`
`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
`
`4079-117
`
`3806
`
`6449
`
`7590
`
`03/27/2014
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON,DC 20005
`
`BASEHOAR, ADAM L
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`03/27/2014
`
`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. 1030 Page 1 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 1 of 20
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENTAND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USEIN 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.
`
`Enclosedis a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (87 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 2 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 2 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AIAfirst to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses original claims 1-22 and newly presented claims 23-44 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’’). A Non-Final Action was mailed 08/30/2013
`
`rejecting all original claims 1-22.
`
`2.
`
`This is a Final Action in response to the Patent Owner’s (PO) response (“Amendment and
`
`Reply”) filed 10/30/2013. By virtue of an amendment in said PO Amendmentand Reply,
`
`original claim 5 has been cancelled and new claims 23-44 have been added. Said amendment
`
`has been entered and madeof record. Thus, claims 1-4 and 6-44 are now currently pending and
`
`subject to this reexamination.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Amendment and Replay filed 10/30/2013 further includes accompanying
`
`37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declarations by Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger (hereafter the “Zeger Declaration"),
`
`Christopher Capuano(hereafter the “Capuano Declaration"), and Peter L. Venetianer (hereafter
`
`the “Venetianer Declaration"). Said Declarations, including their related Exhibits, have been
`
`fully considered and made of record as discussed below.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 3 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 3 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Reexamination
`
`4,
`
`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. The third
`
`party requester is also remindedof the 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.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`5.
`
`Regarding Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submissions, MPEP 2256 recites the
`
`following: “Where patents, publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a
`
`party (patent owneror requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite
`
`degree of consideration to be given to such information will be normally limited by the degree to
`
`which the party filing the information citation has explained the content and relevance of the
`
`information. The initials of the Examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the form
`
`PTO/SB/08A and 08B orits equivalent, without an indication to the contrary in the record, do
`
`not signify that the information has been considered by the Examineranyfurther than to the
`
`extent noted above.”
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 4 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 4 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Accordingly, the IDS submission filed by Patent Owner on 10/29/2013 has been
`
`considered by the Examiner only with the scope required by MPEP 2256, unless otherwise
`
`noted.
`
`References Discussed in This Final Action
`
`* 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)
`
`« 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 made via its accompanyingcertified
`
`translation (See: Attachment J of the Request))
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 5 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 5 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`6.
`
`Asnoted above, the Patent Owner’s Amendmentand Reply, the Zeger Declaration, the
`
`Capuano Declaration, and the Venetianer Declaration, each filed on 10/30/2013, have been fully
`
`considered and are discussed below with regard to the rejections as set forth in the Non-Final
`
`Action mailed 08/30/2013. Specifically, the PO’s arguments that the Examiner considers
`
`persuasive to overcomethe prior art rejections set forth in the Non-Final Action are further
`
`explained below. The Examinernotes that the Remarks in PO’s Amendmentand Reply appear
`
`to be substantially similar (see: Amendment and Reply, p. 29: “The rejections (other than those
`
`of claim 5) are addressed by Dr. Zeger and summarized below’’) and/or mirror the arguments
`
`presented in the expert Zeger Declaration. Therefore, most citations will only be made in
`
`reference to the expert Zeger Declaration.
`
`Priority Determination
`
`7.
`
`In light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 45-58) and upon further
`
`examination of the disclosure of the parent continuation-in-part (CIP) 09/987,707 application,
`
`the Examiner agrees with PO that the limitations of the original claims of the Venetianer '912
`
`patent are adequately supported by the disclosure of the CIP ‘707 application. The PO has
`
`shownthat each claim limitation has been expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the
`
`originally filed disclosure (see: MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(b)), whereby a person of ordinary skill in
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 6 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 6 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`the art would have understood,at the time the patent application wasfiled, that the description
`
`supported those claim limitations. Therefore, for reexamination purposes, independentclaims1,
`
`6, 9, 12, and 18 as well as dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 19-22 of the Venetianer
`
`‘912 patent are consideredto at least have an effective filing date of 11/15/2001, the filing date
`
`of the CIP ‘707 application. Similarly, new claims 23-44 also appear to be adequately supported
`
`by the disclosure of the CIP ‘707 application.
`
`Specifically, the disclosure of the CIP ‘707 application at least teaches an embodiment
`
`wherein video attributes could be determined by processorat a first location (see: ‘707
`
`application, Paragraph 106: “video primitives are extracted in real time from the source video”),
`
`said attributes could be forwarded to another computer system via a network whereby said
`
`another computer system was capable of being tasked (see: ‘707 application, Paragraph 96:
`
`“forwarding data...video primitives...to another computer system via a network...tasking
`
`the...another computer system’’) and/or wasfurther capable of independently determining events
`
`(see: ‘707 application, Paragraphs 148-151: “the system analyses archived video primitives with
`
`event discriminators to generate additional reports”). Said embodiment functionality at least
`
`providing sufficient support for the claim limitations(i.e., “separating the functionality of
`
`determining video attributes from that of determining events based on said video attributes”,
`
`“first and second separated processors...separated locations explicitly carrying out said
`
`functionality”, and “detected attributes received over a communications channel are independent
`
`of the event to be determined by the processor’’) originally found lacking in the Order mailed
`
`06/20/2013 (see: Order, pp. 7-9).
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 7 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 7 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`The Gilge and Lipton References
`
`8.
`
`Asnoted above, the Examiner now agreesthat the limitations of the original claims of the
`
`Venetainer '912 patent appear to be fully supported byat least the disclosure of the parent CIP
`
`09/987,707 application. Said claims having been considered to have an effective filing date of at
`
`least 11/15/2001, the filing date of the ‘707 application. Therefore, the Gilge and Lipton
`
`references no longer qualify as properprior art. Thus, all the rejections to the Gilge and Lipton
`
`references have been withdrawn.
`
`The Courtney Reference (in further view of Brill and Day)
`
`9.
`
`In light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 31-35 & 68-82) and upon
`
`further examination of the Courtney reference, the Examiner agrees with PO that the Courtney
`
`references does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based claim elements
`
`of the independentclaims of Venetianer '912 patent. In light of the disclosure of the Venetainer
`
`‘912 patent, the Examiner agrees that the three components to the independence-based claim
`
`elements require, (1) determining/detecting an event that refers to one or more objects engaged
`
`in an activity by analyzing the determined/detected attributes; (2) detected attributes are
`
`independent of the event detected; and (3) the identified event is not one of the detected
`
`attributes. Specifically, with regard to the first and third listed components, the Examiner agrees
`
`that an “event” may be referenced with respect to a location and/or time (see: Venetianer '912:
`
`column 3, lines 44-46), but merely referencing an already determined/detected event with respect
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 8 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 8 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`to variably selected locations and/or times is not a determination/detection of a new independent
`
`event. Therefore, the event querying/filtering system of Courtney fails to teach the
`
`independence-based claim elements because said event querying/filtering system relies onalist
`
`of predefined/predetermined“events” of interest (see: Courtney: column 3, lines 4-8; column 4,
`
`lines 62-67; column 10, lines 50-64). At best, resolving a real-time event query/filter (i.e., “Y =
`
`(C, T, V, R, E)’) in Courtney appears to teach searching for an already predefined/predetermined
`
`indexed “event” in relation to a specific time interval, spatial region, and V-object of a video clip
`
`(see: Courtney: column 5, lines 4-23; column10, lines 50-67; column 12, line 41-column 13, line
`
`57; column 16, lines 16-28). As noted above, merely referencing an already determined/detected
`
`event with respect to variably selected locations and/or times is not a determination/detection of
`
`a new independent event as required by the claims.
`
`Regarding the Brill reference, in light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration,
`
`Paragraphs 31-35 & 99-110) and upon further examination of the Brill, the Examiner agrees with
`
`POthat the Brill reference does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based
`
`claim elements of the independent claims of Venetianer '912 patent. Like the Courtney
`
`reference, Brill appears to teach wherein the defined simple events are merely constructed by
`
`relying on a list of predefined/predetermined events of interest (see: Brill: column3, line 41-
`
`column4,line 27; Figures 2, 6, and 7). Additionally, the defined complex events of Brill, which
`
`are based on a plurality of other predefined simple events, are found lacking for the same reason.
`
`The complex events of Brill cannot be considered independentas required by the claims.
`
`Therefore, the Brill reference does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above with regard to
`
`the Courtney reference.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 9 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 9 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding the Day reference, the Examiner agrees with PO’s arguments (see: Zeger
`
`Declaration, Paragraphs 117, 118, and 122) that the Day reference would not remedy the
`
`independence -based claim elements required by the claims of the Venetainer '912 patent and
`
`found lacking in the Courtney reference. Specifically, the Examiner found the expert arguments
`
`persuasive that even if the teachings of the event-indexing system of Courtney could be
`
`operationally combined with the teachings of the object-oriented conceptual modeling system of
`
`Day,the result of said combination wouldstill consist of online query processing for predefined
`
`indexed events.
`
`Thus,all the rejections involving the Courtney reference have been withdrawn.
`
`The Olson Reference (in further view of Brill and Day)
`
`In light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 31-35 & 88-93) and upon
`
`further examination of the Olson reference, the Examiner agrees with PO that the Olson
`
`references does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based claim elements
`
`of the independentclaims of Venetianer '912 patent. The Examinernotesthat the moving object
`
`detection and event recognition system of Olson (see: Olson: Figures 2, 4, and 5) is substantially
`
`similar to the event querying/filtering system of Courtney discussed above. In fact, the event
`
`recognition features of the Olson system appearto be directly derived from the teachings of
`
`Courtney (see: Olson: pp. 162 & 164: “Our approach to event recognition is based on the video
`
`database indexing work of Courtney [1997]"). Thus for the same reasonsas discussed above
`
`with the regards to Courtney, the moving object detection and event recognition system of Olson
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 10 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 10 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`fails to teach the independence-based claim elements because said event recognition/filtering
`
`relies onalist of predefined/predetermined “events” of interest to satisfy the user specified alarm
`
`conditions (see: Olson, p. 165-166: “a user to specify alarm conditions interactively...based on
`
`the locations of people and objects in the scene, the types of objects in the scene, the events in
`
`whichthe people and objects are involved, and the times at which the events occur...user to
`
`specify alarm regions and conditions...type of event, the type of object involved in the event, the
`
`day of week and time of day of the event, where the event occurs.")
`
`Regarding the Brill reference, in light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration,
`
`Paragraphs 31-35 & 115) and upon further examination of the Brill, the Examiner agrees with
`
`POthat the Brill reference does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based
`
`claim elements of the independent claims of Venetianer '912 patent. Like the Olson reference,
`
`Brill appears to teach wherein the defined simple events are merely constructed by relying on a
`
`list of predefined/predetermined events of interest (see: Brill: column 3, line 41-column 4,line
`
`27; Figures 2, 6, and 7). Additionally, the defined complex events of Brill, which are based on a
`
`plurality of other predefined simple events, are found lacking for the same reason. The complex
`
`events of Brill cannot be considered independentas required by the claims. Therefore, the Brill
`
`reference does not remedythe deficiencies discussed above with regard to the Olson reference.
`
`Regarding the Day reference, the Examiner agrees with PO’s arguments (see: Zeger
`
`Declaration, Paragraphs 123, 124, and 127) that the Day reference would not remedy the
`
`independence -based claim elements required by the claims of the Venetainer '912 patent and
`
`found lacking in the Olson reference. Specifically, the Examiner found the expert arguments
`
`persuasive that even if the teachings of the moving object detection and event recognition system
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 11 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 11 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`of Olson could be operationally combined with the teachings of the object-oriented conceptual
`
`modeling system of Day, the result of said combination wouldstill consist of online query
`
`processing for predefined indexed events.
`
`Thus,all the rejections involving the Olson reference have been withdrawn.
`
`The JP ‘783 Reference
`
`10.
`
`The JP ‘783 reference wasrelied upon only to teach limitations related to the "third
`
`processor" in original dependent claim 5. As noted above, original dependent claim 5 has been
`
`cancelled. Thus,all the rejections related to dependent claim 5 with regard to JP '783 have been
`
`withdrawn. Additionally, the disclosure of JP '783 does not appear to remedy the other prior art
`
`deficiencies discussed above.
`
`The Capuano and Venetianer Declarations — Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness
`
`11. With regard to the filed Capuano and Venetianer Declarations, the PO additionally argues
`
`that said Declarations, and accompanying Exhibits, present real-world evidence (i.e., achieved
`
`commercial success in the relevant market, was copied by others, and received industry praise) to
`
`strongly indicate non-obviousness of the claimed invention in the Venetianer “912 patent (see:
`
`Amendmentand Reply, pp. 79-80). The Examiner notes that PO’s argumentsto this point are
`
`considered moot in view of PO’s persuasive arguments discussed above with regard to the
`
`Courtney, Olson, Brill, and Day references.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 12 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 12 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Claim Objections
`
`12.
`
`Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Patent Ownerstates (see:
`
`Amendmentand Reply, p. 77; Zeger Declaration, Paragraph 62) that added new independent
`
`claim 32 is similar to original patent claim 6, but additionally requires the new limitations of
`
`“first and second objects", “first and second objects coming together”, and “filtering.” New
`
`independent claim 32 supposedly adding substantially similar new limitations as that of new
`
`independent claims 31 and 33. However, unlike new independentclaims 31 and 33, new
`
`independent claims 32 does not contain the new limitation of “first and second objects coming
`
`together.” Thus the record is unclear. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`13.
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claimsparticularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`14,
`
`Claims 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-ATA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
`
`matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 13 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 13 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`Asdescribed in the specification of the Venetianer ‘912 patent, the Examiner notes that
`
`there is descriptive overlap in the definitions on what can be considered an attribute/primitive
`
`(see: Venetianer ‘912: column 13, line 13-coumn 15, line 14: e.g., “contain activities...carrying
`
`an object...colliding...motion...appearance of an object...movement of an object...an stationary
`
`object leaving a scene; an object entering”), an event (see: Venetianer ‘912: column 3, lines 44-
`
`46: “objects engaged in an activity”; see: "707 application: Paragraphs 98-103: e.g., “an object
`
`appears...a red object movesfaster than 10 m/s...an object enters an area’’), and/or an activity
`
`(see: Venetianer ‘912: column 3, lines 29-32: e.g., “Examples...entering; exiting; stopping;
`
`moving;raising; lowering; growing; and shrinking”. As shown,attributes/primitives can
`
`specifically include activities and can include events such as motion and scene changerelated
`
`events. In light of that, the Examinernotes that each of the newly added independentclaims 34-
`
`41 include a substantially similar variation of the new limitation, “wherein none of the detected
`
`attributes refers to the one or more objects engaged in an activity." The scope of said new
`
`limitation is indefinite as the specification does not make it clear to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art the extent to which a detected attribute "refers" to an object engaged in activity. Even PO's
`
`provided example (See: Zeger Declaration, Paragraph 138) related to an event discriminator
`
`looking for a 'wrong way’ event is unclear in the context of the new limitation. Specifically, the
`
`‘wrong way’ event discriminatoris defined by at least an attribute with regards to motion(..e.,
`
`wrong’ direction of motion") whichis directly related to an object "moving"(i.e., an activity).
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 14 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 14 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR CONFIRMATION
`
`15.
`
`Claims1-4, 6-33, and 42-44 are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation
`
`of claims 1-4, 6-33, and 42-44 found in this reexamination proceeding. Claims 1-4, 6-33, and
`
`42-44 are confirmed overthe prior art that was explained in the Request and determinedto raise
`
`a substantial new question of patentability in the Order granting reexamination and overthe prior
`
`art that was applied and discussed by the Examinerin the present reexamination proceeding
`
`becauseof the following:
`
`Regarding independentclaim 1, as more specifically discussed above, the proposed prior
`
`art does not teach independence based claim elements of determining “a first event that is not
`
`one of the determinedattributes” and “determinesattributes independentofa selection of the
`
`first event."
`
`Regarding additional independentclaims 6, 9, 12, 18, and 23-33, the additional
`
`independent claimseachrecite at least one substantially similar limitation as discussed above
`
`with regard to independentclaim | and are thus patentable and/or confirmable based on the same
`
`rationale.
`
`Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19-22, and 42-44,the claims are
`
`dependent on patentable and/or confirmable claims, and are therefore also patentable and/or
`
`confirmed.
`
`Any comments considered necessary by PATENT OWNERregarding the above
`
`statement must be submitted promptly to avoid processing delays. Such submission by the
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 15 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 15 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`patent ownershould be labeled: "Comments on Statement of Reasonsfor Patentability and/or
`
`Confirmation" and will be placed in the reexaminationfile.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 16 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 16 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`Conclusion
`
`16.
`
`Patent owner’s amendmentfiled 10/30/2013 necessitated the new groundsof rejection
`
`presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP§
`
`706.07(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for responseto this action is set to expire 2 from the mailing
`
`date of this action.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) do not apply in reexamination
`
`proceedings. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to “an applicant” and not to parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Further, in 35 U.S.C. 305 and in 37 CFR 1.550(a), it is required that
`
`reexamination proceedings “will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office.”
`
`Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR
`
`1.550(c). A request for extension of time must specify the requested period of extension andit
`
`must be accompaniedbythe petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). Any request for an
`
`extension in a third party requested ex parte reexamination mustbe filed on or before the day on
`
`whichaction by the patent owneris due, and the merefiling of a request will not effect any
`
`extension of time. A request for an extension of time in a third party requested ex parte
`
`reexamination will be granted only for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable time specified. Any
`
`request for extension in a patent owner requested ex parte reexamination for up to two months
`
`from the time period set in the Office action mustbe filed no later than two months from the
`
`expiration of the time period set in the Office action. A request for an extension in a patent
`
`ownerrequested ex parte reexamination for more than two months from the time period set in
`
`the Office action must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owneris due,
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 17 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 17 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`and the mere filing of a request for an extension for more than two monthswill not effect the
`
`extension. The time for taking action in a patent owner requested ex parte reexamination will
`
`not be extended for more than two months from the time period set in the Office action in the
`
`absence of sufficient cause or for more than a reasonable time.
`
`Thefiling of a timely first responseto this final rejection will be construed as including a
`
`request to extend the shortened statutory period for an additional month, which will be granted
`
`even if previous extensions have been granted. In no event, however, will the statutory period for
`
`response expire later than SLX MONTHSfrom the mailing date of the final action. See MPEP §
`
`2265.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 18 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 18 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`17.
`
`All correspondencerelating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`as follows:
`
`By U.S. Postal Service Mailto:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAXto:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By handto:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 DulanySt.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`By EFS-Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondencevia the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`httos:/efs uspto. sov/efile/myportal/efs-resistered
`
`
`
`
`
`EFS-Weboffers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissionsare “soft scanned” (i.e.,
`electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
`offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissionsafter the “soft scanning”
`process is complete.
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 19 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 19 of 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 19
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be
`
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
`
`/Adam L Basehoatr/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/JDC/
`
`/ALEXANDER KOSOWSKI/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 20 of 20
`
`Canon Ex. 1030 Page 20 of 20
`
`