UNITED STA IBS p A IBNT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STA TES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria., Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/012,878
`
`05/24/2013
`
`7868912
`
`1092/0102PUS1
`
`3806
`
`06/20/2013
`7590
`6449
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUIIB 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BASEHOAR, ADAM L
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/20/2013
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-·1450
`W"aAA"I.IJ:.'=ptO.QOV
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC
`
`4000 LEGATO ROAD
`
`SUITE 310
`
`FAIRFAX, VA 22033
`
`EX PARTEREEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/012.878.
`
`PATENT NO. 7868912.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1 .550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`

`

`Order Granting I Denying Request For
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`90/012,878
`Examiner
`
`ADAM BASEHOAR
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7868912
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`The request for ex parte reexamination filed 24 May 2013 has been considered and a determination has
`been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
`determination are attached.
`
`Attachments: a)D PTO-892,
`
`b)IZI PTO/SB/08,
`
`c)D Other: __
`
`1. ~ The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
`
`For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
`Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
`If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
`is permitted.
`2. D The request for ex parte reexamination is DENIED.
`
`This decision is not appealable (35 U.S.C. 303(c)). Requester may seek review by petition to the
`Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181 within ONE MONTH from the mailing date of this communication (37
`CFR 1.515(c)). EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUCH A PETITION UNDER 37 CFR 1.181 ARE
`AVAILABLE ONLY BY PETITION TO SUSPEND OR WAIVE THE REGULATIONS UNDER
`37 CFR 1.183.
`
`In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26 ( c ) will be made to requester:
`a) D by Treasury check or,
`b) D by credit to Deposit Account No. __ , or
`c) D by credit to a credit card account, unless otherwise notified (35 U.S.C. 303(c)).
`
`/ Adam L Basehoar/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`cc:Reauester ! if third oartv reauester \
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-471 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130531
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION
`
`1.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-22 of United States Patent
`
`Number 7,868,912 B2 (Venetianer et al.) is raised by the Request (hereafter the "Request") for
`
`ex parte reexamination filed 05/24/2013.
`
`References Cited in the Request
`
`2.
`
`A total of seven references in various combinations have been asserted in the Request as
`
`providing teachings relevant to the claims of the Venetianer '912 patent. The proposed
`
`references which make up the combinations are as follows:
`
`Gilge - (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al, published 05/08/2003.
`
`Reference to the Gilge Patent Publication will be made via its accompanying certified translation
`
`(See: Attachment C of the Request))
`
`Lipton - ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004)
`
`Courtney- (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999)
`
`Olson - ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart
`
`Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997,
`
`pp. 159-175)
`
`Brill - (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003)
`
`Day - ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the
`
`Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`JP '783 - (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997.
`
`Reference to the JP '783 Published Application will be made via its accompanying certified
`
`translation (See: Attachment J of the Request)
`
`Of the seven references in the currently filed Request, none of the references were
`
`previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to any of the claims in the original prosecution
`
`history of the Venetian er '912 patent. It is noted, as shown below, that the Gilge, Lipton,
`
`Courtney, and Olson references were cited in the 95/001,912 inter partes reexamination and
`
`were determined to establish a reasonable likelihood that Requestor will prevail (RLPs) with
`
`regard to certain claims of the Venetianer '912 patent. The 95/001,912 reexamination having
`
`been terminated before the established RLPs could be fully resolved.
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested
`
`3.
`
`The seven references cited above are discussed in the Request regarding claims 1-22 of
`
`the Venetianer '912 patent. Pages 9-12 and 15-59 of the Request details out proposed substantial
`
`new questions of patentability in light of the combination of the seven references cited above.
`
`The Examiner notes that on pages 77-112 of the Request, Third Party Requestor (3PR)
`
`raises issues related to Patent Owner's (PO) remarks and newly presented claim amendments
`
`maturing from the related 95/001,912 inter partes reexamination proceeding. The Examiner
`
`notes that such issues are improper for reexamination and are not considered or commented upon
`
`herein (See 37 CPR l.552(c)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Prosecution History
`
`4.
`
`The Venetianer '912 patent was originally assigned serial number 11/098,385 and was
`
`filed 04/05/2005 with 26 claims. The Venetianer '912 patent is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application 11/057, 154, filed on 02/15/2005, which is a continuation-in-part of application
`
`09/987,707 (now abandoned), filed 11/15/2001, which is a continuation-in-part of application
`
`09/694,712 (now U.S. Patent 6,954,498), filed 10/24/2000.
`
`A preliminary amendment to the specification was filed on 07/23/2007 adding new
`
`paragraphs 144.1-144.6 and amending paragraphs 170 and 179. A Non-Final Action was
`
`mailed 08/20/2009 rejecting all claims 1-26. The Non-Final Action rejected claims 1, 25, and 26
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 101; rejected claims 1-8 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated
`
`by Srinivasa et al. (U.S. 7,227,893); rejected claims 9-17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Srinivasa et al in view of Elazar et al (US 2004/0161133); and rejected
`
`claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Srinivasa et al in view of Hsu et
`
`al (US 7,197,072). An interview was held on 11/24/2009 discussing newly proposed claims 27-
`
`70. Subsequent to the interview, Applicant filed a response on 12/22/2009 cancelling claims 1-
`
`26 and adding new claims 27-53. A Final Action was mailed 03/22/2010 rejecting all claims 27-
`
`53. The Final Action rejected claims 27-53 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Brown et al. (U.S. 7,447,331). Another interview was held on 07/22/2010 discussing
`
`amendments to claim 27 by incorporating claim 30 and an action taken in response to the
`
`detected event. Subsequent to the interview, Applicant filed an After Final response on
`
`07/29/2010 amending independent claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 and cancelling claims 30, 36,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`40, 46, and 52. Said independent claims amended to at least incorporate features related to, "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." Applicant's remarks indicating the substance of
`
`the amendment as follows:
`
`"The Applicant thanks Examiner Vo for his time during the personal interview of July
`22, 2010. During the interview, the Applicant's highlighted the differences of the
`invention and the prior art, including the use of a first and second processor of claim 27,
`where the second processor is separate from the first processor and determines an event
`by analyzing attributes determined by the first processor. In contrast, to determine an
`event, the prior art relies on processing a video by the processor performing the event
`determination. While other independent claims do not require both the first and second
`processors, similar differences are reflected in their recitations as discussed with more
`specificity below. Details of the interview are further reflected in the comments below."
`
`In response to the After Final response the Examiner then mailed a Notice of
`
`Allowability on 08/31/2010 allowing claims 27-29, 31-35, 37-39, 41-45, 47-51, and 53
`
`(renumbered 1-22). The Notice of Allowability including the following examiner's statement of
`
`reasons for allowance:
`
`"The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of
`records 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."
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`5.
`
`On 02/29/2012, a first Request (hereafter the '912 Request) for inter partes
`
`reexamination was filed (95/001,912), and reexamination in light of the '912 Request was
`
`ordered (hereafter the '912 Order) on 04/10/2012. The '912 Order indicating that the '912
`
`Request establishes a reasonable likelihood that Requestor will prevail (RLPs) with respect to
`
`claims 1-4 and 6-22 of the '912 Venetianer Patent. The '912 Order specifically indicating that
`
`an RLP was established for the following identified claims of the '912 Venetian er Patent:
`
`Issue 1:
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-22 in view of Gilge
`
`Issue 3:
`
`Claims 1-4 and 6-22 in view of Lipton
`
`Issue 5:
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 in view of Courtney
`
`Issue 12:
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 in view of Olsen
`
`A corresponding Non-Final Action was also mailed on 04/10/2012. The Non-Final
`
`Action rejected claims 1-3 and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Gilge;
`
`rejected claims 1-3 and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Lipton; rejected
`
`claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Courtney; and rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Olsen.
`
`On 06/11/2012 Patent Owner (PO) filed a response to the Non-Final Action. On
`
`07/11/2012 Third Party Requestor (3PR) filed comments in response to the PO response and the
`
`Non-Final Action. On 12/03/2012 PO filed a petition to terminate reexamination proceedings
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 317(b) and CFR 1.182, l.907(b). On 02/13/2013 the Office granted PO's
`
`petition under 37 CPR 1.182 to terminate the 95/001,912 inter partes proceeding. Thereafter, the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`95/001,912 reexamination was terminated and the proceeding was concluded with the above
`
`noted RLPs being left undecided.
`
`Priority Determination
`
`6.
`
`The Venetianer '912 patent is a continuation-in-part of application 11/057,154, filed on
`
`02/15/2005, which is a continuation-in-part of application 09/987,707 (now abandoned), filed
`
`11/15/2001, which is a continuation-in-part of application 09/694,712 (now U.S. Patent
`
`6,954,498), filed 10/24/2000. The Request (Pages 12-13 & 61-76) asserts that various
`
`limitations of the claims of the Venetian er '912 patent are not supported by the specifications of
`
`the parent' 154, '707, and '712 applications and thus are not entitled to the benefit of the '154
`
`application's 02/15/2005 filing date, or '707 application's 11/15/2001 filing date, or '712
`
`application's 10/24/2000 filing date.
`
`For example, the following limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 12, are allegedly
`
`not supported by the '154, '707, or the '712 applications:
`
`"a first processor which analyzes a video to determine attributes of objects detected in the
`
`video ... a second processor, separate from the first processor ... which determines a first event"
`
`(claim 1);
`
`"a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of detected attributes received
`
`over the communications channel. .. the processor configured to determine an event ... wherein the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`attributes received over the communications channel are independent of the event to be
`
`determined by the processor" (claim 6); and
`
`"creating a stream of attributes at a first location ... by analyzing video ... transmitting that
`
`stream of attributes to a second location removed from the first location for subsequent analysis"
`
`(claim 12)
`
`Support for substantially similar limitations of independent claims 9 and 18 are also
`
`called into question.
`
`The Request (Pages 12-13 & 61-76) provides a reasoned basis as to why the parent
`
`applications do not provide the sufficient support for the identified claim limitations. The '707
`
`application does not describe, for example, distinctly separating the functionality of determining
`
`video attributes from that of determining events based on said video attributes. The '707
`
`application appears silent on first and second separated processors as well as first and second
`
`separated locations explicitly carrying out said functionality. Additionally, there appears to be
`
`no teaching wherein the detected attributes received over a communications channel are
`
`independent of the event to be determined by the processor. It appears to be evident that said
`
`claimed functionality wasn't fully recognized until the filing of the Venetianer '912 patent
`
`(Venetianer '912: e.g., column 8, lines 50-60: "By separating the functionality of video content
`
`analysis and back end activity inference"; Figures 22-25). Said corresponding description
`
`clearly not having been described in the CIP '707 application or the other parent applications.
`
`Thus for reexamination purposes, independent claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18 as well as
`
`dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 19-22 (via dependency) are considered not to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`adequately supported by the parent applications, and thus all claims 1-22 are considered in this
`
`reexamination to have an effective date of 04/05/2005, the filing date of the Venetianer '912
`
`patent.
`
`Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`7.
`
`For purposes of determination, independent claim 1 is used as a representative claim for
`
`the proposed rejections in the Request. The italicized/bolded sections of claim 1 are utilized by
`
`the examiner to show how specific teachings of the proposed references create a substantial new
`
`question of patentability in light of the original prosecution history and the reasons for
`
`allowability which mirrors the limitations of independent claim 1.
`
`Claim 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 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,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`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.
`
`Discussion of References that Raise a SNQ
`
`8.
`
`All of the proposed references raise a substantial new question as noted below.
`
`9.
`
`Gilge generally discloses a video/audio system whereby captured video data is processed
`
`by processing devices to provide metadata which characterizes objects detected in the captured
`
`video data. Gilge further taught wherein the metadata was then independently evaluated by a
`
`separate evaluation device for determining events of particular interest and automatically
`
`notifying a user based on said determined events (Gilge: Paragraphs: 1-4, 16-18, and 44-70).
`
`The Request shows that the Gilge reference appears to disclose, for independent claim 1:
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`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 (See the Request, pages 17-22; See Attachment K, pages Kl-K8)
`
`The Gilge reference was not of record in the prior original examination and thus was not
`
`previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to any of claims in the prior original
`
`examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of Gilge raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the Venetianer
`
`'912 patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner
`
`would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`Accordingly, Gilge raises a substantial new question of claims 1-3 and 6-22 which
`
`question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Venetianer '912 patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Venetian er '912 patent.
`
`Lipton
`
`10.
`
`Lipton generally discloses a digital video indexing and retrieval system whereby objects
`
`in video are detected in real-time to generate activity-based metadata that can be distributed over
`
`a network to be analyzed in real-time. Lipton further taught wherein the activity-based metadata
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`was queried by user generated activity queries to determine event notifications (Lipton: Abstract;
`
`Figs. 1-3).
`
`The Request shows that the Lipton reference appears to disclose, for independent claim 1:
`
`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 (See the Request, pages 22-26; See Attachment L, pages Ll-Ll 0)
`
`The Lipton reference was not of record in the prior original examination and thus was not
`
`previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to any of claims in the prior original
`
`examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of Lipton raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the Venetianer
`
`'912 patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner
`
`would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`Accordingly, Lipton raises a substantial new question of claims 1-4 and 6-22 which
`
`question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Venetianer '912 patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Venetian er '912 patent.
`
`Courtney
`
`11.
`
`Courtney generally discloses a video indexing system whereby moving objects in a given
`
`video are tracked. Courtney teaches that from the tracked objects video meta-information is
`
`generated and stored in a database to be further queried to help identify desired videos
`
`(Courtney: Abstract).
`
`The Request shows that Courtney appears to disclose, for independent claim 1:
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`wherein the second processor determines the first event without reprocessing the video
`
`analyzed by the first processor (See the Request, pages 26-30; See Attachment M, pages Ml -M6)
`
`The Courtney reference was not of record in the prior original examination and thus was
`
`not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to any of claims in the prior original
`
`examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of Courtney raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the
`
`Venetianer '912 patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`Accordingly, Courtney raises a substantial new question of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13,
`
`15-20, and 22 which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Venetianer
`
`'912 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the
`
`Venetianer '912 patent.
`
`12.
`
`Olson generally teaches a system for moving object detection and event recognition in
`
`video streams (Olson: Abstract).
`
`The Request shows that Olson appears to disclose, for independent claim 1:
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`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 (See the Request, pages 31-34; See Attachment N, pages N l-N5)
`
`The Olson reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to any of
`
`the claims in the prior original examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of Olson raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the Venetianer
`
`'912 patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner
`
`would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`Accordingly, Olson raises a substantial new question of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-
`
`20, and 22 which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Venetianer
`
`'912 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the
`
`Venetianer '912 patent.
`
`Brill
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`13.
`
`Brill generally discloses a system for defining and recognizing complex events in a video
`
`sequence comprised of tracked objects involved in simple events (Brill: Summary of the
`
`Invention).
`
`The Brill reference is cited in the Request as a reference used in various combinations
`
`with the references above to read on various combinations of at least the independent claims. In
`
`light of the SN Q's raised above in view of the Gilge, Lipton, Courtney, and Olson references, the
`
`Brill reference also raises an SNQ in view of its dependency.
`
`The combination of the Brill and each of the above noted references were not discussed
`
`by the examiner in the prior original examination and thus their combinations were not
`
`previously applied to any of the claims in the prior original examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Brill reference in combination with the Gilge,
`
`Lipton, Courtney, and Olson references raises an SNQ as to the claims of the Venetianer '912
`
`patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would
`
`consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`Accordingly, Brill in combination with Gilge, Lipton, Courtney, and Olson raises a
`
`substantial new question, which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the
`
`Venetianer '912 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts
`
`regarding the V enetianer '912 patent.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`14.
`
`Day generally discloses a system for object-oriented conceptual modeling of video data
`
`whereby spatio-temporal semantics of objects in the video data are captured and subsequently
`
`queried for retrieving various video clips (Day: Abstract).
`
`The Day reference is cited in the Request as a reference used in various combinations
`
`with the references above to read on various combinations of at least the independent claims. In
`
`light of the SN Q's raised above in view of the Gilge, Lipton, Courtney, and Olson references, the
`
`Day reference also raises an SNQ in view of its dependency.
`
`Day was not of record in the prior examination and thus was not previously discussed by
`
`the examiner nor applied to any of claims in the prior examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Day reference in combination with the Gilge,
`
`Lipton, Courtney, and Olson references raises an SNQ as to the claims of the Venetianer '912
`
`patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would
`
`consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`Accordingly, Day in combination with Gilge, Lipton, Courtney, and Olson raises a
`
`substantial new question, which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the
`
`Venetianer '912 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts
`
`regarding the Venetianer '912 patent.
`
`JP '783
`
`15.
`
`JP '783 generally discloses an image monitoring device that detects information about
`
`target objects in an image whereby the image monitoring device could include a plurality of
`
`monitoring processors (JP '783: Paragraphs 1 and 31 ).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`The JP '783 reference is cited in the Request as a reference used in various combinations
`
`with the references above to read on dependent claim 5. In light of the SN Q's raised above in
`
`view of the Gilge, Lipton, Courtney, Olson, Brill, and Day references, the JP '783 reference also
`
`raises an SNQ in view of its dependency.
`
`The JP '783 reference was not of record in the prior examination and thus was not
`
`previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to any of claims in the prior examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the JP '783 reference in combination with the Gilge,
`
`Lipton, Courtney, Olson, Brill, and Day references raises an SNQ as to the claims of the
`
`Venetianer '912 patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`Accordingly, JP '783 in combination with Gilge, Lipton, Courtney, Olson, Brill, and Day
`
`raises a substantial new question, which question h