`
`UNITED STATES 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.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`90/012,878
`
`05/24/2013
`
`7868912
`
`1092/0102PUS1
`
`3806
`
`6449
`
`7590
`
`08/30/2013
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON,DC 20005
`
`BASEHOAR, ADAM L
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`08/30/2013
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`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. 1028 Page 1 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 1 of 22
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`DINESH AGARWAL,P.C.
`
`5350 SHAWNEE ROAD
`
`SUITE 330
`
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/012,878.
`
`PATENT NO. 7868912.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, orthe timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 2 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 2 of 22
`
`

`

`10. [] Other: cc: Requester (if third party
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/012,878
`
`Examiner
`ADAM BASEHOAR
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`7868912
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`bL_] This action is made FINAL.
`aX] Responsive to the communication(s)filed on 24 May 2073 .
`cD] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not beenreceived from the patent owner.
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordancewith this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified aboveis less than thirty (80) days, a response within the statutory minimum ofthirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part]
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1.
`2.
`
`CT] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`CT]
`Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`4.
`
`CT]
`
`3.
`CT]
`
`Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`.
`
`Part I|
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`XI
`
`Claims 7-22 are subject to reexamination.
`
`O O O X
`
`I O O O O
`
`ta.
`
`1b.
`
`2.
`
`3 4 5
`
`.
`
`6 7
`
`Claims sare not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims shave been canceledin the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims sare patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 7-22 are rejected.
`
`Claims ___ are objectedto.
`
`Acknowledgment is made ofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`The drawings, filed on
`are acceptable.
`The proposed drawing correction, filedon_sshas been (7a)L] approved (7b)L] disapproved.
`8
`
`a)LJ All 6) Some* c)L] None
`| been received.
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`2c] not been received.
`3L] beenfiled in Application No.
`4c] beenfiled in reexamination Control No.
`5L] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action foralist of the certified copies not received.
`9. CL] Since the proceeding appearsto be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`requester)
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130726
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 3 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 3 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1-22 of United States Patent Number 7,868,912 B2
`
`(Venetianeret al), for which it has been determined in the Order Granting Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination (hereafter the “Order’’) mailed 06/20/2013 that a substantial new question of
`
`patentability was raised in the Request for Ex Parte reexamination filed on 05/24/2013 (hereafter
`
`the “Request”’). This is a Non-Final Action.
`
`Reexamination
`
`2.
`
`The patent owneris reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to
`
`apprise the Office of anylitigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving
`
`Patent No. 7,868,912 B2 throughoutthe course of this reexamination proceeding. Thethird
`
`party requester is also remindedofthe ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity
`
`or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282
`
`and 2286.
`
`3.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings
`
`because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant” and not to parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings
`
`"will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte
`
`reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 4 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 4 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`4.
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations, or
`
`other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in response to
`
`this Office action. Submissions after the next Office action, which is intended to bea final
`
`action, will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116, after final rejection and 37 CFR
`
`41.33 after appeal, which will bestrictly enforced.
`
`References Submitted by Requester
`
`5.
`
`The following seven references have been cited as establishing a substantial new question
`
`of patentability. See Order, mailed 06/20/2013.
`
`« Gilge - (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003.
`
`Reference to the Gilge Patent Publication will be made via its accompanyingcertified
`
`translation (See: Attachment C of the Request))
`
`* Lipton — ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications,” Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004)
`
`= Courtney — (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999)
`
`= Olson — ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,"
`
`Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997, pp. 159-
`
`175)
`
`= Brill — (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003)
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 5 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 5 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`* Day — ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408)
`
`»
`
`JP ‘783 — (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997.
`
`Reference to the JP “783 Published Application will be madevia its accompanyingcertified
`
`translation (See: Attachment J of the Request))
`
`Priority Determination
`
`6.
`
`Asdescribed in more detail in the Order (see: Order, pp. 7-9), certain limitations of the
`
`independentclaims of the Venetianer ‘912 patent do not appear to be adequately supported by
`
`the disclosures of the parent applications(1.e., U.S. Patent Application Ser. Nos. 11/057,154,
`
`09/987,707, and 09/694,712). Therefore, for reexamination purposes, independentclaims1, 6, 9,
`
`12, and 18 as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 19-22 (via dependency) of
`
`the Venetianer ‘912 patent are considered to have an effective date of 04/05/2005, the filing date
`
`of the Venetianer ‘912 patent.
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`7.
`
`The rejections below are confined to what has been deemedto bethe best available art
`
`from the Request. However, prior to conclusion of this reexamination proceeding, claims must
`
`be patentable overall prior art cited in the order granting reexamination in order to be considered
`
`patentable or confirmed on the reexaminationcertificate.
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 6 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 6 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A personshall be entitled to a patent unless —
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than oneyear prior to the date of application for patent in the
`United States.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003).
`
`-Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-22, Gilge teaches each and every limitation of the claims
`
`(see pages 17-22 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-51 of Attachment K, which are
`
`hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 6-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Lipton (“ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For Physical
`
`Security Applications,” Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The IEE, Savoy
`
`Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004).
`
`-Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-22, Lipton teaches each and every limitation of the claims
`
`(see pages 22-26 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-81 of Attachment L, which are
`
`hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`11.
`
`Claims1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Courtney (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 7 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 7 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`-Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, Courtney teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claims (see pages 26-30 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-51 of
`
`Attachment M, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`
`Smart Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May
`
`1997, pp. 159-175).
`
`-Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, Olson teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claims (see pages 31-34 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-39 of
`
`Attachment N, which are hereby incorporated by reference). On page N-19 of the claim chartsit
`
`is noted that dependent claim 10 is listed instead of properly rejected claim 11. This appears to
`
`be a minor informality and the Examinernotesthat the citations referenced in Olson as reading
`
`on the limitations, appropriately correspondto the limitations of claim 11 (as shown by
`
`substantially similar limitations rejected for claim 3 on page N-6). Thusit is clear that claim 11,
`
`and not claim 10, is being rejected by Olson.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`13.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which formsthe basis forall
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the inventionis not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 ofthistitle, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 8 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 8 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`14.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilge
`
`(German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003) in view of JP ‘783
`
`(Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilge in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claim (see pages 48-50 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-7 of
`
`Attachment X, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`15.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lipton
`
`("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For Physical Security
`
`Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The IEE, Savoy Place,
`
`London, U.K., February 23, 2004) in view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No.
`
`1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton in view of JP “783 teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claim (see pages 50-51 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-8 of
`
`Attachment Y, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`16.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Courtney
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999) in view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published
`
`Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 9 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 9 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courtney in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and
`
`every limitation of the claim (see pages 51-52 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-5
`
`of Attachment Z, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`17.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olson
`
`("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras," Proceedings
`
`of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997, pp. 159-175) in view of
`
`JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Olson in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claim (see pages 52-53 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1-6 of
`
`Attachment AA, whichare hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Alternate Rejections
`
`18.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003) in view
`
`of Brill (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`-Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-22, the combination of Gilge in view of Brill teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 34-37 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1-72 of Attachment O, which are hereby incorporated by reference). Further, the Examiner notes
`
`that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 10 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 10 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`modify the video analysis and event detection system of Gilge (Gilge: Paragraphs 69-70:
`
`“transmitted with an alarm to the user 38 when the evaluation device 30 has determined that
`
`striking behavior patterns were detected") with the described features of the automated complex
`
`video event based detection system of Brill, because Brill taught that said described features
`
`provided the benefit of recognizing complex events in videos whichthereby help filter out false
`
`positive determinations (Brill: column 1, lines 36-52: “recognize complex events an thusfilter
`
`out false positive alarms”).
`
`19,
`
`Claims 1-4 and 6-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lipton ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications,” Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004) in view of Brill (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`-Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-22, the combination of Lipton in view of Brill teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see page 38 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages1-
`
`105 of Attachment P, which are hereby incorporated by reference). Further, the Examiner notes
`
`that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`modify the video analysis and event detection system of Lipton (Lipton: e.g., pp. 56-57: Section
`
`1.2 “Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval") with the described features of the automated
`
`complex video event based detection system of Brill, because Brill taught that said described
`
`features provided the benefit of recognizing complex events in videos which thereby help filter
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 11 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 11 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`out false positive determinations (Brill: column1, lines 36-52: “recognize complex events an
`
`thusfilter out false positive alarms’’).
`
`20.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Courtney (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999) in view
`
`of Brill (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`-Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, the combination of Courtney in
`
`view of Brill teaches each and everylimitation of the claims (see pages 39-40 of the Request,
`
`and the claim charts on pages 1-71 of Attachment Q, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference). Further, the Examiner notes that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention to modify the video analysis and event detection system of
`
`Courtney (Courtney: column 2, line 66-column3, line 8; Fig. 1) with the described features of
`
`the automated complex video event based detection system of Brill, because Brill taught that said
`
`described features provided the benefit of recognizing complex events in videos which thereby
`
`help filter out false positive determinations (Brill: column1, lines 36-52: “recognize complex
`
`events an thusfilter out false positive alarms”).
`
`21.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms
`
`for Smart Cameras,” Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans,
`
`May 1997, pp. 159-175) in view of Brill (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 12 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 12 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`-Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, the combination of Olson in view
`
`of Brill teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 40-41 of the Request, and the
`
`claim charts on pages 1-60 of Attachment R, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Further, the Examinernotes that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to modify the automated video surveillance system of Olson (Olson: pp.
`
`166-167: “the user can then specify the conditions and actions for alarms by creating one or more
`
`monitors”; Figure 5) with the described features of the automated complex video event based
`
`detection system of Brill, because Brill taught that said described features provided the benefit of
`
`recognizing complex events in videos which thereby help filter out false positive determinations
`
`(Brill: column 1, lines 36-52: “recognize complex events an thusfilter out false positive
`
`alarms’’).
`
`On page R-32 of the claim charts it is noted that dependent claim 10 is listed instead of
`
`properly rejected claim 11. This appears to be a minor informality and the Examinernotesthat
`
`the citations referenced in Olson as reading on the limitations, appropriately correspond to the
`
`limitations of claim 11 (as shownbysubstantially similar limitations rejected for claim 3 on page
`
`R-11). Thusit is clear that claim 11, and not claim 10, is being rejected by Olson in view of
`
`Brill.
`
`22.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003) in view
`
`of Day ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 13 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 13 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`-Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-22, the combination of Gilge in view of Day teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 41-45 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1-93 of Attachment S, which are hereby incorporated by reference). Further, the Examinernotes
`
`that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`modify the video analysis and event detection system of Gilge (Gilge: Paragraphs 69-70:
`
`“transmitted with an alarm to the user 38 when the evaluation device 30 has determined that
`
`striking behavior patterns were detected") with the described features of the conceptual modeling
`
`and heterogeneous query system of Day, because Day taught that said described features
`
`provided the benefits of allowing users maximumflexibility in processing heterogeneous queries
`
`as well as efficient online query processing against a graphical abstraction of data without
`
`performing computations on actual raw video data (Day: p. 402).
`
`23.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 6-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lipton ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications,” Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004) in view of Day ("Object Oriented
`
`Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,” Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on
`
`Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408).
`
`-Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-22, the combination of Lipton in view of Day teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 45-46 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1-127 of Attachment T, which are hereby incorporated by reference). Further, the Examiner
`
`notes that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 14 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 14 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`invention to modify the video analysis and event detection system of Lipton (Lipton: e.g., pp. 56-
`
`57: Section 1.2 “Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval") with the described features of
`
`the conceptual modeling and heterogeneous query system of Day, because Day taughtthat said
`
`described features provided the benefits of allowing users maximum flexibility in processing
`
`heterogeneous queries as well as efficient online query processing against a graphical abstraction
`
`of data without performing computations on actual raw video data (Day:p. 402).
`
`24,
`
`Claims1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Courtney (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999) in view
`
`of Day ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408).
`
`-Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, the combination of Courtneyin
`
`view of Day teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 46-47 of the Request, and
`
`the claim charts on pages 1-97 of Attachment U, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Further, the Examinernotes that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to modify the video analysis and event detection system of Courtney
`
`(Courtney: column 2, line 66-column 3, line 8; Fig. 1) with the described features of the
`
`conceptual modeling and heterogeneous query system of Day, because Day taughtthat said
`
`described features provided the benefits of allowing users maximum flexibility in processing
`
`heterogeneous queries as well as efficient online query processing against a graphical abstraction
`
`of data without performing computations on actual raw video data (Day:p. 402).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 15 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 15 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`25,
`
`Claims1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms
`
`for Smart Cameras,” Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans,
`
`May 1997, pp. 159-175) in view of Day ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,"
`
`Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995,
`
`pp. 401-408).
`
`-Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, the combination of Olson in view
`
`of Day teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 47-48 of the Request, and the
`
`claim charts on pages 1-79 of Attachment V, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Further, the Examinernotes that it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the artat
`
`the time of the invention to modify the automated video surveillance system of Olson (Olson: pp.
`
`166-167: “the user can then specify the conditions and actions for alarms by creating one or more
`
`monitors”; Figure 5) with the described features of the conceptual modeling and heterogeneous
`
`query system of Day, because Day taughtthat said described features provided the benefits of
`
`allowing users maximum flexibility in processing heterogeneous queries as well as efficient
`
`online query processing against a graphical abstraction of data without performing computations
`
`on actual raw video data (Day: p. 402).
`
`On page V-42 of the claim charts it is noted that dependent claim 10 islisted instead of
`
`properly rejected claim 11. This appears to be a minor informality and the Examinernotes that
`
`the citations referenced in Olson as reading on the limitations, appropriately correspond to the
`
`limitations of claim 11 (as shownbysubstantially similar limitations rejected for claim 3 on page
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 16 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 16 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`V-14). Thusit is clear that claim 11, and not claim 10, is being rejected by Olson in view of
`
`Day.
`
`26.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published
`
`05/08/2003) in view of Brill (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view
`
`of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilge and Brill in further view of JP ‘783 teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim 5 (see page 53 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 8-19 of Attachment X, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`27.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Lipton ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval
`
`For Physical Security Applications,” Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04),
`
`The IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004) in view of Brill (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application
`
`No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton and Brill in further view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim 5 (see pages 53-54 of the Request, and the claim
`
`charts on pages 9-22 of Attachment Y, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 17 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 17 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`28.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Courtney (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999) in view of Brill
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese
`
`Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courtney and Brill in further view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim 5 (see pages 54-55 of the Request, and the claim
`
`charts on pages 6-14 of Attachment Z, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`29.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart
`
`Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997,
`
`pp. 159-175) in view of Brill (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view
`
`of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Olson and Brill in further view of JP “783 teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim (see pages 55-56 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 7-16 of Attachment AA, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`30.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published
`
`05/08/2003) in view of Day ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,"
`
`Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995,
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 18 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 18 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`pp. 401-408) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783,
`
`published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilge and Day in further view of JP “783 teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim (see page 56 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`20-33 of Attachment X, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`31.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Lipton ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval
`
`For Physical Security Applications,” Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS-04),
`
`The IEE, Savoy Place, London, U.K., February 23, 2004) in view of Day ("Object Oriented
`
`Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on
`
`Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese
`
`Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton and Dayin further view of JP “783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim (see page 57 of the Request, and the claim charts
`
`on pages 23-39 of Attachment Y, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`32.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Courtney (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999) in view of Day
`
`("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408) in further view
`
`of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 19 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 19 of 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`-Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courtney and Dayin further view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 57-58 of the Request, and the claim
`
`charts on pages 15-26 of Attachment Z, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`33.
`