IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Control No.: Unassigned
`
`Inventor:
`
`Alan J. LIPTON et al.
`
`Patent No.:
`
`7,932,923
`
`Issued:
`
`April 26, 2011
`
`Title:
`
`VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
`SYSTEM EMPLOYING
`VIDEO PRIMITIVES
`
`Filing Date: September 29, 2009
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Office of Patent Legal Administration
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION (FORM PTO(cid:173)
`SB/57; PT0-1465) PROVIDING INFORMATION ON U.S. PATENT NO. 7,932,923
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 302-307 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.510, the
`
`undersigned, on behalf of an anonymous Requester, requests ex parte reexamination of claims
`
`1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 ("the '923 Patent").
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED ................... , . .,.,,_ .... ,.. ......... 1
`I.
`II. COPY OF '923 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.510(b)(4) ....................... _, ....... ., .. l
`III. CERTIFICATION REGARDING 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(l) AND 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(l) ........ 1
`IV. PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE '923 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`V. THE '923 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION ................................................................... 3
`VI. CITATION OF PRIOR PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS ...... ,_ .......... ., ...... ,.. 21
`VIL
`STATEMENTS POINTING OUT SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTIONS OF
`P/\TENTABILITY .................................................................................................. ,,. ...... ,., ... ,. ... ,. 23
`A. Proposed Rejection 1: Claims 1-41 are anticipated by Day-I under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................ ., ..... ., .......... , 24
`B. Proposed Rejection 2: Claims 14 and 35 are unpatentable as obvious over Day-I under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .......................................................................................... ., ..... ., ... ., ............. 29
`C. Proposed Rejection 3: Claims 10, 19, 31 and 41 are unpatentable as obvious over Day-I
`and Brill under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... 31
`D. Proposed Rejection 4: Claims 11 and 32 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Day-I
`and Day-II under 35 U.S.C. § l 03 . ., . , ....... , ...... ,. ,..,.., •+• ,.,. •••• .,, ., ..... ,, , •••• ,.,,,, ... ,., .................. ,, ....... 33
`E. Proposed Rejection 5: Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-28 are anticipated by Courtney '755
`under35U.S.C. § 102(b) .......................................................................................................... 36
`F. Proposed Rejection 6: Claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Courtney '755
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...... ,, ... ,. ........ ,.,. .... ., ...... ,. ...... ,. .•.. , ............... , .... ., ..... ,.,, ... ,.,, , .... ,. ............ 40
`G. Proposed Rejection 7: Claims 1 to 7, 9 to 13, and 15 to 28 are anticipated by Shotton et
`al. under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ... ,.,. ... ,. ............. ., .......... ,, ................. ,., ... , .......... ., ........ , ...... ,.,..,.,.,,. 41
`H. Proposed Rejection 8: Claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Shotton et al.
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ... ,_ .............................................................. ., ................... ., ...•. H,.,• .. ·····'•·· 46
`I.
`Proposed Rejection 9: Claims 8 and 29 to 41 are unpatentable as obvious in view of the
`combination of Shotton et al. and Brill et al. under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................... 47
`J.
`Proposed Rejection 10: Claims 1 to 41 are unpatentable as obvious in view of the
`combination of Courtney '584 and Brill et al. under 35 U.S.C. § 103( a) ................................. 55
`VIII. EXPLANATION OF PERTINENCY AND MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR
`ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED UNDER 37
`CFR § 1.51 O(b )(2) .............. , ........ ,,.,. .,.,. ... ,.,,. ..•... , ................ ,, .... ,. ,,,, ..... ,.., ... , ... ,, ..... , ....................... ,., .. 60
`IX. COMMENTS ON PATENT OWNER'S AMENDMENT AND REPLY IN RELATED
`PROCEEDING .......................... ,. ........... ,, ....... ., ............... ., .............. ., ................. , ..... ,..,.,.,,., .. ,., ..... 61
`A. Comments On Patent O\vner's Remarks .. ,., ................. ., ................ ,. ................................... 61
`1. Courtney '755 ................................................... .,. _. ..... ,. .... .,.,. , ........... ,. ........... ,, ..... , .... ,.. 62
`2.
`Shotton ..................................................................... ., ....... ., ............... ,. .......................... 68
`3.. Brill .... ""' ...... .,, , ..................... , ... .,; .. , ,; ............ , .. ,.,;,,, .... , .. , ..... ,.,,, ,: .. ,, ;.,;• .. ,: ... ,;.; . .-, , ..... : ........ , .. ,. ,. .. '•· 71
`4. Courtney '584 in view of Brill ............................................................................. ,, .. ,., ... 75
`B. Comments On New Claims ....................................................................................... ;, ....... 76
`1.
`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes at least one spatial attribute" .... ,.,.,,. 77
`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes at color of the object" ................. '. .... 78
`2.
`3,
`"the pl.urality of attributes of the object includes a size of the objece' ................. ,.i"''' 78
`4.
`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes at least one of a velocity and a speed
`of the object" .............. ,-~ •... '..;, ...... '. ... ,, .. ; ..... , .... ·•·~.;,.··~·---;,.:,·~·,'.'.;,:.·~·,., .... ,·~·•'.'' .... ;,, .. ,.,: ........... ,..,, ........ ,.,. .. 78
`
`

`

`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes a position of the object" .................. 79
`5.
`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes a trajectory of the object" ................ 80
`6.
`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes a classification of the object" .......... 80
`7.
`"the plurality of attributes of the object includes a shape of the object" ...................... 81
`8.
`"each of the plurality of attributes is an observable characteristic of the object" ......... 81
`9.
`81
`"
`.fi h d
`compu er sys m 1s app 1ca 10n spec1 1c ar ware ............................................... .
`1·
`t·
`t
`.
`te
`"
`10
`.
`"retrieving a new user rule that was previously specified" ....................................... 82
`11.
`"the plurality of detected attributes are independent of which event is identified" .. 82
`12.
`''plurality of detected attributes are selected from a group consisting of at least one
`13.
`of a size, a shape, a color, a texture, a position, a velocity, and a speed of the detected
`object"86
`"identifying the event of the object occurs in real time" ....... .,, .. .,;""'••H•--···--------·;., .. 86
`14.
`"storing detected attributes in a memory; wherein analyzing the detected attributes
`15.
`occurs after the detected attributes have been stored in the memory",.,.~·--····•·"·~,.------~·--····· 86
`"selecting user rule comprises selecting subset of the plurality of attributes for
`16.
`analysis" ....................................................................................................................... : ........ 87
`''plurality of attributes that are detected are defined in a device prior to a selection of
`17.
`a subset of the plurality of attributes" ................................................................................... 87
`"no analysis is performed on at least some of the detected attributes to detect an
`18.
`event" 87
`"plurality of attributes include plural physical attributes; new user rule applied to a
`19.
`plural number of physical attributes" .................................................................................... 87
`"plurality of attributes include plural temporal attributes; new user rule applied to a
`20.
`plural number of physical attributes" .................................................................................... 88
`"storing detected attributes in memory; identifying event of the object by analyzing
`21.
`only a subset of the attributes stored in memory" ................................................................. 88
`''video camera operable to obtain the video" ............................................................ 88
`22.
`"identifying first event in real time by analyzing, of the plurality of attributes, only a
`23.
`first selected subset of the plurality of attributes" ................................................................ 88
`"selecting new user rule comprises analyzing, of the plurality of attributes, only a
`24.
`selected subset of the plurality of attributes" ........................................................................ 89
`''memory is configured to store at least some of the attributes for at least two
`25.
`months; identifying the event by analyzing only a selected subset of the plurality of
`attributes including the attributes stored for at least two months" ..................................... ,,. 89
`89
`. i
`.
`. h
`.f .
`... d
`..................................................... ..
`1 entr ymg event wit out reprocessing vrneo
`26
`.
`"identifying event by analyzing at least two selected physical attributes of the
`27.
`plurality of attributes" .............................................................................. .,., .......... ,.,'. ... ".,i,,.,_ . ., 89
`"identify event by analyzing a selection of individual ones of the detected plural
`28.
`90
`"
`.b
`attn utes .. _ ..... ,. .. _. -t:_'!'-~ ~:l--_ot- .. :--..,-~ ~:.,_ ... Y ... ..,.,,t .. _i..,_,.~ ~.-:.:(~·•--•~ .. :· ~ ""·" "'··'"' ,# .. ,;: .. ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ..: •• ,. ~ - •~ · . ·"-~ :-• .i: --~· ~ i-.~ h• ... ~ ...... ·.~:.,. .. _1 ~ ! i:.~:":.,. \' ~ ~,lo.._.,..; .. (. ~· :·,,, '! .. ~ : .. _ ::.• '! .. .. _ .. ,., ........ ~ .. .
`"plural attributes detected are defined in video device independent of selection of the
`29.
`detected plural attributes" ..................................................... , ...... "•·········•·><'•·•····••>•.•··•··,·· .. -., ........... , ... , 90
`"configured as video surveillance device" ........... ,,. .. , ................... ~,..,. ..... ,.,., .. , . .,,, .. _. 90
`30.
`''video sensors'' ······",.·( . .,...; ... ·~i,,,!'-. ....... _ ......... _ .. ,..,.., ... ,. ... ~ ............... :,, ..... 11' •• :,.,t~·:.: ........ :,._ .. -.. .;:~:.,; ... ·.:..:<,~-~)"~ ....... l'-<t0)'11:~-+-~ .. !"'a:·~:.,: .. -........ ..:· .... •;,,,:..,,,.,..·,..,;: ... ..:r .. , .. ,.;-.O:,t.1..- 90
`31 s
`New Independent Claims ............. : ....... : ............. ,:, ... ,. ............ , ..... , .......... ,, ... ·····•'.,..,, .... 91
`32.
`X. CONCLUSION ............................... · .. ·, .... , .... , ...... , .............. " .. ,, ... , .... h .. ••.•.•.•·••,~·•~:" ,. •• ~~;;.,, .• ,~ •. :;,/.i.,,,,.{ ... ,.,. .• >'• 91
`
`"
`
`ii
`
`

`

`LISTING OF ATTACHl\'1ENTS
`
`Attachment A: Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923, for which reexamination is requested
`
`Attachment B: Day et al, "Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings
`
`on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March
`
`1995, pp. 401-408. ("Day-I")
`
`Attachment C: Day et al., "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, pp. 98-105. ("Day-II")
`
`Attachment D: United States Patent No. 5,969,755 to Courtney ("Courtney '755")
`
`Attachment E: Shotton et al., "Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological
`
`Microscopy Videos," Fifth International Conference on Pattern Recognition
`
`(ICPR'2000), September 2000. ("Shotton")
`
`Attachment F: United States Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill ("Brill")
`
`Attachment G: European Patent Application No. EP O 967 584 to Courtney ("Courtney '584")
`
`Attachment H: Claim Chart - Claims 1-41 are anticipated by Day-I under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Attachment I: Claim Chart- Claims 14 and 35 are obvious in view of Day-I under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103
`
`Attachment J: Claim Chart- Claims 10, 19, 31 and 41 are obvious in view Of Day-I and Brill
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Attachment K: Claim Chart - Claims 11 and 32 are obvious in view of Day-I and Day-II
`
`Attachment L: Claim Chart- Claims l to 7, 9 to 13, and 15 to 28 are anticipated by Courtney
`
`'755 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Attachment]\/[: Claim Chart- Claim 14 is obvious in view of Courtney '755 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103
`
`Attachment N: Claim Chart- Claims 1 to 7, 9 to 13, and 15 to 28 are anticipated by Shotton
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Attachment 0: Claim Chart - Claim 14 is obvious in view of Shotton under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Attachment P: Claim Chart -- Claims 8 and 29 to 41 are obvious in view of Shotton and Brill
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attachment Q: Claim Chart - Claims 1 to 41 are obvious in view of Cominey '584 and Brill
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`iv
`
`

`

`I. CLAI1\1S FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`Reexamination is requested of claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923 ("the '923
`
`Patent").
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § l.510(b)(5), the attached Certificate of Service indicates that a
`
`copy of this Request, in its entirety, has been served on Patent Owner at the following address of
`
`the attorney of record for Patent Owner, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.33(c).
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`\VASHINGTON DC 20005
`
`Also submitted herewith is the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.20(c)(l).
`
`II. COPY OF '923 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.5lO(b)(4)
`
`A copy of the entire patent is attached to this Request as Attachment A, as required by 3 7
`
`C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(4). Requester is not aware of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or
`
`reexamination certificate issued with respect to the '923 Patent.
`
`HI. CERTIFICATION REGARDING 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) AND 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(l)
`
`As required by 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.51 0(b )( 6), Requester certifies that the statutory estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315( e )(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325( e )(1) do not prohibit the Requester from
`
`filing this ex parte reexamination request.
`
`IV. PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE '923 PATENT
`
`A request for inter partes reexamination of the '923 Patent was filed on February 29,
`
`2012, naming Bosch Security Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Robert Bosch GMBH, as requester.
`
`On May 23, 2012, the Patent Office granted the request for inter partes reexamination. That
`
`inter partes reexamination proceeding was assigned reexamination Control No. 95/001,914 ("the
`'914 reexamination"). In the Order granting the inter partes reexamination, the Patent Office
`
`determined the following issues proposed in the request had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`(RLP):
`
`1
`
`

`

`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-US (Courtney '755)
`Issue (B): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14 as obvious
`over Courtney-US
`Issue (D): \Vhether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, and
`15-28 as anticipated by Shotton
`Issue (E): \Vhether 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 A 1 as obvious
`over Courtney-BP (Courtney '584) and Brill
`(May 23, 2012 Office Action, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,914, at p.6.)
`On December 3, 2012, the Patent Owner filed a "Petition to Tenninate Reexamination
`Proceeding Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 CFR §§ 1.182, 1.907(b)" in the '914
`reexamination. As grounds for the petition, Patent Owner identified a "Stipulation and
`(Proposed) Order of Dismissal" submitted in Civil Action No. 3: 1 lcv2 l 7 (E.D. Va.), styled
`Object Video, Inc. v. Robert Bosch GmbH, et al. 1 According to the petition,
`The Order stated: (1) "The parties jointly request that this Court
`dismiss all claims asserted between them, with prejudice to the
`right to pursue any such claims in the future," (2) "The parties
`further stipulate and request that the Court order that the Bosch
`Defendants, namely Robert Bosch GmbH and Bosch Security
`Systems, Inc., have not sustained their burden of proving invalidity
`of any of the claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,970,083, any of the
`claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,696,945, any of the claims 1-22
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912, any of claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,932,923, and any of the claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,613,324' and (3) "This Order is a final and non-appealable
`decision."
`(December 3, 2012 Petition, Control No. 95/001,914, at pp. 2-3)
`
`1 The petition indicated that the action in the Eastern District of Virginia "had been stayed in its
`entirety pending the disposition of an ITC investigation (No.337-TA-795)." (Petition at p. 1.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`The petition proceeded to allege that,
`
`On November 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
`District of Virginia signed the Order containing the above-quoted
`language. Exhibit 6 at 3 ("IT IS SO ORDERED.").
`
`(December 3, 2012 Petition, Control No. 95/001,914, at p. 3)
`
`On February 13, 2013, the Patent Office issued a Decision Granting Petition to Terminate
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding.
`
`Prior to the filing of the petition, Patent Owner filed an Amendment and Reply on August
`
`27, 2012 in the '914 reexamination, which had not been acted upon by the Examiner at the time
`
`the '914 reexamination was terminated.
`
`V. THE '923 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`
`The following summary of the '923 Patent and its Prosecution is incorporated herein
`
`substantially as set forth in the '914 reexamination request.
`
`The '116 application, was filed on September 29, 2009. As originally filed, the '116
`
`application contained twenty-six claims, of which claims 1, 22, 25, and 26 were the only
`
`independent claims. Application claims 1, 22, 25, and 26 as filed are reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer-readable medium comprising software for a
`video surveillance system, comprising code segments for operating
`the video surveillance system based on video primitives.
`
`22. A computer-readable medium comprising software for
`a video surveillance system, comprising:
`
`code segments for accessing archived video primitives; and
`
`code segments for extracting event occurrences from
`accessed archived video primitives.
`
`25. A method comprising the step of operating a video
`surveillance system based on video primitives.
`
`26. A method comprising the steps of:
`
`accessing archived video primitives; and
`
`extracting event occurrences
`primitives.
`
`from
`
`accessed video
`
`3
`
`

`

`;
`
`According to the prosecution history of the '116 application, the applicants held an
`interview with the Examiner on November 24, 2009 and "discussed new claims 27-70."
`(Interview Summary mailed December 2, 2009, page 1.) On December 30, 2009, the applicants
`filed a "Preliminary Amendment and Interview Summary" cancelling original claims 1 to 26 and
`adding new claims 27 to 58. Ofthe newly added claims, claims 27, 36, 48, and 50 are
`independent claims. Claims 27, 36, 48, and 50 as presented and are reproduced below:
`
`27. A method comprising:
`detecting an object in a video;
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing
`the video, each attribute representing a characteristic of the
`detected object;
`selecting a new user rule; and
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, identifying an
`event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes of the
`object by applying the new user mle to the plurality of detected
`attributes;
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified.
`
`36. A video device comprising:
`means for detecting an object in a video;
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic of
`the detected object;
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes; and
`means for identifying an event of the object that is not one
`of the detected attributes of the object by applying a selected new
`user mle to the plurality of attributes stored in memory,
`wherein the means for identifying an event is capable of
`identifying the event independent of when the attributes are stored
`in memory.
`
`48. A method comprising:
`
`4
`
`

`

`providing a video device which detects an object upon
`analyzing a video and which detects plural attributes of the
`detected object upon analyzing the video; and
`djen~ s¢lecting a rule, which is not a. rule us«l to detect any
`il}divi(Jua1 altrH:mte, ,w: a. tiew tt"jet rut~~ th~ n~w user n.ilc providing
`ail Itnaly~j~ Qf a c01nbinatkm of the ::tttrjb-vtes to detect ~}i eVe1Jt that
`. . .
`is not otle of the. detected attribttte-S,
`wherein the attributes to be detected are independent of the
`event to be detected.
`
`50. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
`containing instructions that when executed by a computer system
`cause said computer system to implement the following method
`comprising:
`detecting an object in a video;
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing
`the video, each attribute representing a characteristic of the
`detected object;
`selecting a new user rule; and
`after detecting the plurality of attributes, 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.
`The "Preliminary Amendment and Interview Summary" filed December 30, 2009 also
`included a purported summary of the November 24, 2009 interview, reproduced below:
`The Applicant thanks Examiner Vo for his time during the
`personal interview of November 24, 2009. During the interview,
`the Applicant discussed draft cfafros 27 .. 70 presented for the
`Examiner~s consideration to help cxpciut{; allo'-Vall<,~e of the
`application. Applicant discuss~d distJnguishing t'¢atures of the
`invention, and how those features were 8.ttempted to be captured
`by the draft claim language.
`(Preliminary Amendment and Interview Summary filed December
`30, 2009, page 10.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a first Office Action, mailed on June 17, 2010, and
`
`rejected claims 27 to 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,653,635 ("Paek et al.") in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,454 ("Qian et al."). According to the
`
`prosecution history of the '116 application, the applicants conducted a second interview with the
`
`Examiner on July 22, 2010, where the parties "[ d]iscussed Qian reference and claimed
`
`limitations" with respect to claims 27 and 45. (Interview Summary mailed July 26, 2010, page
`
`1.)
`
`On October 13, 2010, the applicants filed an "Amendment and Interview Summary"
`
`where independent claims 27, 36, and 50 were amended, dependent claims 35 and 58 were
`
`amended into independent form, and new claims 59 to 70 were added. The "Amendment and
`
`Interview Summary" also included the cancellation of claims 28, 42, and 51 and the amendment
`
`of dependent claims 30, 31, 39, 53, and 54. Independent claims 27, 35, 36, 48, 50, and 59 as
`
`presented are reproduced below:
`
`27. A method comprising:
`
`detecting an object in a video;
`
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing
`the video, 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 identifies the
`event without reprocessing the video.
`
`35. A the method of claim 27, further comprising:
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected
`first and second objects by analyzing the video, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the respective detected object;
`selecting a new user rule: and
`
`6
`
`

`

`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.
`wherein the step of identifying an event comprises
`identifying an event of the first object interacting with the second
`object by analyzing the detected attributes of the first and second
`objects, the event not being one of the detected attributes.
`
`36. A video device comprising:
`means for detecting an object in a video;
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic of
`the detected object;
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes; aBt!
`means for selecting a new user rule, the means for selecting
`a new user ·rule capable of selecting the new user rule after the
`plurality of detected attributes are stored in memory; and
`means for identifying an event of the object that is not one
`of the detected attributes of the object by applying a selected new
`user rule to the plurality of attributes stored in memory,
`wherein the means for identifying an event is capable of
`identifying the event independent of when the attributes are stored
`in memory and is capable of identifying the event without
`reprocessing the video.
`
`48. A method comprising:
`providing a video device which detects an object upon
`analyzing a video and which detects plural attributes of the
`detected object upon analyzing the video; and
`then, selecting a rule, which is not a rule used to detect any
`individual attribute, as a new user rule, the new user rule providing
`an analysis of a combination of the attributes to detect an event that
`is not one of the detected attributes,
`wherein the attributes to be detected are independent of the
`event to be detected.
`
`7
`
`

`

`50. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
`containing instructions that when executed by a computer system
`cause said computer system to implement the following method
`comprising:
`detecting an object in a video;
`detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by analyzing
`the video, 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, the event of the object
`being idetltified w•ithot1t ®rocessing tl1e:;Y)deo~
`wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`independent of which event is identified.
`5&. A the.. 1mn,transitob( cdnwtttet--readable storage.
`medium ef elM¼l··'~h~re:ht--t~mihee\ ia)plem.etUecl. hy • t~
`e&rt¼p'i:\t~f-~ffi~*--fiiii~r-~~rtse& ·. cont:aining · instructions . that
`wheil executed by a comput~r S£S-tem Ci\µse s~4d cmnputer System
`. . .
`Jo in1plement thef9UowhUJ t}1etl1od cqmnr_istng;
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`detecting a plurality of attributes of each of the detected
`first and second objects by analyzing the video, each attribute
`representing a characteristic of the respective detected object;
`selecting a new user rule; and
`after <l:eteQting. .the· plprnlit:K of ...1ittribute;s~ .. · i~entifying an
`event that is not Otltf •of the detected attributes of the first and
`sec~t~d .q{}j~cts by-~~ppl):ing the· new 1~11~. toJhe. p~ity ,Qf
`·. · ·
`· ·
`detected attributes;
`wherein ~Jhe niuralit:r. of 1tttribytes that . are detected ar~
`· · · · · · · · ·
`·
`m.{J~11endent ofwhi_~J1 event fa identified~.
`the step of identifying an event comprises
`wherein
`identifying an event of the first object interacting with the second
`object by analyzing the detected attributes of the first and second
`objects, the event not being one of the detected attributes.
`
`59. A video device comprising:
`8
`
`

`

`means for detecting first and second objects in a video;
`means for detecting a plurality of attributes of the object by
`analyzing the video, each attribute representing a characteristic of
`the respective detected object;
`a memory storing the plurality of detected attributes; and
`means for identifying an event of the first object interacting
`with the second object by applying a selected new user rule to the
`plurality of attributes stored in memory, the event not being one of
`the detected attributes,
`wherein the means for identifying an event is capable of
`identifying the event independent of when the attributes are stored
`in memory.
`
`Subsequently, the applicants filed an "Amendment and Interview Summary~' on October
`13, 2010 that included a purported summary of the July 22, 2010 interview, reproduced below:
`time during the
`The Applicant thanks Examiner Vo for his
`personal interview of July 22,2010. During the interview, the
`Applicant discussed the Office Action, the applied references to
`Paek et al. and Qian et al. While no agreement was reached
`regarding the differences of tb~ ht~;ifaltiot½ the. tntervi~w w1ts still
`helpful to help focus the retmlinh1g iisues. with tes1'lett to tbe
`fifod
`l11terview Sumn1acy
`(Amendment an4
`pending claims.
`October 13, 2010, page 14.)
`According to the prosecution history of the '116 application, the applicants conducted a
`third interview ¼ith the Examiner on November 17, 2010, where "[t]he applicants discussed the
`independent claims." (Interview Summary mai1ed November 23, 2010, page 1.) On December
`2, 2010, the applicants filed a "Supplemental Amendment and Interview Summary," which
`included a purported summary of the November 17, 2010 interview, reproduced be1ow:
`The Applicant thanks Examiner Vo for his thne durihg the
`personal interview of November 17~2010 with Patrick .~1fofr and
`Peter Venetianer. During the h1tervic"Y:, Jhe Exan1iner re:qn:¢sted
`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
`(Supplemental l\mendment and Interview Summary,
`interview.
`filed December 2, 2010, page 14.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Independent claims 27, 35, 36, 48, 50, 58, and 59 as set forth in the Supplemental
`Amendment and Interview Summary, filed December 2, 2010 are reproduced below:
`27. A method comprising:
`detecting an object in a video;
`detecting a plurality o f attributes o f the object by analyzing
`the video, thQ....pJ1JH!l.ity o f attrjlmqmdudin,a a t Jeasume of a
`each attribute
`temporal attribute,
`a
`tlhysic,:11 Attribute and
`representing a characteristic o f the detected object;
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality o f
`attributes; and
`after detecting the plurality o f attributes and after selecting
`o f the new user rule,
`identifying an event o f the object that is not one o f the
`detected attributes o f the object by applying the new user rule to
`the plurality o f detected attributes;
`wherein the plurality o f attributes that are detected are
`independent o f which event is identified, and
`wherein the step o f identifying the event o f the object
`identifies the event without reprocessing the video.
`
`35. A method comprising:
`detecting first and second objects in a video;
`detecting a plurality o f attributes t ) f each o f