`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria. ViIginia 22313-1450
`www.usplo.g0v
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/00 I ,9 I 4
`
`02/29/2012
`
`7,932,923
`
`1269
`
`6449
`
`7590
`
`05/23/2012
`
`.607 14th Street, NW.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`HUGHES, DEANDRA M
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`05/23/2012
`
`WE" 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. 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 223134450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`Date:
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`ONE BROADWAY
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10004
`
`c
`
`3“3“ (JD
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95001914
`
`PATENT NO. : 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 once file
`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-O4)
`
`Canon EX. 1009 Page 2 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 2 of 183
`
`

`

`ORDER GRAN TING/DEN YING
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`WWW
`
`95/001 ,914
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7,932,923
`Art Unit
`
`.
`
` Control No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`1.
`
`The request for inter partes reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`E] An Office action will follow in due course.
`
`2. E] The request for inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Attachment(s):
`E] PTO-892
`PTO/SB/08
`EIOther:
`
`
`
`
`IXI An Office action is attached with this order.
`
`
`
`
` This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denialby petition
`
`
`to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTH from 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 126(0)
`
`will be made to requester.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 this
`Order.
`
`
`
`US. 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
`
`1.
`
`The request for inter partes reexamination filed Feb. 29, 2012 asserts that
`
`claims 1-41 of USP 7,732,923 (“'923 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`2.
`
`Upon revievll, the request establishes a reasonable likelihood that Requester will
`
`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 as follows:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`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-NFL”)
`
`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 Paek et al. issued Jan. 26, 2010. (“Paek”)
`
`Olson et 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. 5th Int’l Conf. On Pattern Recognition (ICPRZOOO).
`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 Requester will prevail (“RLP”) with respect to 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 as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`7I 9-13I and 15-28 as anticipated by Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (B): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14
`
`as obvious over Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (C): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Courtney-US and Olson.
`
`Issue (D): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`7I 9-13, and 15-28 are anticipated by Shotton.
`
`Issue (E): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14
`as obvious over Shotton.
`
`Issue (F): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Shotton and Brill.
`
`Issue (G): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`g as obvious over Courtney-EP and Olson.
`
`Issue (H): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`g as obvious over Courtney-NFL and Olson.
`
`Issue (I):
`
`Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`'
`
`51 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): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`51 as obvious over the Courtney-NFL and Brill.
`
`Issue (K): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`11 as obvious over Winter, Lipton, and Brill.
`
`Issue (L): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7
`and 9-28 as obvious over Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US.
`
`lssue (M): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-US, and Olson.
`
`Issue (N): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7 .
`
`and 9-28 as obvious over Paek, Qian, and Shotton.
`
`Issue (0): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Shotton, and Brill.
`
`Issue (P): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`11 as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson.
`
`Issue (Q): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`Q as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Brill.
`
`Issue (R): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`g as obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NFL, and Brill.
`
`Issue (8): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-
`
`4_1_ 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 reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing for the identified claims, and therefore, will be addressed in the non-final
`
`acfion.
`
`.
`
`I
`
`Issue (A): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7,
`
`'
`
`9-13I and 15-28 as anticipated by Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (B): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14 as
`
`obvious over Courtney-US.
`
`Issue (D): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-7,
`
`9-13I and 15-28 are anticipated by Shotton.
`
`Issue (E): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claim 14 as
`obvious over Shotton.
`
`Issue (F): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 8
`and 29-41 as obvious over Shotton and Brill.
`
`Issue (I): Whether there is an RLP as to the proposed rejection of claims 1-41
`as obvious over Courtney-EP and Brill.
`
`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 addressed in
`
`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 independent claims and their respective
`
`Directory
`
`dependent claims as follows.
`
`Claims 1-7 ............................................................................................ pages 8—27
`
`Claim 8 .......................................................................~........................ pages '28-58
`
`Claims 9-19 ........................................................................................ pages 59-79
`
`Claims 20-21 ...................................................................................... pages 80-99
`
`Claims 22-28 .................................................................................. pages 100-119
`
`Claim 29 ........................_................................................................. pages 120-150
`
`Claims 30-31 .................................................................................. 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 reasons set forth below, the following issues have been determined to
`
`have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the identified claims, and will be
`
`addressed in 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 and Brill.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the following issues have been determined to
`
`NOT have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the identified claims, and will NOT be
`
`addressed in 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-NPL and Brill.
`
`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): Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Brill.
`
`Issue (R): Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NFL, and Brill.
`
`Issue (S): Claims 1-7 obvious over Paek, Qian, Courtney-NPL, and Olson.
`
`Issue (A)
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are anticipated by Courtney-US. The
`
`examiner agrees that 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-US to claims 1-7
`
`in the claim charts appears reasonable. (reguest Qgs. 28-32 and claim charts QgS. 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 proposed that claims 1-7 are anticipated by Shotton. The examiner
`
`agrees that this anticipation rejection over Shotton has a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing because the general application of Shotton to claims 1-7 in the request (Egg
`
`M) and claim charts (claim charts Qgs. 104-116) appears reasonable. Therefore,
`
`requester has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this proposed
`
`anticipation rejection of claims 1-7.
`
`Issue jGj
`
`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 '
`
`discloses limitations of claims 1-7 and Olson teaches limitations of claims 1-7. (reguest
`
`Qgs. 51—5 7 and claim charts Qgs. 242-288)
`
`As to the limitation of "detecting an object in a video from a single camera",
`
`requester cites Courtney-EP as disclosing this limitation and Olson as teaching this
`
`limitation. (claim charts Qgs. 242-246) Since requester is citing both Courtney-EP and
`
`Olson for this single limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Courtney-EP
`
`and Olson, as presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meet this
`
`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
`
`Requester cites Courtney-EP as disclosing this limitation in jlj [0002Z, [0017Z,
`
`[0028Z to [00341, and figyre 2. For the reader’s convenience, figure 2 of Courtney-EP is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Requester cites Olson as teaching this limitation at 2g. I66, col. 1 and figure 4.
`
`For the reader’s convenience, figure 4 of Olson is reproduced below.
`
`'Iv5% . ..
`8min Cam'éia' t'
`-
`
`FiguiE4i‘The'situational “awareness system
`
`The examiner does n_ot agree that this obviousness rejection over Courtney-EP
`
`and Olson has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because the general application of
`
`the combination of Courtney-EP and Olson to claims 1-7, as presented in the request
`
`and claim charts, teaches away from the limitation of "detecting an object in a video
`from a s_ingl_e camera" because Courtney-EP is being modified by the M316. smart
`
`cameras of Olson’s figyre 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. For at least this
`
`reason, requester has n_ot shown a reasonable likelihood 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 (H1
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Courtney-NFL and Olson. The request and claim charts allege that Courtney-NFL
`
`discloses limitations of claims 1-7 and Olson teaches limitations of claims 1-7. (request
`
`Qgs. 63-64 and claim charts Qgs. 1108-1142)
`
`As to the limitation of "detecting an object in a video from a single camera",.
`
`requester cites Courtney-NPL as disclosing this limitation and Olson as teaching this
`
`limitation. (claim charts gg's. 1108-1110) Since requester is citing Courtney-NFL and
`
`Olson for this single limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Courtney-
`
`NPL and Olson, as presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meet this
`
`limitation.
`
`Requester cites Courtney-NFL as disclosing this limitation in 2g. 616, 001.2, figure
`
`13
`
`.608 col.2 1 ures 1-2
`
`. 609 cols. 1 (171612 and 1 we 13. For the reader’s
`
`convenience, figure 13 of Courtney-NFL is reproduced below.
`
`Fig. 13. A high—level diagram of the AV! 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 teaching this limitation at Qg. 166, col. 1 and figyre 4.
`
`For the reader’s convenience, figyre 4 of Olson is reproduced below.
`
` FigdiEIJE'The'situational’awi’refnes's systém
`
`The examiner does n_ot agree that this obviousness rejection over Courtney-NPL
`
`and Olson has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because the general application of
`
`the combination of Courtney-NPL and Olson to claims 1-7,‘as presented in 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’s figure 4 thereby resulting in a system/method that
`
`detects an object in videos from multiple cameras and not the claimed single camera.
`
`For at least this reason, requester has n_ot shown a reasonable likelihood 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 I
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-74 are obvious over Courtney-EP and Brill.
`
`The examiner agrees that 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
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing because the general application of Courtney-EP to
`
`claims 1-7 in the claim charts appears reasonable. (request Qgs. 62-63 and claim charts
`
`QgS. 796-846) Also, the examiner is able to discern that this disclosure of Courtney-EP
`
`combined with Brill is reasonably likely to prevail because figlrg of Courtney-EP and
`
`Brill disclose identical systems for which the methods employed by the respective
`
`systems are likely to be obvious over one another. For the reader’s convenience, figfl
`
`l of Courtney-EP and figure I of Brill are reproduced below.
`
`Courtney-BF
`
`33ft. _____ J L_2R1VE_J\34
`
`l' """ ‘l FEAEo'fisU
`PROCESSOR
`
`Therefore, requester has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect
`
`to this proposed obviousness rejection of claims 1-7.
`
`Canon EX. 1009 Page 15 of 183
`
`'j‘Tf'flCE J\ 28
`
`'
`
`29 \l' Tug—whiz?
`L'l‘Tf'flCE
`
`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 and Brill.
`
`
`The request and claim charts allege that Courtney-NPL discloses limitations of claims
`
`1_-7_ and Brill teaches limitations of claims 1-7. (request Qgs. 5 7-62 and claim charts Qgs.
`
`
`548-590)
`
`Requester cites both Courtney-NPL and Brill for the single limitation of "wherein
`
`the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is identified”.
`
`(claim charts Qgs. 563-566) Since requester is citing both Courtney-NFL and Brill for this
`
`single limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Courtney-NPL and Brill, as
`
`presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meet this limitation.
`
`Requester cites Courtney-NPL . 610: col.1
`
`
`
`
`. 612.'cols.1- 2
`
`. 614.‘col.2 t0
`
`
`
`
`
`615.‘cols.1-2, and figure 5 as disclosing this limitation and requester cites Brill (201.1.‘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
`
`programmed to generate an alarm upon occurrence of a complex event made up of a
`
`series of simple events” does not disclose or suggest that these stages of Courtney-
`
`NPL are independent of the identified complex event made up of simple events. For at
`
`least this reason, the examiner does n_ot agree that this obviousness rejection over
`
`Courtney-NFL and Brill has a reasonable likelihood 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 proposed that 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 (ggs. 65-73) and the claim charts. (Qgs. 1315-1358)
`
`Requester cites Winter and Brill for the single limitation of “wherein the plurality
`
`of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is identified’ (claim charts
`
`QgS. 1334-1335) Since requester is 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 meet this limitation. '
`
`Requester cites Winter col.3.'23-32 and col. 73:56-64 as disclosing this 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
`
`
`analysis device detects the first predetermined characten'stic.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 60
`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
`
`
`Requester cites Brill 601.1:43-48 col.3:24-27 col.3.‘41-49 and col. 4:27-30 as
`
`teaching this limitation. For the reader’s convenience, these portions of Brill are
`
`reproduced below.
`
` Given a system which detects simple events, one can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`easily create a user interface that enables someone to define
`a complex event by constructing a list of sub-events. After 4
`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
`
`'II
`
`
`The basic system performs three data processing steps for
`every image of a video sequence to recognize events. The
`three steps are detecting objects, tracking objects, and ana-
`lyzing the motion graph.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the system analyzes the
`to recognize events,
`Finally,
`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 45
`common in an oflice 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.
`
`
`30 Returning to the THEE-'1‘ example, a better system would
`
`
`
`As evidenced by the above disclosures, the combination of Winter and Brill
`
`does not teach or make obvious “wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are
`
`independent of which event is 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 @
`
`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 reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this proposed obviousness
`
`rejection.
`
`Issue (L)
`
`Requester proposed that claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Paek,
`
`Qian, and Courtney-US. For the proposed rejection of claims 1-7, Requester provides
`
`a detailed application of the combination of Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US to claims 1-
`
`Z in the request (Qgs. 73-79) and the claim charts. (Qgs. 1587-1625)
`
`Requester cites Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US for the single limitation of
`
`“selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes”. (claim charts gg’s.
`
`1594-1596) Since requester is citing Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US for this single
`
`limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Paek, Qian, and Courtney-US, as
`
`presented in the request and claim charts, is required to meet this limitation,
`
`Requester cites Paek col.18:20-28 and col. 73:56-64 as disclosing this limitation.
`
`Requester cites Courtney-US col.4:45-52, fig. 4, and col.5:4-14 as teaching this limitation.
`
`First, Paek’s video object hierarchy descriptions do not disclose or make obvious
`
`selecting a new user rule after detecting the plurality of attributes” because selection of
`
`a rule, new or othen/vise, is not discussed at all in this citation of Paek. Further,
`
`Courtney-US’s disclosure of “show me all objects that are removed from this region of
`
`,the scene” is not a ‘new user rule’ as claimed. As such, for at least this reason,
`
`Requester has fl0_t shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this
`
`proposed obviousness rejection 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 (NI
`
`Page 18
`
`Requester proposed that 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 Shotton to claims 1-7 in the
`
`request (Qgs. 81-82) and the claim charts. (Qgs. 1837-1877)
`
`As to the limitation of "detecting an object in a video from a single camera",
`
`requester cites Paek as disclosing this limitation and Shotton as teaching this limitation.
`
`(claim charts Qgs. 1837-1840) Since requester is citing Paek and Shotton for this single
`
`limitation, the examiner considers the combination of Paek and Shotton, as presented
`
`in the request and claim charts, is reqUired to meet this limitation.
`
`Requester cites Paek col.17.'26-61 and figure 8 as meeting this limitation. For the
`
`reader's convenience Paek's figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`III
`
`Canon EX. 1009 Page 20 of 183
`
`— 1
`
`I II
`
`LOGICAL
`EVENT HIERACHY
`
`ORGANIZATION
`LOGICAL
`OBJECT I'IIERAG‘IY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`'gvfiTTvfifi'E-F
`HIEFIACHY EXTRACTION
`335
`IAND cousmucnon
`PHYSICAL
`EVENT HIERACHY
`
`ORGANIZATION
`PHYSICAL
`OBJECT HIERAC‘HY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`,
`xm.
`ENCODER
`'
`C
`
`L—""— “‘__:_833 J
`i831
`DATABASE
`STORAGE
`840
`871
`APPLICATIONS
`
`BINARY
`ENCODER
`
`860
`
`__ _
`I EVE-NTAND
`I OBJECT EXTRACTION
`TEMPORAL SEGMENTATION
`vmso
`
`525
`
`s23
`'______ J______1
`see
`OBJECT EXTRACTION
`FEATURE EXWACTIDN
`VD FEATURE EXTRACT I
`ANNOTATION
`l.__.____'_____...l
`L_____________ _J
`32
`
`Il l lI
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 20 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,914
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 19
`'
`
`Requester cites Shotton §j§2, 2.3 and figure 3 as teaching this limitation. For the
`
`reader’s convenience, figure 1 of Shotton, which is described in §g 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 n_ot agree that this obviousness
`
`rejection over Paek, Qian, and Shotton has a reasonable likelihood 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 (Pl
`
`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: 95/001914 '4
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`‘
`
`Page 20
`'
`
`discloses limitations of claims 1-7 and Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson teaches
`
`limitations of claims 1-7. (reguest Qgs. 84-85 and claim charts QgS. 2139-2212)
`
`As to the limitation of "detecting first and second objects in a video from asingle
`
`camera", requester cites Paek as disclosing this limitation and Qian, Courtney-EP, and
`
`Olson as teaching this limitation. (claim charts QgS. 2139-2147) Since requester is citing
`
`Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson for this single limitation, the examiner considers
`
`the combination of Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson, as presented in the request
`
`and claim charts, is required to meet this limitation.
`
`Requester cites Paek as disclosing this limitation at col.17:26-61 and figure 8. For
`
`the reader's convenience Paek's figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`IOBJECT EXTRACTION
`TEMPORAL SEGMENTATION
`
`826
`
`l
`
`VIDEO
`-____.i___~____,
`FEATURE EXTRACTION
`cause? 6x1 RACTION
`o FEATURE EXTW!
`ANNOTATION
`1...____,.____.._i
`L_____________ _l
`82
`
`ENCODER
`
`_
`
`HIERACHY EXTRACTION
`835
`I AND CONSTRUCTION
`PHYSICAL
`EVENT HIERACHY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`PHYSICAL
`OBJECT HIERACHY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`XML I DATABASE
`STORAGE
`
`LOGICAL
`EVENT HIERACHY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`LOGICAL
`OBJECT HIERACHY
`ORGANIZATION
`
`Requester cites Qian as teaching this limitation at col.2.'55 t0 col.3.'8 and figure 1.
`
`For the reader’s convenience, figure 1 of Qian is reproduced below.
`
`Canon EX. 1009’Page 22 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 22 of 183
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001 ,914
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Requester cites Courtney-EP as disclosing this limitation in 11(0002Z, [00171,
`
`[00282 to [00341 and figgre 2. For the reader’s convenience, figure 2 of Courtney-EP is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Requester cites Olson as teaching this limitation at 2g. 166, col. 1 and figure 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
`
`'
`
`
`
`my «a,
`an“.
`~
`3.1136."
`
`~ ‘
`
`
`
`‘Srnan'camer’ati
`.
`.
`
`.
`obigdreqagnr'fiagi
`
`FigU'rEtt': 'The‘sirualional ’awifrehass, system
`
`
`The examiner does agt agree that this obviousness rejection over Paek, Qian,
`
`Courtney-EP, and Olson has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because the general
`
`application of the combination of Paek, Qian, Courtney-EP, and Olson to claims 1-7 in
`
`the request and claim charts teaches away from the limitation of "detecting an object in
`
`a video from a flg/fi camera" because the combination of Paek, Qian, and Courtney-
`
`EP is ultimately being modified by the mullipl_e smart cameras of Olson’sfigLezl
`
`'
`
`thereby resulting in a system/method that detects an object in videos from mpg
`
`cameras and not the claimed s_ir_1gl_e camera. For at least this reason, requester has n_ot
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood 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 (01
`
`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 (Qgs. 87-88) and the claim charts. (Qgs. 3032-3109)
`
`Canon EX. 1009 Page 24 of 183
`
`Canon Ex. 1009 Page 24 of 183
`
`

`

`Control N