`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.usplo.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`95/001,914
`
`02/29/2012
`
`7,932,923
`
`1269
`
`05/23/2012
`7590
`6449
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK,P-C.
`.607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`HUGHES, DEANDRA M
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`05/23/2012
`
`rarer woer
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`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)
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 1 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 1 of 183
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`Date:
`
`ONE BROADWAY
`NEW YORK,NY 10004
`
`OB
`mo a rT
`oo +
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROLNO. : 95001914
`
`PATENTNO. : 7932923
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER: 3999
`
`ART UNIT: 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may oncefile
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`‘response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTOL-2070(Rev.07-04)
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 2 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 2 of 183
`
`

`

`ORDER GRANTING/DENYING
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINATION
`
`95/001,914
`Examiner
`
`7,932,923
`Art Unit
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`
`
`
` Control No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address.-- The request for inter partes reexamination has been considered.Identification of the claims, the
`references relied on, and the rationale supporting the determination are attached.
`
` Attachment(s):
`|Other:
`[_] PTO-892
`PTO/SB/08
`
`
` [x] An Office action is attached with this order.
`
`[_] An Office action will follow in due course.
`
`
`
`2. (_] The requestfor inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
`
`
` This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denial by petition
`to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTHfrom the mailing date hereof. 37 CFR 1.927.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ONLY UNDER 37 CFR 1.183. In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26(c)
`
`will be made to requester.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.XX]The requestfor inter partes reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`All correspondencerelating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end ofthis
`
`Order.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2063 (08/06)
`
`Paper No. 20120326
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 3 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 3 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`|
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION
`The requestfor interpartes reexamination filed Feb. 29, 2012 asserts that
`
`1.
`
`claims 1-41 of USP 7,732,923 ('"923 patent’) are unpatentable.
`2.
`Upon review, the request establishes a reasonablelikelihood that Requesterwill
`prevail with respect to claims 1-41 of the ‘923 patent.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 4 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 4 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`References Cited in Request
`
`3.
`
`A total of eight references, applied alone or in certain combinations, have been
`
`asserted in the request as providing teachings relevant to the claims of the ‘923 patent.
`
`The references are asfollows:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`USP 5,969,755 to Courtney issued Oct. 19, 1999. (“Courtney-US")
`
`EP 0967584A2 to Courtney published Dec. 29, 1999. ("Courtney-EP")
`
`Courtney, Jonathan. Automatic Video Indexing via Object Motion Analysis.
`Pattern Recognition. Vol. 30. No. 4. pp. 607-625. 1997. (“Courtney-NPL”)
`USP 6,628,835 to Brill et al. issued Sep. 30, 2003. (“Brill”)
`
`USP 6,721,454 to Qian et al. issued Apr. 13, 2004. (“Qian”)
`
`USP 7,658,635 to Paeketal. issued Jan. 26, 2010. (“Paek”)
`
`Olsonet al. Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms
`for Smart Cameras. Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding
`Workshop. pgs. 159-175. May 1997. ("Olson")
`
`Shotton et al. Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological
`Microscopy Videos.5" Int'l Conf. On Pattern Recognition (ICPR2000).
`Technical Report UMA-DAC-00/26. Sept. 3-8, 2000. (“Shotton’)
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 5 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 5 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`.
`
`Page 4
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested
`
`4.
`
`The seven references cited above are discussed in the request and asserted to
`
`render unpatentable claims 1-41 of the ‘923 patent.
`
`Pages 27-89 of the request include explanations and claim charts that seek to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Requesterwill prevail (“RLP”) with respectto at
`
`least one of the patent claims.
`
`The explanations in the request are addressed under subheadings designating
`each as a numbered “Issue”as follows:
`|
`
`Issue (A):|Whether there is an RLP asto the proposedrejection of claims 1-
`7, 9-13, and 15-28 as anticipated by Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (B):|Whether there is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claim 14
`as obvious over Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (C):|Whether there is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Courtney-US and Olson.
`
`Issue (D):|Whether there is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`7, 9-13, and 15-28 are anticipated by Shotton.
`
`Issue (E):|Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposedrejection of claim 14
`as obvious over Shotton.
`
`Issue (F):|Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposedrejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Shotton and Brill.
`
`Issue (G):|Whetherthere is an RLP as to the proposedrejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Courtney-EP and Olson.
`
`Issue (H):|Whether there is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Courtney-NPL and Olson.
`
`Issue(I):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP as to the proposedrejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Courtney-EP and Brill.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 6 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 6 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Issue (J):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over the Courtney-NPLand Brill.
`
`Issue (K):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPasto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Winter, Lipton, and Brill.
`
`Issue (L):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPas to the proposedrejection of claims 1-7
`and 9-28 as obvious over Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US.
`
`issue (M):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPasto the proposedrejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-US, and Olson.
`
`issue (N):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPas to the proposedrejection of claims 1-7 .
`and 9-28 as obvious over Paek, Qian, and Shotton.
`
`Issue (O):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPas to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Shotton, and Brill.
`
`Issue (P):
`
`Whether there is an RLPasto the proposedrejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson.
`
`Issue (Q):
`
`Issue (R):
`
`Issue (S):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPasto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Brill.
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NPL, andBrill.
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NPL, and Olson.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 7 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 7 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Summary
`
`5.
`
`The following issues have been determined to have a reasonablelikelihood of
`
`prevailing for the identified claims, and therefore, will be addressed in the non-final
`
`action.
`
`/
`
`Issue (A):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLPas to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7,
`9-13, and 15-28 as anticipated by Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (B):
`
`Issue (D):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposedrejection of claim 14 as
`obvious over Courtney-US.
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claims 1-7,
`9-13, and 15-28 are anticipated by Shotton.
`
`Issue (E):
`
`Whether there is an RLP asto the proposed rejection of claim 14 as
`obvious over Shotton.
`
`Issue (F):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Shotton and Brill.
`
`Issue(I):
`
`Whetherthere is an RLP asto the proposedrejection of claims 1-41
`as obvious over Courtney-EP andBrill.
`
`6.
`Issues (C), (G)-(H), and (J)-(S) have been determined NOT to have a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing for the identified claims, and therefore, will not be addressedin
`
`the non-final action.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 8 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 8 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`This order is organized according to the independentclaims and their respective
`
`Directory
`
`dependentclaims as follows.
`
`CIAIMS 1-7 ooo cece cece eee eecenctceee cece eeeeeeseteeneaaaaeaadaaaesaaasesseneeeeeeeeeeeeea pages 8-27
`Cla8 eeeete cetceeeneeeeeeeeeseseesessusessenaneseeennaeeesdec eeeteeeneeeteneeeenes pages 28-58
`
`Claims 9-19 oo... ccccccceeecseteteeeeeeceeeeeceneeaauaaaeaaaaeeeaeeeseneeeeneeeeneeea pages 59-79
`Claims 20-21 oo eee ce cc eeeceecccceccceeeeeeeaeeesceeeeeeecaaaeeceseeeeseeeseeeeecseeseesenasnnaea pages 80-99
`
`ClAiIMS 22-28 oo... eee cccccccseeecccecceseeeeeeeeeeeceeecaeaeeeeeeenseneeeseetaaaenneeees pages 100-119
`Claim 29 0...settseeeeeneeeneneeseneeeseesenereeateeressteecacaeseesssnneeanes pages 120-150
`ClaiMS 30-31 oo... cccccccecececeeececeneeeesaeeeseenieeeeseneeeeseesneeeenenieseetigs pages 151-181
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 9 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 9 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`CLAIMS 1-7
`
`For the reasonsset forth below, the following issues have been determined to
`
`have a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing for the identified claims, and will be
`
`addressedin the non-final action.
`
`Issue (A):
`
`Claims 1-7 anticipated by Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (D):
`
`Claims 1-7 anticipated by Shotton.
`
`Issue (I):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Courtney-EP andBrill.
`
`For the reasonsset forth below, the following issues have been determined to
`
`NOT have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the identified claims, and will NOT be
`
`addressedin the non-final action.
`
`Issue (G):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Courtney-EP and Olson.
`
`Issue (H):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Courtney-NPL and Olson.
`
`Issue (J):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Courtney-NPLandBrill.
`
`Issue (K):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Winter, Lipton, and Brill.
`
`Issue (L):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (N):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, and Shotton.
`
`Issue (P):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson.
`
`Issue (Q):
`Issue (R):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Brill.
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NPL, and Brill.
`
`Issue (S):
`
`Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NPL, and Olson.
`
`Issue (A)
`
`Requester proposedthat claims 1-7 are anticipated by Courtney-US. The
`
`examiner agreesthat this anticipation rejection over Courtney-US has a reasonable
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 10 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 10 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`_
`
`likelihood of prevailing because the general application of Courtney-USto claims 1-7
`
`in the claim charts appears reasonable. (request pgs. 28-32 and claim charts pgs. 2-15)
`
`Therefore, requester has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this
`
`proposed anticipation rejection of claims 1-7.
`
`Issue (D)
`Requester proposedthat claims 1-7 are anticipated by Shotton. The examiner
`agreesthat this anticipation rejection over Shotton has a reasonablelikelihood of
`
`prevailing because the general application of Shotton to claims 1-7 in the request (pgs.
`
`38-42) and claim charts (claim charts pgs. 104-116) appears reasonable. Therefore,
`requester has shown a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect to this proposed
`
`anticipation rejection of claims 1-7.
`
`Issue (G)
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Courtney-EP and Olson. The request and claim charts allege that Courtney-EP —
`discloseslimitations of claims 1-7 and Olson teaches limitations of claims 1-7. (request
`
`pgs. 51-57 and claim charts pgs. 242-288)
`
`Asto the limitation of "detecting an object in a video from a single camera",
`
`requester cites Courtney-EPasdisclosingthis limitation and Olson as teaching this
`
`limitation. (claim charts pgs. 242-246) Since requesteris citing both Courtney-EP and
`Olsonfor this single limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Courtney-EP
`
`and Olson, as presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meetthis
`
`limitation.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 11 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 11 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Requestercites Courtney-EPasdisclosingthis limitation in {§/0002], [0017],
`
`[0028] to [0034], and figure 2. For the reader's convenience,figure 2 of Courtney-EP is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Requester cites Olson as teachingthis limitation at pg. 166, col. / and figure 4.
`
`For the reader’s convenience, figure 4 of Olson is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figui@4: The’situational awareness system
`
`The examinerdoesnot agreethatthis obviousness rejection over Courtney-EP
`
`and Olson has a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing because the general application of
`
`the combination of Courtney-EP and Olsonto claims 1-7, as presented in the request
`
`and claim charts, teaches awayfrom thelimitation of "detecting an object in a video
`from a single camera" because Courtney-EPis being modified by the multiple smart
`
`camerasof Olson’s figure 4 thereby resulting in a system/method that detects an object
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 12 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 12 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`in videos from multiple cameras and not the claimed single camera. Forat least this
`
`reason, requester has not shown a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respectto
`
`this proposed obviousnessrejection of claims 1-7 because the teaching of Olson, as
`
`presented in the request and claim charts, teaches away fromthe claimed invention.
`
`Issue (H)
`
`Requester proposedthat claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Courtney-NPL and Olson. The request and claim charts allege that Courtney-NPL
`
`discloseslimitations of claims 1-7 and Olson teacheslimitations of claims 1-7. (request
`
`pgs. 63-64 and claim charts pgs. 1108-1142)
`
`Asto the limitation of "detecting an object in a video from a single camera’, .
`
`requester cites Courtney-NPLasdisclosing this limitation and Olson as teaching this
`
`limitation. (claim charts pgs. 11 08-1110) Since requesteris citing Courtney-NPL and
`
`Olsonforthis single limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Courtney-
`
`NPL and Olson,as presented in the request and claim charts,is required to meetthis
`
`limitation.
`
`Requester cites Courtney-NPL asdisclosingthis limitation in pg. 6/6, col.2, figure
`
`13.
`
`pg. 608. col.2,
`
`figures 1-2,
`
`pg. 609, cols. 1 and 2, and figure 13. For the reader’s
`
`convenience, figure 13 of Courtney-NPLis reproduced below.
`
`Fig. 13. A high-level diagram of the AVI system.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 13 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 13 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Requester cites Olson as teachingthislimitation at pg. 166, col. 1 and figure 4.
`
`For the reader’s convenience,figure 4 of Olson is reproduced below.
`
`Figuie'é: The'siwational‘awireniess system
`
`lors. X-
`
`“audiooblige
`
`The examiner doesnot agreethat this obviousness rejection over Courtney-NPL
`
`and Olson hasa reasonablelikelihood of prevailing because the general application of
`
`the combination of Courtney-NPL and Olsonto claims 1-7, as presentedin the
`
`request and claim charts, teaches away from the limitation of "detecting an object in a
`
`
`video from a single camera" because Courtney-NPL's camera is being modified by the
`multiple smart cameras of Olson’sfigure4thereby resulting in a system/method that
`
`detects an object in videos from multiple cameras and not the claimed single camera.
`
`Forat least this reason, requester has not shown a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing
`
`with respectto this proposed obviousnessrejection of claims 1-7 because the teaching
`of Olson,as presented in the request and claim charts, teaches away from the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Issue (I
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7are obvious over Courtney-EP andBrill.
`
`The examineragreesthat this obviousness rejection over Courtney-EP and Brill has a
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 14 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 14 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`reasonablelikelihood of prevailing because the genera! application of Courtney-EP to
`
`claims1-7 in the claim charts appears reasonable. (request pgs. 62-63 and claim charts
`
`pgs. 796-846) Also, the examineris able to discern that this disclosure of Courtney-EP
`
`combined with Brill is reasonably likely to prevail because figure/of Courtney-EP and
`
`Brill disclose identical systems for which the methods employed by the respective’
`
`systemsarelikely to be obvious over one another. For the reader’s convenience, figure
`
`/ of Courtney-EP and figure J of Brill are reproduced below.
`
`33 + L_ORNE N34
`
`Courtney-EP
`
`INTERFACE9g
`cneron af
`‘processor!
`! HARD DISK
`
`L INTERFACE
`7
`
`Therefore, requester has shown a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect
`
`to this proposed obviousnessrejection of claims 1-7.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 15 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 15 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue (J)
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are obvious over Courtney-NPL andBrill.
`
`The request and claim charts allege that Courtney-NPL discloseslimitations of claims
`
`1-7 and Brill teacheslimitations of claims 1-7. (request pgs. 57-62 and claim chartspgs.
`
`548-590)
`
`Requester cites both Courtney-NPLand Brill for the single limitation of "wherein
`
`the plurality of attributes that are detected are independentof which eventis identified”.
`
`(claim charts pgs. 563-566) Since requesteris citing both Courtney-NPL and Brill for this
`
`single limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Courtney-NPLandBrill, as
`
`presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meetthis limitation.
`
`Requestercites Courtney-NPL
`
`. 610: coll
`
`
`
`
`. 612:cols.1- 2
`
`
`_ 614:col.2 to
`
`
`
`615:cols.1-2, and figure 5 as disclosing this limitation and requestercites Brill col. /:43-48
`
`col. 3:24-27, col.3:41-49, col.4:27-30 as teaching this claim limitation.
`However, the motion segmentation, object tracking, hypothetical sequence of 1-D
`
`frames, motion analysis stage, V-object indexing, depositor, and remover as disclosed
`
`by Courtney-NPL and modified by Brill’s teaching of a “surveillance system
`
`programmedto generate an alarm upon occurrence of a complex event madeup of a
`series of simple events” does not disclose or suggest that these stages of Courtney-
`
`NPL are independentof the identified complex event made up of simple events. Forat
`
`least this reason, the examiner does not agree that this obviousnessrejection over
`
`Courtney-NPLand Brill has a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 16 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 16 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue (K)
`
`Page 15
`
`Requester proposedthat claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Winter,
`Lipton, and Brill. For the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, Requester provides a
`|
`
`detailed application of the combination of Winter, Lipton, and Brill to claims 1-7 in the
`
`request (pgs. 65-73) and the claim charts. (pgs. 1315-1358)
`
`Requestercites Winter and Brill for the single limitation of “wherein the plurality
`
`of attributes that are detected are independentof which eventis identified” (claim charts
`
`pgs. 1334-1335) Since requesteris citing Winter and Brill for this single limitation, the
`
`examiner considers the combination of Winter and Brill, as presented in the request
`
`and claim charts, is required to meetthis limitation.
`
`Requestercites Wintercol. 3:23-32 and col.73:56-64 as disclosingthis limitation.
`
`For the reader's convenience, these portions of Winter are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`According to still a further aspect of the invention, there
`is provided apparatus for analyzing video data, including a
`source of video data and a device for analyzing the video
`data provided by the source of video data to detect a first
`predetermined characteristic of the video data by performing
`a first predetermined analysis algorithm, and for performing
`a second predetermined analysis algorithm to detect a sec-
`ond predetermined characteristic of the video data when the
`analvsis device detects the first predetermined characteristic.
`
`
`different characteristics of an incoming video stream.It is
`determined at step 2348 whether a first characteristic is
`present in an incoming stream of video images, by applica-
`tion of a first image analysis algorithm. If at step 2348 it is
`determined that the predetermined characteristic has been 66
`detected by the first analysis algorithm,
`then step 2350
`follows, at which it is determined whether a second prede-
`termined characteristic has been detected in the same incom-
`ing video stream using a second analysis algorithm.If so,
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 17 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 17 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`Requestercites Brill col.1:43-48, col.3:24-27, col.3:41-49, and col.4:27-30 as
`
`teachingthis limitation. For the reader’s convenience, these portions of Brill are
`
`reproduced below.
`
`easily create a user interface that enables someoneto define
`a complex event by constructing a list of sub-events. After ,
`one or more complex events have been defined, the sub-
`events of complex events defined later can be complex
`events themselves. As an alternative user interface, complex
`
`tn
`
`
`
`
`
` Given a system which detects simple events, one can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the system analyzes the
`to recognize events,
`Fineliy,
`motion graph. The preferred, embodiment of the system
`recognizes the following vocabulary of events: ENTER,
`
`
`EXIT, REST, MOVE, DEPOSIT, REMOVE, LIGHTS-ON
`
`
`and LIGHTS-OUT. These events are examples of the most
`
`
`commonin an office environment where the main interac-
`
`
`tion is between people and smaller stationary objects. Other
`
`
`examples would be applicable to monitoring outdoors, such
`
`
`as a parking lot.
`
`
`In the present invention the surveillance system can be
`programmed to only generate an alarm upon the occurrence
`of a complex event made up of a series of simple events.
`
`
`Returning to the THEFT example, a better system would
`
`
`The basic system performs three data processing steps for
`every image of a video sequence to recognize events. The
`three steps are detecting objecis, tracking objects, and ana-
`
` lyzing the motion graph.
`
`,5
`
`As evidenced by the above disclosures, the combination of Winter and Brill
`does not teach or make obvious “whereinthe plurality of attributes that are detected are
`
`independentof which eventis identified’ because the three data processing steps of
`
`Brill's basic system for processing images of a video sequence to recognize events are
`not disclosed as independent of ENTER,EXIT, REST. MOVE, DEPOSIT, REMOVE,
`LIGHTS-ON, and LIGHT—OUT. As such,for at least this reason, Requester has not
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 18 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 18 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`shown a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect to this proposed obviousness
`
`rejection.
`
`Issue (L)
`Requester proposedthat claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Paek,
`
`Qian, and Courtney-US. For the proposedrejection of claims 1-7, Requester provides
`
`a detailed application of the combination of Paek, Qian, and Courtney-USto claims 1-
`
`7 in the request (pgs. 73-79) and the claim charts. (pgs. 1587-1625)
`
`Requester cites Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US for the single limitation of
`
`“selecting a new userrule after detecting the plurality of attributes”. (claim charts pgs.
`
`1594-1596) Since requester is citing Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US forthis single
`
`limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US, as
`presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meetthis limitation.
`|
`
`Requestercites Paek col./8:20-28 andcol.73:56-64 as disclosingthis limitation.
`
`Requestercites Courtney-UScol. 4:45-52, fig. 4, and col.5:4-14 as teachingthis limitation.
`
`First, Paek’s video object hierarchy descriptions do not disclose or make obvious
`
`selecting a new userrule after detecting the plurality of attributes” because selection of
`
`a rule, new or otherwise, is not discussed atall in this citation of Paek. Further,
`
`Courtney-US’s disclosure of “show meall objects that are removed from this region of
`
`_the scene’is not a ‘new userrule’ as claimed. As such, for at least this reason,
`
`Requester has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this
`
`proposed obviousnessrejection of claims 1-7.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 19 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 19 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue (N)
`
`Page 18
`
`Requester proposedthat claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Paek,
`
`Qian, and Shotton. For the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, Requester provides a
`
`detailed application of the combination of Paek, Qian, and Shottonto claims 1-7 in the
`
`request(pgs. 81-82) and the claim charts. (pgs. 1837-1877)
`
`As to thelimitation of "detecting an object in a video from a single camera’,
`requester cites Paek as disclosing this limitation and Shotton as teachingthis limitation.
`
`(claim charts pgs. 1837-1840) Since requesteris citing Paek and Shottonfor this single
`
`limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Paek and Shotton, as presented
`
`in the request and claim charts, is required to meetthis limitation.
`Requester cites Paek col.17:26-61 and figure 8 as meeting this limitation. For the
`reader's convenience Paek'sfigure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`[EVENTANDAND
`OBJECT EXTRACTION
`TENPORAL SEGMENTATION~~825
`VIDEO
`
`827
`__-_-— “Le-
`0%
`OBJECT EXTRACTION|{FEATURE EXTRACTION
`ND_FEATURE_EXTRACTIO
`ANNOTATION
`L_
`~~er
`Lo
`82
`
`||
`
`||j
`
`860
`
`|
`
`||
`
`|
`|
`
`FEVENTANDOBvecT =f
`i
`HIERACHY EXTRACTION
`[AND CONSTRUCTION
`835
`LOGICAL
`PHYSICAL
`EVENT HIERACHY
`EVENT HIERACKY
`ORGANIZATION
`ORGANIZATION
`LOGICAL
`PHYSICAL
`OBJECT HIERACHY
`OBJECT HIERACHY
`ORGANIZATION
`ORGANIZATION
`|
`1887 ~fa88
`£5)
`
`836
`
`!
`belo]
`
`o
`
`BINARY
`ENCODER
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 20 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 20 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`,
`
`Page 19
`)
`
`Requestercites Shotton §§2, 2.3, andfigure 3 as teachingthis limitation. For the
`
`reader’s convenience,figure 1 of Shotton, which is described in §2 and models how the
`
`specific intrinsic metadata data of the video content is stored, is reproduced below. Figure 1. Metadata E-R model
`
`This portion of Shotton, however, is silent as to the number of cameras and
`
`Paek’s video #810 is not disclosed as a single camera but rather is disclosed merely as
`
`video data (col. 17:26-61). As such, the examiner does not agree that this obviousness
`
`rejection over Paek, Qian, and Shotton has a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing
`
`because the general application of the combination of Paek, Qian, and Shotton to
`
`claims 1-7, as presented in the request and claim charts, does not disclose or make
`obvious "detecting an object in a video from a single camera".
`|
`
`Issue (P)
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Paek,
`
`Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson. The request and claim charts allege that Paek
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 21 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 21 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`.
`
`Page 20
`
`discloseslimitations of claims 1-7 and Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson teaches
`
`limitations of claims 1-7. (request pgs. 84-85 and claim charts pgs. 2139-2212)
`
`Asto the limitation of "detecting first and second objects in a video from a.single
`
`camera", requester cites Paek as disclosing this limitation and Qian, Courtney-EP, and
`
`Olson asteachingthislimitation. (claim charts pgs. 2139-2147) Since requesteris citing
`
`Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olsonforthis single limitation, the examiner considers
`
`the combination of Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson, as presentedin the request
`and claim charts,is required to meetthis limitation.
`
`Requestercites Paek as disclosingthis limitation at col_17:26-6/ andfigure 8. For
`
`the reader's convenience Paek's figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`f EVENT
`| OBJECTTERTRACTION
`TEMPORALSEGMENTATION
`_aooede
`826
`EXTRACTIO
`ANNOTATION
`onsetEext RACTION|[FEATURE EXTRACTION
`
`=|——LS
`
`82
`
`ORGANIZATION
`
`HIERACHY EXTRACTION
`| AND CONSTRUCTION
`—
`
`,
`
`PHYSICAL
`OBJECT HIERACHY
`
`LOGICAL
`EVENT HIERACHY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`Requester cites Qian as teachingthis limitation at col. 2:55 to col.3:8 and figure 1.
`
`For the reader’s convenience, figure ] of Qian is reproduced below.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009Page 22 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 22 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`
`Page 21
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`Requestercites Courtney-EP as disclosing this limitation in (§/0002/, [0017],
`
`[0028] to [0034, and figure 2. For the reader’s convenience, figure 2 of Courtney-EP is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Requester cites Olson as teachingthis limitation at pg. /66, col. J andfigure 4.
`
`For the reader’s convenience,figure 4 of Olson is reproduced below.
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 23 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 23 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 22
`
`_. BRED fe, . F vison]
`‘SmatCameta 1 “fs
`
`
`
`
`
`The examiner does not agree that this obviousness rejection over Paek, Qian,
`
`Figuié'4: The’situational awireness, system
`
`Courtney-EP, and Olson has a reasonable likelinood of prevailing becausethe general
`application of the combination of Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson to claims 1-7 in
`the request and claim charts teaches awayfrom thelimitation of "detecting an object in
`
`a video from a single camera" because the combination of Paek, Qian, and Courtney-
`
`EPis ultimately being modified by the multiple smart cameras of Olson’s figure4
`
`thereby resulting in a system/method that detects an object in videos from multiple
`
`cameras and not the claimed single camera. Forat least this reason, requester has not
`
`shown a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect to this proposed obviousness
`rejection of claims 1-7 because the teaching of Olson, as presented in the request and
`
`claim charts, teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`Issue (Q)
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Paek,
`Qian, Courtney-EP,and Brill. For the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, Requester
`
`provides a detailed application of the combination of Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and
`
`Brill to claims 1-7 in the request (pgs. 87-88) and the claim charts. (pgs. 3032-3109)
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 24 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 24 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 23
`
`As to the limitation of “selecting a new userrule after detecting the plurality of
`
`attributes”, Requester cites Paek asdisclosing this limitation and Courtney-EP and
`
`Brill as teaching this limitation. (claim charts pgs. 3054-3058) Since requesteris citing
`
`Paek, Courtney-EP, andBrill for this single limitation, the examiner considers the
`combination of Paek, Courtney-EP,and Brill, as presented in the request and claim
`charts, is required to meet this limitation.
`
`Requestercites Paek as disclosing this limitation at co/./8:20-28. Requester cites
`
`Courtney-EP asdisclosing this limitation at /0069/ to [0071] and figure 9. Requester
`cites Brill as disclosing this limitation at