alert to a user, information for a report and an instruction for
`taking an action,
`
`11
`
`

`

`wherein the detected attributes received in the stream of
`attributes are independent of a select