`
` If?
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`90/012,876
`
`05/23/2013
`
`7932923
`
`4079—116
`
`6419
`
`6449
`
`7590
`
`04/30/2014
`
`ROTHWELL,F1GG,ERNST&MANBECK,p.c.
`607 14th Street, NW.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`BASEHOAR, ADAM L
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/3 0/2014
`
`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—9OA (Rev- 04/07>
`
`Canon EX. 1019 Page 1 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
` TJNI TED S TATES PATEN T AND TRADEWK QFFI CE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O.BD}{145U
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`vuwmusptogov
`
`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 TRANSMI'I'I'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/012 876.
`
`PATENT NO. 7932923.
`
`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)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.O7-O4)
`
`Canon EX. 1019 Page 2 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`
`
` Notice of Intent to Issue 90/012376 7932923
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Examiner
`
`ADAM L. BASEHOAR
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Status
`No
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`1. IZI Prosecution on the merits is (or remains) closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding. This proceeding is
`subject to reopening at the initiative of the Office or upon petition. Of. 37 CFR 1 .313(a). A Certificate will be issued
`in view of
`
`)
`
`IXI Patent owner’s communication(s)fi|ed: 16 AQI’i/ 2014.
`El Patent owner’s failure to file an appropriate timely response to the Office action mailed:
`El Patent owner’s failure to timely file an Appeal Brief (37 CFR 41.31).
`|:| The decision on appeal by the El Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences I:I Court dated
`
`aChange in the Specification.
`bChange in the Drawing(s ):
`c Status of the Claim(s):
`
`(1
`(2
`(3
`(4
`(5
`(6
`(7
`
`) Patent c|aim(s ) confirmed:
`) Patent c|aim(s) amended (including dependent on amended c|aim(s)): fl
`) Patent c|aim( )canceled:
`.
`) Newly presented c|aim(s) patentable:
`) Newly presented canceled claims: 42-81.
`) Patent c|aim(s) I:I previously |:l currently disclaimed:
`) Patent c|aim(s) not subject to reexamination:
`
`3. E! A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`4. IZI Note the attached statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation. Any comments considered necessary
`by patent owner regarding reasons for patentability and/or confirmation must be submitted promptly to avoid
`processing delays. Such submission(s) should be labeled: “Comments On Statement of Reasons for Patentability
`and/or Confirmation.”
`
`
`
`5. CI Note attached NOTICE OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO-892).
`
`6. CI Note attached LIST OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO/SB/O8 or PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`
`7. I] The drawing correction request filed on
`
`is: I] approved
`
`I] disapproved.
`
`8. I] Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)I:| AII b)I:| Some*
`c)|:l None
`of the certified copies have
`I] been received.
`I] not been received.
`I:| been filed in Application No.
`I:| been filed in reexamination Control No.
`I:l been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No.
`
`* Certified copies not received: _
`
`9. CI Note attached Examiner’s Amendment.
`
`10. CI Note attached Interview Summary (PTO-474).
`
`1 1. D Other:
`
`All correspondence relating to this reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at
`the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`/ADAM L BASEHOAR/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`rec uester)
`cc: Rec uester (if third - art
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-469 (Rev. 08-13)
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Part of Paper No 20140418
`
`Canon EX. 1019 Page 3 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre—AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses original claims 1—41 and newly presented claims 42—81 of
`
`United States Patent Number 7,932,923 B2 (Lipton et al), for which it has been determined in the
`
`Order Granting Ex Parte Reexamination (hereafter the “Order”) mailed 06/ 17/2013 that a
`
`substantial new question of patentability was raised in the Request for Ex Parte reexamination
`
`filed on 05/23/2013 (hereafter the “Request”).
`
`2.
`
`This Office action is a response to the Patent Owner’s (PO) After Final Amendment and
`
`Reply (hereafter the “Reply”) filed 04/16/2014. PO’s Reply, along with its accompanying
`
`amendments, has been entered and made of record. By virtue of PO’s Reply: (1) the
`
`specification has been amended (see: Reply, p. 2); (2) original independent claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22,
`
`29, and 30 have been amended (see: Reply, pp. 3—6); and (3) newly presented claims 42—81 have
`
`been cancelled (see: Reply, p. 6).
`
`Regarding PO’s amendment to the specification, said amendment is sufficient to properly
`
`correct the benefit claim (see: MPEP 211.03: “the reference to the prior application was previously
`
`submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78, but not in the location of the application as required by 37
`
`CFR 1.78 (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the
`
`information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing
`
`receipt. . .still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an amendment to the first
`
`sentence(s) of the specification”) to satisfy the specific reference requirement found lacking and
`
`discussed in at least the Final Action (see: Final Action, pp. 5—6).
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 4 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`In view of PO’s amendments to original independent claims 1, 8, 9, 20, 22, 29, and 30, as
`
`discussed below in the Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or Confirmation section, the
`
`remaining corresponding rejections (i.e., rejections relating to original claims l—4l) related to the
`
`primary Day—I reference (see: Final Action, pp. 24, 25, and 29—3l) have been withdrawn.
`
`Therefore, amended original claims l—4l are found patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR CONFIRMATION
`
`3.
`
`Claims l—4l are patentable and/or confirmed. The following is an Examiner's statement
`
`of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation of claims l—4l found in this reexamination
`
`proceeding. Claims l—4l are confirmed and/or patentable over the prior art that was explained in
`
`the Request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentability in the Order
`
`granting reexamination and over the prior art that was applied and discussed by the Examiner in
`
`the present reexamination proceeding because of the following:
`
`Independent claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the new limitation of, “applying
`
`the new user rule to only the plurality of detected attributes.” (see: Lipton ‘923, column 14, lines
`
`64-67: “only the video primitives are reviewed”). Said new limitation having previously been
`
`indicated as patentable/confirmable with regard to the limitations of independent claim 1 by
`
`virtue of the features presented in new independent claim 55 (see: Final Action, pp. 36—37). As
`
`similarly presented in the Final Action, the Examiner agrees with the PO (see: Zeger Declaration,
`
`Paragraphs 133—134) that the conceptual queries utilized in the video query system of Day—I are
`
`not applied to “only” the detected attributes, but require the use of object—oriented abstractions to
`
`interface with the VSDG model. As shown in the Lipton ‘923 patent, an event discriminator
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 5 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`(“user rule”) can be applied only against video primitives as opposed to abstractions thereof (see:
`
`Lipton “923, column 8, lines 16—17: “identified in terms of video primitives or abstractions
`
`thereof”; column 8, lines 50—53: “one or more discriminators are identified by describing
`
`interactions between video primitives (or their abstractions)”). As similarly presented in the
`
`Final Action, the Examiner further agrees with the PO that the Courtney “755, Shotton, Brill, and
`
`Courtney ‘584 references (see: Final Action, pp. 13—17) do not teach the independence based
`
`claim elements of identifying “an event of the object that is not one of the detected attributes”
`
`and “wherein the plurality of attributes that are detected are independent of which event is
`
`identified.” Therefore, the combination of the cited references do not appear to remedy the
`
`various deficiencies as noted above.
`
`Regarding additional independent claims 8, 9, 20, 22, 29, and 30, the additional
`
`independent claims have each been amended to recite substantially similar limitations as
`
`discussed above with regard to amended independent claim 1 and are thus patentable and/or
`
`confirmable based on the same rationale.
`
`Regarding dependent claims 2—7, 10—l9, 21, 23—28, and 31—41, the claims are dependent
`
`on patentable and/or confirmable claims, and are therefore also patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Any comments considered necessary by PATENT OWNER regarding the above
`
`statement must be submitted promptly to avoid processing delays. Such submission by the
`
`patent owner should be labeled: "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or
`
`Confirmation" and will be placed in the reexamination file.
`
`Canon EX. 1019 Page 6 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Conclusion
`
`4.
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`as follows:
`
`By US. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 13— 1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273—9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`By EFS—Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS—Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
`electronic filing system EFS—Web, at
`
`blitz.5;zlief:3.a.1.€sta;9.:«z1i.6235:.1.212951.12.gnallefsi’ségistergg
`
`EFS—Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS—Web submissions are “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 submissions after the “soft scanning”
`process is complete.
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 7 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`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 Basehoar/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/DENNIS BONSHOCK/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`/ALEXANDER KOSOWSKI/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 8 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 8 of 8
`
`