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.
`
`90/012,876
`
`05/23/2013
`
`7932923
`
`1092/0101PUS1
`
`6419
`
`06/17/2013
`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
`
`06/17/2013
`
`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. 90/012.876.
`
`PATENT NO. 7932923.
`
`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.
`
`90/012,876
`Examiner
`
`ADAM BASEHOAR
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7932923
`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 23 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. 20130604
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION
`
`1.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-41 of United States Patent
`
`Number 7,932,923 B2 (Lipton et al.) is raised by the Request (hereafter the "Request") for ex
`
`parte reexamination filed 05/23/2013.
`
`References Cited in the Request
`
`2.
`
`A total of six references in various combinations have been asserted in the Request as
`
`providing teachings relevant to the claims of the Lipton '923 patent. The proposed references
`
`which make up the combinations are as follows:
`
`Courtney '584 - (European Patent Application No. EP O 967 584 A2, published
`
`12/29/1999)
`
`Courtney '755 - (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999)
`
`Brill - (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003)
`
`Day-I - ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the
`
`Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408)
`
`Day-II - ("Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Video Data for On-Line Object Oriented Query
`
`Processing," Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Computing and
`
`Systems, IEEE, May 1995. p. 98-105)
`
`Shotton - ("Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy Videos,"
`
`Fifth International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), September 2000)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Of the six 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 Lipton '923 patent. It is noted, as shown below, that the Courtney '584, Courtney
`
`'755, Brill, and Shotton references were cited in the 95/001,914 inter partes reexamination and
`
`were determined to establish a reasonable likelihood that Requestor will prevail (RLP) with
`
`regard to certain claims of the Lipton '923 patent. The 95/001,914 reexamination having been
`
`terminated before the established RLPs could be fully resolved.
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested
`
`3.
`
`The six references cited above are discussed in the Request regarding claims 1-41 of the
`
`Lipton '923 patent. Pages 17-21 and 23-60 of the Request detail out proposed substantial new
`
`questions of patentability in light of the combination of the six references cited above.
`
`The Examiner notes that on pages 61-91 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 95/001,914 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)).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`4.
`
`The Lipton '923 patent was originally assigned serial number 12/569,116 and was filed
`
`09/29/2009 with 26 claims. A preliminary amendment was filed 12/30/2009 canceling claims 1-
`
`26 and adding new claims 27-58.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`A Non-Final Action was mailed 06/17/2010 rejecting all claims 27-58 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Paek al. (US 7,653,635) in view of Qian et al. (US 6,721,454).
`
`An interview was held on 07/22/2010 discussing the Qian reference and claim limitations.
`
`Subsequent to the interview, an amendment was filed 10/13/2010 amending claims 27, 30, 31,
`
`35, 36, 39, 50, 54, and 58; canceling claims 28, 42, and 51; and adding new claims 59-70.
`
`Applicant's remarks indicating the substance of the amendment as follows:
`
`"Claims 27, 29-41, 43-50 and 52-70 are pending in this application, of which claims 27,
`35, 36, 48, 50, 58, and 59 are independent. With this amendment:
`• Claims 35 and 58, directed towards identifying an event of a first object
`interacting with a second object, have been put into independent form.
`• New claims 59-70 are added. These claims correspond to original claims 36-
`47, with further recitations added directed to identifying an event of a first
`object interacting with a second object.
`• Claims 27 and 50 have been amended to recite the selecting of a new user rule
`is after detecting the plurality of attributes, to further highlight the differences
`of these claims and the prior art.
`• Claims 28, 42 and 51 are cancelled, similar limitations of these claims having
`been added to independent claims 27, 36 and 51, respectively.
`• Claims 30, 31, 39, 53 and 54 are amended to address formal matters."
`
`Another interview was held on 11/17/2010 discussing the independent claims.
`
`Subsequent to the interview, a supplemental amendment was filed 12/02/2010 amending claims
`
`27, 35, 36, 41, 43, 48, 50, 58, 59, and 64-66. Applicant's remarks indicating the substance of the
`
`amendment as follows:
`
`"Examiner requested certain amendments to the claims for formal purposes. Claims 27,
`35, 36, 41, 43, 48, 58, 59, 64-66 have been amended to address formal issues consistent
`with this discussion. In addition, 27, 36, 48, and 50 have been amended to add further
`recitations regarding the recited attributes as suggested by Examiner Vo during the
`interview."
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Another interview was held on 01/26/2011 discussing the Carlborm reference (U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2003/0023612). Subsequent to the interview, a second supplemental
`
`amendment was filed 02/04/2011 amending all independent claims 27, 35, 36, 48, 50, 58, and 59
`
`to incorporate the features of detecting objects and attributes of said objects in a video "from a
`
`single camera" as well as "wherein the event of the object refers to the object engaged in an
`
`activity."
`
`In response to the second supplemental amendment the Examiner then mailed a Notice of
`
`Allowability on 02/18/2011 allowing claims 27, 29-41, 43-50, and 52-70 (renumbered 1-41).
`
`The Notice of Allowability including the following examiner's statement ofreasons for
`
`allowance:
`
`"The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not
`disclose a method comprising: detecting an object in a video; detecting a plurality of
`attributes of the object by analyzing the video, the plurality of attributes including at least
`one of a physical attribute and a temporal attribute, each attribute representing a
`characteristic of the detected object; selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality
`of attributes; and after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting of the new
`user rule, identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the
`object by applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes; wherein the
`plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is identified, and
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies the event without
`reprocessing the video as presented by the applicant's arguments filed on 02/04/2011."
`
`5.
`
`On 02/29/2012, a first Request (hereafter the '914 Request) for inter partes
`
`reexamination was filed (95/001,914), and reexamination in light of the '914 Request was
`
`ordered (hereafter the '914 Order) on 05/23/2012. The '914 Order indicating that the '914
`
`Request establishes a reasonable likelihood that Requestor will prevail (RLP) with respect to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`claims 1-41 of the '923 Lipton patent. The ''914 Order specifically indicating that an RLP was
`
`established for the following identified claims of the '923 Lipton patent:
`
`Issue (A):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13,
`
`and 15-28 as anticipated by Courtney '755.
`
`Issue (B):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14 as
`
`obvious over Courtney '755.
`
`Issue (D):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13,
`
`and 15-28 are anticipated by Shotton.
`
`Issue (E):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14 as
`
`obvious over Shotton.
`
`Issue (F):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8 and 29-
`
`41 as obvious over Shotton and Brill.
`
`Issue (I):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-41 as
`
`obvious over Courtney '584 and Brill.
`
`A corresponding Non-Final Action was also mailed on 05/23/2012. The Non-Final
`
`Action rejected claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Courtney '755; rejected claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Shotton; rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Courtney '755;
`
`rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shotton; rejected claims 8
`
`and 29-41 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shotton in view of Brill; and
`
`rejecting claims 1-41 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Courtney '584 in view
`
`of Brill.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`On 08/27/2012 Patent Owner (PO) filed a response to the Non-Final Action. On
`
`09/26/2012 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 CPR 1.182, l.907(b). On 02/13/2013 the Office granted PO's
`
`petition under 37 CPR 1.182 to terminate the 95/001,914 inter partes proceeding. Thereafter, the
`
`95/001,914 reexamination was terminated and the proceeding was concluded with the above
`
`noted RLPs being left undecided.
`
`Priority Determination
`
`6.
`
`Under the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" section in the Lipton '923 patent,
`
`the Lipton '923 patent claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/987,707, filed
`
`11/15/2001, which claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/694,712 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,954,498), filed 10/24/2000, each of which are incorporated by reference in their
`
`entirety. The Request (Pages 21-23) asserts that Lipton '923 patent does not contain a proper
`
`claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 for the benefit of an earlier filing date and as such none of the claims
`
`of the Lipton '923 patent should be entitled to the benefit of a filing date earlier than 09/29/2009,
`
`the filing date of the '116 application.
`
`The Examiner notes that 35 U.S.C. 120 states that:
`"An application for patent for an invention ... shall have the same effect, as to such
`invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or
`abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application
`similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is
`amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be
`entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment
`containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during
`the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this
`section. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to accept
`an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section." (emphasis added).
`
`Further the Examiner notes that that MPEP 201.11 (IIl)(A) states that:
`"Except for benefit claims to the prior application in a continued prosecution application
`(CPA), benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, and 365(c) must identify the prior application
`by application number, or by international application number and international filing date, and
`indicate the relationship between the applications. See 37 CPR 1.78(a)(2)(i). The relationship
`between the applications is whether the instant application is a continuation, divisional, or
`continuation-in-part of the prior nonprovisional application. An example of a proper benefit
`claim is "this application is a continuation of prior Application No.---, filed---." A benefit claim
`that merely states that "this application claims the benefit of Application No. ---,filed---" does
`not comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CPR 1.78(a)(2)(i), since the relationship between the
`applications is not stated. In addition, a benefit claim that merely states that "this application is a
`continuing application of Application No. ---,filed---" does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and
`37 CPR 1.78(a)(2)(i) since the proper relationship, which includes the type of continuing (i.e.,
`continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) application, is not stated .... Any benefit claim
`that does not both identify a prior application by its application number and specify a
`relationship between the applications will not be considered to contain a specific reference to a
`prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120 ... To specify the relationship between the
`applications, applicant must specify whether the application is a continuation, divisional, or
`continuation-in-part of the prior application." (emphasis added)
`
`MPEP 201.ll(IIl)(D) further states that:
`"The reference required by 37 CPR 1.78(a)(2) or (a)(5) must be included in an ADS or
`the specification must contain or be amended to contain such reference in the first sentence(s)
`following the title ... The Office may not recognize any benefit claim where there is no indication
`of the relationship between the nonprovisional applications or no indication of the intermediate
`nonprovisional application that is directly claiming the benefit of the provisional application.
`Even if the Office has recognized a benefit claim by entering it into the Office's database and
`including it on applicant's filing receipt, the benefit claim is not a proper benefit claim under 35
`U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CPR 1.78 unless the reference is included in an ADS or
`in the first sentence> (s) < of the specification and all other requirements are met."
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`In the instant case, while the specific reference of the benefit claim in the Lipton '923
`
`patent does properly identify the prior applications by application numbers, the specific reference
`
`is deficient for failing to indicate the proper relationship between the applications (e.g.,
`
`continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, etc.). Thus the benefit claim does not appear to
`
`comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CPR 1.78(a)(2)(i). Therefore, for reexamination purposes,
`
`claims 1-41 of the Lipton '923 patent are considered to have an effective date of 09/29/2009, the
`
`filing date of the Lipton '923 patent.
`
`Substantial New Question (SNQ) of Patentability
`
`7.
`
`For purposes of determination, independent claims 1 and 8 are used as representative
`
`claims for the proposed rejections in the Request. The italicized/bolded sections of
`
`representative claims 1 and 8 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 statement for reasons for allowance which mirrors the limitations of
`
`independent claim 1.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`A method comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the video from said single
`
`camera, the plurality of attributes including at least one of a physical attribute and a temporal
`
`attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting the new user rule,
`
`identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by
`
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies the event without
`
`reprocessing the video, and
`
`wherein the event of the object refers to the object engaged in an activity.
`
`Claim 8:
`
`A method comprising:
`
`detecting first and second objects in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected first and second objects by
`
`analyzing the video from said single camera, each attribute representing a characteristic of the
`
`respective detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, identifying an event that is not one of the
`
`detected attributes of the first and second objects by applying the new user rule to the plurality
`
`of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`wherein the step of identifying an event of the object comprises identifying a first event
`
`of the first object interacting with the second object by analyzing the detected attributes of the
`
`first and second objects, the first event not being one of the detected attributes, and
`
`wherein the event of the object refers to the object engaged in an activity.
`
`Discussion of References that Raise a SNQ
`
`8.
`
`All of the proposed references raise a substantial new question as noted below.
`
`Courtney '755
`
`9.
`
`Courtney '755 generally discloses a video indexing system whereby moving objects in a
`
`given video are tracked. Courtney '755 teaches that from the tracked objects video meta(cid:173)
`
`information is generated and stored in a database to be further queried to help identify desired
`
`videos (Courtney '755: Abstract).
`
`The Request shows that the Courtney '755 reference appears to disclose, for independent
`
`claim 1:
`
`"detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the video from said single
`
`camera, the plurality of attributes including at least one of a physical attribute and a temporal
`
`attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes; and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting the new user rule,
`
`identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by
`
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies the event without
`
`reprocessing the video" (See the Request, pages 36-40; See Attachment L, pages Ll-L9)
`
`The Courtney '755 reference was not of record in the prior original examination and thus
`
`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 Courtney '755 raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the
`
`Lipton '923 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 '755 raises a substantial new question of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-
`
`28 which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Lipton '923 patent nor
`
`was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Lipton '923 patent.
`
`Shotton
`
`10.
`
`Shotton generally discloses a video analysis and content-based video query and retrieval
`
`system (Shotton: Abstract).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`The Request shows that the Shotton reference appears to disclose, for independent claim
`
`1:
`
`"detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the video from said single
`
`camera, the plurality of attributes including at least one of a physical attribute and a temporal
`
`attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting the new user rule,
`
`identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by
`
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies the event without
`
`reprocessing the video" (See the Request, pages 41-46; See Attachment N, pages N l-N7)
`
`The Shotton reference was not of record in the prior original examination and thus 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 Shotton raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the Lipton
`
`'923 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: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`Accordingly, Shotton raises a substantial new question of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-28
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Lipton '923 patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Lipton '923 patent.
`
`Shotton and Brill
`
`11.
`
`Shotton generally discloses a video analysis and content-based video query and retrieval
`
`system (Shotton: Abstract). 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 Request shows that the combination of Shotton and Brill appears to disclose, for
`
`independent claim 8:
`
`"detecting first and second objects in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected first and second objects by
`
`analyzing the video from said single camera, each attribute representing a characteristic of the
`
`respective detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, identifying an event that is not one of the
`
`detected attributes of the first and second objects by applying the new user rule to the plurality
`
`of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`wherein the step of identifying an event of the object comprises identifying a first event
`
`of the first object interacting with the second object by analyzing the detected attributes of the
`
`first and second objects, the first event not being one of the detected attributes" (See the
`
`Request, pages 47-55; See Attachment P, pages P l-P20)
`
`The combination of the Shotton and Brill references was not of record in the prior
`
`original examination and thus their combination 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 the combination of Shotton and Brill raises an SNQ
`
`as to claim 8 of the Lipton '923 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, the combination of Shotton and Brill raises a substantial new question of
`
`claims 8 and 29-41 which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Lipton
`
`'923 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Lipton
`
`'923 patent.
`
`Courtney '584 and Brill
`
`12.
`
`Courtney '584 generally discloses an automatic video monitoring system for tracking and
`
`saving information about moving objects (Courtney '584: Paragraphs 13-15). 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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`The Request shows that the combination of Courtney '584 and Brill appears to disclose,
`
`for independent claim 1:
`
`"detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the video from said single
`
`camera, the plurality of attributes including at least one of a physical attribute and a temporal
`
`attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting the new user rule,
`
`identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by
`
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies the event without
`
`reprocessing the video" (See the Request, pages 55-60; See Attachment Q, pages Ql-Q29)
`
`The combination of the Courtney '584 and Brill references was not discussed by the
`
`examiner in the prior original examination and thus their combination was not previously applied
`
`to any of the claims in the prior original examination.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the combination of Courtney '584 and Brill raises an
`
`SNQ as to claim 1 of the Lipton '923 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: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`Accordingly, the combination of Courtney '584 and Brill raises a substantial new
`
`question of claims 1-41 which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the
`
`Lipton '923 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the
`
`Lipton '923 patent.
`
`13.
`
`Day-I 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-I: Abstract).
`
`The Request shows that the Day-I reference appears to disclose, for independent claim 1:
`
`"detecting an object in a video from a single camera;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing the video from said single
`
`camera, the plurality of attributes including at least one of a physical attribute and a temporal
`
`attribute, each attribute representing a characteristic of the detected object;
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes; and
`
`after detecting the plurality of attributes and after selecting the new user rule,
`
`identifying an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the object by
`
`applying the new user rule to the plurality of detected attributes;
`
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified,
`
`wherein the step of identifying the event of the object identifies the event without
`
`reprocessing the video" (See the Request, pages 24-29; See Attachment H, pages Hl-H13)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`The Day-I reference was not of record in the prior original examination and thus 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 Day-I raises an SNQ as to claim 1 of the Lipton '923
`
`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-I raises a substantial new question of claims 1-41 which question has
`
`not been decided in a previous examinatio