IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK {)EETCE
`
`COHU’OT Ne; Unaseigned
`
`) )
`
`)
`g
`i
`
`) ) 1
`
`* )
`
`1nventor:
`
`Peter L. VENETEANER et a1.
`
`P2116113? Nil:
`T331166}:
`Tifle:
`
`7,368,312
`January 11, 2011
`V113130 SURV1111.;LANCE
`SYSTEM EMPLOYING
`VIEEO PREMITTVES
`
`Fi1ing Date: Aprii 5, 2005
`
`Mai} Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Office of Patent Lega1Administratinn
`United States Patent & Trademark Qffiee
`PO, Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1459
`
`ATTACHMENT T0 REQUEST EUR EX PARTE REEXAMTNATEGN (PURE/E PTG~
`
`
`
`..,SET/57* PTO-1465 PRUVTBEN‘G INEGRMATTGN 0N T]. .
`
`Pursuant tn the previsions 0‘1 35 U S C §§ 326?307 and 37CF R § 1 510, the
`
`undersigned, on behalf of an anonynmus Requester, requests ex parte reexannnatinn of eiaims L»
`
`“’2 OPUS. Patent No, 7,868,912 (“the ‘912 Patent”).
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 1 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 1 of 118
`
`

`

`TABLE. 0F CUNTENTS
`
`i}
`
`99.
`999.
`
`CLAIMS FUN Wi-ECH NEEXAMTNATIQN IS REQUESTED...
`
`. .1
`
`......mi
`now o9992 PAIENT PURSUANT TO :97 {:999 99 9590N999),.,..:....,..,.....
`CER’E‘IHCATIQN NnoAnniNo 35 USU § 315(e)(1) AND 35 U99: § 32599111) W9
`
`99/,
`
`13NOCEEDINGSNELATEDTO THE 3992 PATENT
`
`......... 9
`
`V.
`9/9.
`
`.992 PATENT ANU 99‘s 9noan9999oN .........
`...................... 3
`€99,939 9oN 09 9999o99 9A99:N9S ANU 9999999999 9UBLiUA99oNS92
`
`V11 STATEMENT POINTING OUT SUBSTANTTAL NEW QUESTTGNS OF
`A 9995;909:999Roiection 1: Ciaims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 one aniicipateciby Gilge under 35 USC.
`{9 102 ...........................................
`..........................
`99999
`........................ 17
`13 Eroposed-Negection 2:
`(312119993 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are anticipated by Lipton et 991 under 35
`C. 1396;303:391Nejection 3.:CCiainis 1,-34, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13,151.99 21), and22 are anticipated
`
`by Courtney under 35 US C.§ 102 ,,,,,,,,,,,,
`
`............
`
`....................,....2.6
`
`Proposed Rejection 4: Cianns 1 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13,15 to 211,99nd 22 are anticipated
`11>.
`by 01.801161: 991, under 35 U S C § 102.. ...31
`
`E Proposed Rejection 5: Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are unpatenta‘oie in View of the
`combination of Giige and B9111 under 35 USC. § 1.0334
`
`Proposed Rejection 6: Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are nnpatentabie in. View of the
`E.
`combination of Lipton et a1. and 89111 under 35 U.SC. § 103..., .........
`................................ 38
`
`Froposed Rejection 7: C1aims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are unpaientab1e
`G.
`in View of the combination of Courtney and B9111 Under 35 USC. § 103 ............................... 39
`
`Proposed Rejection 8: Ciaims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 2.2 are unpatentabie
`H.
`in View of the combination 010199099. et a1- and 39111999991999 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................. 40
`
`Proposed Rejection 9': Ciaiine 1 to 3 2199916 to 22 are unpatentab1e in View ofthe
`1.
`combination of (111996 and Day under 35 USC. § 10341
`
`(319919915 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are unpatenta’bie in View of the
`Proposed Rejection 10:
`.1.
`combination of Lipton e9 291., and Day 99999193935 USC. § 103-13
`
`(312919999 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 20, and 22 are
`Proposed Rejection 11:
`K.
`unpatentabie in View of the combination of Courtney and Day under 35 USC. § 103 ...........46
`
`(312919995 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 1'3, 15 to 20, and 22 are unpatentabie
`Proposed Rejection 12:
`L.
`in View ot‘the combination oi’Oison e9 31. and Day under 35 USC. § 103 ............................. 4-7
`
`M. Proposed Rejection 13: Ciaim 5 is unpatentabie in View of the combination of Gi1ge and
`
`N Proposed Rejection 14: Ciaiin 5 is unpatentabie in View oi‘the combination of Lipton e9
`31. and 313 ‘783 under 35 US C. § 103.. 50
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 2 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 2 of 118
`
`

`

`Proposed Rejection l5: Claim 5 is unpatenta‘ole in View of the combination of Courtney
`O.
`and JP ‘783 under 35 USC. § lll3 ............................................................................................ 5l
`
`Proposed Rejection l6: Claim 5 is unpatenta‘ole in View of the combination of Olson et al.
`P.
`and JP ‘783 under 35 U.S.C. § ltl3 ............................................................................................ 52
`
`Proposed Rejection l7: Claim 5 is unpatenta‘ole in View of the combination of Oilge, Brill
`O.
`and, JP ‘783 under 35 U.S.C. § lll3 ............................................................................................ 53
`
`Proposed Rejection l8: Claim 5 is unpatentable in View of the combination of Lipton et
`R.
`al., Brill and JP ‘783 under 35 U.S.C. § ltl353
`
`Proposed Rejection l9: Claim, 5 is Unpatentable in View of the combination of Courtney,
`S.
`Brill and JP ‘783 Under 35 U.S.C. § 16354
`
`Proposed Rejection 2%: Claim, 5 is nnpatentable in View ofthe combination of Olson et
`T.
`in 5
`al. Brill and JP ‘783 under 35 U S C. § M33
`Proposed Rejection Zl: Claim 5 is unpatentablein View ofthe combination of Gilge, Da
`U.
`Z51‘“:
`and JP783 under 35 U. S. C. § 103
`Proposed Rejection 22: Claim 5 isunpatentable in View ofthe combination of Lipton et
`
`V.
`
`al, Day and JP ‘783 under 35 USC. § l9357
`
`W. Proposed Rejection 23: Claim 5 is nnpatentable in View of the combination of Courtney,
`Day and JP ‘783 under 35 U.S.C. § l0357
`
`X Proposed Rejection 24: Claim 5 is nnpatentable in View ofthe combination of Olson et
`al ,Day and JP 783 under 35 U S C § lll3.. 58
`Vlll. EXPLANATION OF PERTTNENCY AND MANNER OF APPLYTNG CITED PRIOR
`ART TO EVERY CLAlM FOR WHICH REEXAMTNATION lS REQUESTED UNDER 37
`CPR § 1.51tl(b)(2) ......................................................................................................................... 59
`
`1X. COMMENTS ON PATENT OWNER’S AMENDMENT AND REPLY lN RETATED
`
`PROCEEDING .............................................................................................................................. 60
`
`A. Comments On Patent Owner’s Remarks ........................................................................... 6i}
`
`Patent Owner Is Not Entitled To A Priority Date Before Earlier Than The ‘912 Patent
`1.
`FilingDate. 6l
`2.
`The Rejections Based On Gilge and Lipton et al Were Snbstantively Uncontested ln
`The ‘912 Reexamination ........................................................................................................ 77
`
`:
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Against The Rejection Of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3,
`3.
`15 to 20 And 22 As Anticipated, By Courtney Lack Merit ................................................... 77
`
`Patent Owner’ s Arguments Against the Rejection of Claims l, 3, 4 6, 8, 9, ll to l3 15
`4.
`to 20, and 22 As Anticipated by Olson et al. Lack Merit ...................................................... 87
`
`B. Comments On New Claims Presented In the ‘912 Reexamination.................,..........,.........95
`
`1..
`
`2..
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 23 ..............................................................................................
`
`............... 96
`
`Claims46-4996
`
`Claim 50 .......................................................................
`
`................... .............. 99
`
`ClaimH99
`
`ii
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 3 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 3 of 118
`
`

`

`WNQQU‘
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`13‘
`
`14°
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19‘
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22,
`
`23.
`
`Claim5299
`
`Claim53100
`
`Claim54101
`
`Claim55102
`
`Claim 56 ...................................................................-......v...... ...........102
`
`Claims 57 to67 ......... . ................ 1............... 1.102
`
`Claims 68 to79103
`
`Claims 801:090103
`
`Claims 91 19101104
`
`Claim 24 ..........................
`
`..........104
`
`Claim25104
`
`Claim26104
`
`Claim29106
`
`Claim 31 ............................
`
`.................V.......................
`
`.................106
`
`Claim34100
`
`Claims37-41107
`
`Claims 42 and43107
`
`Claims 44 and45108
`
`Proposed Grounds Of Rejection For New Claims ............V.......
`.
`
`...............Ww108
`
`111
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 4 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 4 of 118
`
`

`

`LISTING QF ATTACHMENTS
`
`Attachment A: Copy of US. Fatent No, "7,868,912, for which reexamination is requested
`
`Attachment 3: German Patent Publication No. DE till 53 484 Al (“Gilge”)
`
`Attachment C: Certified translation. of Gilge
`
`Attachment D: Lipton et al, “‘theetVideo Forensics: ActivitymBased Video indexing and
`Retrieval For Physical Security Applications,” intelligent Distributed
`Surveillance Systems (11388—04), The lEE, Savoy Place, London, UK,
`li'ehniary 23, 2004.
`(“Lipton et at”)
`
`Attachment E: US, Patent No, 5,969,755 (“Courtney”)
`
`Attachment F: leon et al, “Moving ()hj ect Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`Smart Cameras” Proceedings of the 1997 image Understanding Workshop, New
`Orleans, May l997, pp. l59ml75. (“Glenn et at”)
`
`Attachment G: US. Patent No. 6,628,835 (“Brill et elf”)
`
`Attachment it: Day at at, “Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,” Proceedings
`of the Eleventh international Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 4Gl—403.
`
`lEEE Match, l995 (“Day”)
`
`Attachment 1: Japanese Published Patent Application No. 1997430783 (“JP “7783”)
`
`Attachment ll: Certified translation of JP ”/83
`
`Attachment K: Claim Chart « Claims l to 3 and 6 to 22 are Anticipated by Gilge Under 35
`
`USC § 1602
`
`Attachment L: Claim Chart n Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are Anticipated by Lipton et al. Under
`
`35 USC § l,{)2
`
`Attachment ill/l: Claim Chart — Claims l, 3, 4i, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3, iii to 20, and '22 Are Anticipated
`by Courtney Under 35 USC. § lGZ
`
`Attachment N: Claim Chart - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3, l5 to 26), and 22 are Anticipated
`
`by Olson et al. Under 35 USC. § 102
`
`Attachment Q: Claim Chart — Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentahle in view ot‘the
`combination of Gilge and Brill Under 35 USC § 103
`
`iv
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 5 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 5 of 118
`
`

`

`Attachment P: Claim Chart — Claims l to 4 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentable in View of the
`combination of Lipton et al. and Brill Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Attachment Q: Claim Chart ~ Claims l, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3, l5 to 20, and 22 are
`Unpatentable in View of the combination ot‘Co’nrtney and Brill Under 35 USC §
`l03
`
`Attachment R: Claim Chart — Claims l, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3, l5 to 20, and 22 are Unpatentable
`in View of the combination of Olson et al. and Brill Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Attachment S: Claim Chart ~ Claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentable in View ofthe
`combination of Gilge and Day Under 35 USC § l03
`
`Attachment T: Claim Chart — Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 are Unpatentable in View of the
`combination of Lipton et al, and Day Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Attachment C: Claim Chart _ Claims l, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3, l5 to 20, and 22 are Unpatentable
`in View of the combination of Courtney and Day Under 35 USC § l03
`
`Attachment V: Claim Chart ~ Claims l, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ll to l3, 15 to 2%, and 22 are Unpatentable
`in View of the combination of (linen et al. and Day Under 35 USC § l03
`
`Attachment X: Claim Chart ~ Claim 5 is Unpatentable in View of the combination of I? ‘783
`with any of Gilge, Gilge combined with Brill, and/or Gilge combined with Day
`
`Attachment Y: Claim Chart — Claim 5 is Unpatentable in View of the combination of JP ‘783
`with any of Lipton et al., l'..ipton et al, combined with Brill, and/or Lipton et at.
`combined with Day
`
`Attaohment Z: Claim Chart - Claim 5 is Unpatentable in View of the combination of J? “783
`with any of Courtney, Courtney combined with Brill, and/or Courtney
`combined with Day
`
`Attachment AA: Claim Chart _ Claim 5 in Unpatentable in View ol‘the combination of JP ‘783
`with any of {Dison et al., Olson et al. combined with Brill, and/or Chen et al.
`combined with Bay
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 6 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 6 of 118
`
`

`

`t.
`
`CLAKMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATEQN ES REQUESTED
`
`Reexamination is requested of claims 1—22 of US, Patent No, 7,868,9l2 (“the ‘912
`
`Patent”).
`
`Pursuant to 37 OER, § l,5l0(b)(5), the attached Certificate of Service indicator; that a
`
`copy“ of this Request, in its entirety, has been served on Patent Owner at. the following address of
`
`the attorney of record for Patent aner, in accordance with 37 CPR, § l. 336:).
`
`ROTHWELL, FlGG, ERNST 82. MANBECK, RC.
`
`597 14th Street, NW,
`SUITE 800
`
`WASHINGTON DC 20005
`
`Also submitted herewith is the fee set forth in 37 CPR. § 120(c)(1).
`
`El.
`
`CQE’Y GR ‘912 PATENT PURSUANT T6 37 ERR. § ifilttthltd)
`
`A copy of the entire patent is attached to this Request. as Attachment A, as required by 37
`
`GER. § 15 lt)(b)(4). Requester is not aware of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or
`
`reexamination certificate iseued with respect to the ‘912 Patent.
`
`Ell.
`
`CERTIFICATIQN REGARDENG 35 USC. § 315(e)(l) AND 35 USC. § 325(c)(1)
`
`As required by 37 CPR. §l.51tl(b)(6), Requester certifies that the statutory estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 1181:. § 3l5(e)(l) or 35 USC. § 325(e)(l) do not prohibit the Requester from
`
`tiling this ex parte reexamination request.
`
`EV.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE ‘912 PATENT
`
`The ‘9l2 patent issued on January 1 l, 20ll from US Patent Application Serial No,
`
`ill/098,385 (“the ‘385 application”), filed April 5, 2005, and States on its face that it is a
`
`continuationuinupart of U S Patent Application Serial No. ll/057,154 (“the " 154 application”),
`
`filed February l5, 2005, which is stated, to he a continuatien~in~part of US Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 09/987,707 (“the “707 application”), filed November 15, Ztltll and now abandoned,
`
`which is stated to be a continuation~in~part of US. Patent Application Serial No. {lg/694,712
`
`(“the ‘712 application”), filed Qctoher 24, 2000 and issued as US Patent No. 6,954,498 (“the
`
`‘498 patent”).
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 7 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 7 of 118
`
`

`

`A request for inter partes reexamination of the ‘91 2 Patent was filed on February 2.9,
`
`20l2, naming Bosch Security Systems, inc, a subsidiary of Robert Bosch GMBH, as requester.
`
`On April 10, 2012, the Patent Office granted, the request for inter partes reexamination. That
`interpartes reexamination proceeding was assigned reexamination Control No. 95/001,912 (“the
`
`“912 reexamination”),
`
`in the Qtder granting the interpartes reexamination, the Patent. Office
`
`determined the following issues proposed in the request had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`(REL-P):
`
`Claims l to 3 and s to 22 are Anticipated by Gilge Under 35 USC s 192 (issue 1)
`
`Claims 1 to 4 and {i to 22 are Anticipated by Lipton Under 35 USC s 102 (issue 2)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, ii to 1.3, 15 to 20,. and 22 Are Anticipated by Courtney Under 35
`
`USC. s 102 (issue 5)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, ii to l3, 1.5 to 20, and 22 are Anticipated by leon et al. Under 35
`
`USC. 102. (issue l2)
`
`(See ‘912 Reexamination, April it), 2012 foiee Action at p, 3; see also April 20, 2012
`
`Order.)
`
`On December 3, 2012, the Patent Owner filed a “Petition to Terminate Reexamination
`
`Proceeding Under 35 ULSC, § 317(h) and 37 CPR §§ l.i82, 190703)” in. the ‘912
`
`reexamination. As grounds for the petition, Fatent Owner identifies a “Stipulation and
`
`(Proposed) Qrder of Dismissal” submitted in Civil Action No. 3:;lley217 (E12). Va), styled
`
`()EyectVideo, Inc. v. Robertfioxch GmbH, at all] The petition indicates:
`
`The 0rder stated: (1) “The parties jointly request that this Court
`dismiss all claims asserted between them, with preindice to the
`right to pursue any such claims in the future,” (2) “The parties
`further stipulate and request that the Court order that the Bosch
`Defendants, namely Robert Bosch Grnhl-l and Bosch Security
`Systems, inn, have not sustained their burden of proving invalidity
`of any of the claims 1—29 of US. Patent No. 6,970,083, any of the
`claims 1—37 of US. Patent No. 6,696,945, any of the claims 1m22
`of US. Patent No. 7,868,912, any of claims 1—41 of US. Patent
`No. 7,932,923, and any of the claims 1—20 of 11.8. Patent No.
`7,613,324‘ and (3) “This Order is a final and non-appreciable
`
`1 The petition indicated that the action in the Eastern District of Virginia “had been stayed in its
`entirety pending the disposition of an l'l‘C investigation (N0.337~TA—795).” (Petition at p. 1.)
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 8 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 8 of 118
`
`

`

`decision.” (December 3, 2012 Petition, Control No. 95/09i/914, at
`an 245)
`
`The petition proceeded to allege that:
`
`On November l3, 2012,
`the US, District Court for the Eastern
`Bistrict of Virginia signed the Order containing the above-quoted
`language. Exhibit 6 at 3. (“1T 1S SO ORDERED”).
`(December 3,
`2012 Petition, Control No. 95/001,912, at p. 3)
`
`0n February ill, 2013, the Patent Office issued a Decision Granting Petition to Terminate
`
`Inter Fortes Reexamination Proceeding in the “91.2 Reexamination.
`
`Prior to the filing of the petition, Patent Owner filed an Amendment and Reply on lune
`
`1 l, 2012 in the ‘912 reexamination. Requester Bosch Security Systems submitted Comments in
`
`response the Amendment and Reply on October 3i, 20l2. As of the date of the Decision.
`
`lranting Petition to Terminate Inter Fortes Reexamination Proceeding, the Office had not acted
`
`on the Amendment and Reply.
`
`Vt
`
`‘912 jl’A’i‘lllN'i‘ AND i’l‘S PRGSECU’E‘lQN
`
`The following summary of the ‘9l2 Patent and its original prosecution history is
`
`incorporated herein substantially as set forth in the “912 reexamination request.
`
`The application for the ‘9l2 Patent, the ‘385 application, was tiled on April 5, 2095. As
`
`originally tiled, the ‘385 application contained twenty—six claims, of which claims l and 18 were
`
`the only independent claims, Application claims 1 and. l8 as filed are reproduced below;
`
`i. A video processing apparatus comprising:
`
`a video content analysis module to analyze an input video
`sequence and to derive at least
`
`one video primitive; and
`
`a video encoder to receive said input Video sequence and to
`output compressed video,
`
`18. A method of video processing comprising:
`
`detecting Whether or not there are one or more activities in
`a video sequence;
`
`encoding a video sequence to obtain encoded video; and
`
`transmitting said encoded video;
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 9 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 9 of 118
`
`

`

`least one of the group consisting of said
`wherein at
`encoding and said transmitting depends upon at least one result of
`said detecting.
`
`On December 23; 2097, the applicants filed a Preliminary Amendment adding six new
`
`paragraphs to the specification of the ‘385 application. The new paragraphs were numbered
`
`144.1 to l 44.6 for insertion into the specification following paragraph Md, and are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`[144.1] in block 3i, one or more objects types of interests are
`identified in terms of video primitives or abstractions thereof.
`Examples of one or more objects include; an object; a person; a red
`object; two objects; two persons; and a vehicle.
`
`in lilock 32, one or more spatial areas of interest are
`{Milli
`identified. An area refers to one or more portions of an image from
`a source video or a spatial portion of a scene being viewed by a
`video sensor. An area also includes a combination of areas from
`
`various scenes and/or images. An area can be an image based
`space (eg, a line, a rectangle, a polygon, or a circle in a video
`image) or a three—dimensional space (eg, a cube, or an area of
`tloor space in a building).
`
`{1443] Figure l2 illustrates identifying areas along an aisle in a
`grocery store. Four areas are identified: coffee; soda promotion;
`chips snacks; and bottled water. The areas are identified via a
`pointnandoeeliclr interface with the system.
`
`[144.4] in block 33, one or more temporal attributes of interest are
`optionally identitietlc Examples of a temporal attribute include:
`every l5 minutes; between 9:00 pm. to 6:30 am; less than 5
`minutes; longer than 3-0 seconds; over the weekend; and within 26
`minutes of.
`
`$44.55} in bloclr 34, a response is optionally identified. Examples
`of a response includes the following: activating a visual and/or
`audio alert on a system display; activating a visual andfor audio
`alarm system at the location; activating a silent alarm; activating a
`rapid response mechanism; locking a door; contacting a security
`service;
`forwarding data (eg;
`image data, video data, video
`primitives; and/or analyzed data) to another computer system via a
`network, such as the Internet; saving such data to a designated
`computer—readable medium; activating some other sensor or
`surveillance system;
`tasking the computer system ll
`and/or
`another computer system; and directing the computer system ll
`and/or another computer system.
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 10 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 10 of 118
`
`

`

`{144.6} in block 35, one or more discrintiinators are identified by
`describing interactions between video primitives
`(or
`their
`abstractions), spatial areas of interest, and temporal attributes of
`interest. An interaction is determined for a combination of one or
`
`more objects identified in block 31, one or more spatial areas of
`interest identified in block 32, and one or more temporal. attributes
`of interest identified in block 33. One or more responses identified
`in block 34 are optionally associated with each event discriminator.
`
`in the first Qi’fice Action, mailed on August 20, 2009, the Examiner rejected claims 25
`
`and 26 for failure to recite statutory subject- matter pursuant to 35 USS § it’ll. The Examiner
`
`also rejected claims l to 8 and 13 to 2i under 35. U.30. § 102(e) as being anticipated by US.
`
`Patent No. 7,227,893 (“Srinivasa et al.”). The Examiner further rejected claims 9 to l7, 25, and
`
`26 under 35 USC. § 103{a) as being unpatentable in View of the combination of Srinivasa et al.
`
`and US! Patent Publication No. 2004/0l6l l3'3 (“Elaaar et at”). Additionally, the Examiner
`
`rejected claims 22 to 24 under 35 USC. § 103(a} as being unpatentable in View of the
`
`combination of Srinivasa et. al. and US. Patent No, 7,197,072 (“llsu et at”)
`
`According to the prosecution history of the “385 application, the applicants held an
`
`interview with the Examiner on November 24, 2009 to “discussfl newly added claims 27— 70.”
`
`(interview Summary mailed December 2, 2009, page l.) in an “Amendment and interview
`
`Summary” tiled December 22, 2009, the applicants cancelled claims 1 to 26 and added new
`
`claims 27' to 53. The applicants stated that “isjupport for these new claims can be found
`
`throughout the disclosure, including without limitation, for example with Figures 23, 2d and 25
`
`and the corresponding description starting at paragraph {0087? on page 9 of the Amendment and
`
`interview Summary. Of the newly added claims, claims 27, 33, 37, 4i, and 48 are the only
`
`independent claims; claims 27, 33, 37, 41, and 48 as presented are reproduced below:
`
`27. A video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor being
`in communication with a first communications link to transfer the
`
`determined attributes over the communications link; and
`
`in
`a second processor, separate from the first processor,
`communication with the first communications link to receive the
`
`determined attributes transferred from the first processor over the
`first communications link, which determines a first event that is
`not one ot‘tlie determined attributes by analyzing a combination of
`the received determined attributes
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 11 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 11 of 118
`
`

`

`attributes
`determines
`processor
`first
`the
`wherein
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor.
`
`33. A Video system, comprising:
`
`an input in communication with a communications charmel;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of
`detected attributes received over the communications channel, the
`attributes being attributes of one or more objects detected in a
`video, the processor configured to determine an event that is not
`one of the detected. attributes by analyzing a combination of the
`received attributes,
`
`wherein the attributes received over the communications
`
`channel are independent of the event to be determined by the
`processor‘
`
`37. A method of detecting an event
`comprising:
`
`from a Video,
`
`a
`over
`attributes
`stream of detected
`a
`receiving
`communications channeh the detected attributes
`representing
`attributes of an object detected in a Video;
`
`perforating an analysis of a combination of the detected
`attributes to detect an event
`that
`is not one of the detected
`
`attributes,
`
`wherein the deteeted attributes received in the stream of
`
`attributes are independent of a selection of the event to be detected,
`
`41. A method comprising:
`
`analyzing a Video to detect an object;
`
`location by
`creating a stream of attributes at a first
`determining attributes of the detected object by analyzing the
`Video;
`
`transmitting the stream of attributes to a second location
`removed from the tirst location for subsequent analysis,
`
`wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the
`
`second location over a communications channel, and
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow the
`
`subsequent analysis to detect an event of the Video, the event not
`being one of the determined attributes.
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 12 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 12 of 118
`
`

`

`48. A video device, comprising:
`
`a processor which analyzes a Video to detect an object and
`to determine attributes of the object detected in the video;
`
`an output configured to transmit the attributes determined
`by the processor over a communications link?
`
`wherein the output is configured to transmit the attributes
`to a second location removed from the processor for a subsequent
`analysis of a combination of the attrihutes at the second location,
`
`wherein the processor determines attributes independently
`of a subsequent analysis of a combination of attributes
`to
`determine an event that is not one of the determined attributes, and
`
`wherein the attributes are sutticient to allow detection of an
`
`event that is not one of the determined attributes by analyzing the
`combination of the attributes.
`
`Thereafter; the Examiner issued a Final Office Action, mailed March 22, 20m.
`
`in the
`
`Final {)ftice Action, the Examiner rejected claims 27 to 53 under 35 USC. § ll)2(e) as being
`
`anticipated by US Patent No, 734473331 (“Brown et at”). According to the prosecution history
`
`of the ‘385 application, the applicants held another interview with the Examiner on July 22, 2010
`
`and discussed “lalmendments to claim '27 by incorporated claim Bid and an action taken response
`
`to the detected even .” (interview Summary mailed July 27, 20193 page 1‘) Subsequently, in an
`
`“Amendment and interview Summary” filed July 29, 2010, the applicants cancelled claims 30,
`
`36, 4G,, 46, and 5.2, and amended independent claims 27, 33; 37, 4L and 48. The amended
`
`independent claims are reproduced below:
`
`27. A Video system comprising:
`
`a first processor which analyzes a Video to determine
`attributes ot‘ohjects detected in the Video, the first processor being
`in communication with a first communications link to transter the
`
`determined attributes over the communications link; and
`
`in
`a second processor, separate from the first processor,
`communication with the tirst communications link to receive the
`
`determined attributes transferred from the first processor over the
`first communications link, which determines a first event that is
`not one of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of
`the received determined attrihutes and wliich_nroyideskinfirfiesnonse
`to a, detemtnaummtthefirmatdtlmtanwtanalcrttoa
`users information for a renort, and an instruction for taking an
`8311011,
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 13 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 13 of 118
`
`

`

`attributes
`determines
`processor
`first
`the
`wherein
`independent of a selection of the first event by the second
`processor, and
`
`
`
`wherein the second arocessor determines the first event
`without regrocessing the video analyzed by the first groeessor.
`
`33. A video system, comprising;
`
`an input in communication with a communications channei;
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of
`detected attributes received over the communications channei, the
`
`attributes heing attributes of‘one or more objects detected in a
`video, the processor configured to determine an event that is not
`one of the detected attributes by analyzing a combination of the
`received attributes and confiflred to ggrovide, upon a determination
`
`of the event, at least onemot‘ an alert to a user information for a
`report and an instruction for taking an action,
`
`wherein the attributes received over the communications
`
`ehannei are independent of the event to be determined by the
`processor, and
`
`wherein the processor is configured to determine the event
`frittiittllii reprocessing the video.
`
`3",". A method of detecting an event
`comprising:
`
`from a video,
`
`a
`over
`attributes
`stream of detected
`a
`receiving
`communications channel,
`the detected attributes
`representing
`attributes of an object previousiy detected in [[a'j] the video at—a
`remote iocation;
`
`performing an anaiysis of a combination of the detected
`attributes to detect an event that is not one of the detected attributes
`
`without reprocessing the video,
`
`ugon detecting the event, groviding at least onewgtlanaiert
`to a user, information for a reoort and an instruction for tuition an
`action.
`
`wherein the detected attributes received in the stream of
`
`attributes are independent ofa selection of the event to be detected,
`
`41. A method comprising:
`
`anaiyzing a video to detect an object;
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 14 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 14 of 118
`
`

`

`location by
`creating a stream of attributes at a first
`determining attributes of the detected object by analyzing the
`video;
`
`transmitting the stream of attributes to a second location
`removed from the first location for subsequent analysis,
`
`wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the
`
`second location over a communications channel, and
`
`wherein the stream of attributes is sufficient to allow the
`
`subsequent analysis to detect an event of the videotto grovide at
`instruction for taking anactionathe event not being one oi the
`
`determined attributes,
`wherein the stream of attributes ismsufficient toallow.
`dotectronof the event thatjshnggone of the determined attributes
`without regrocessing the video of the first location.
`
`48. A video device, comprising:
`
`a processor at a first location which analyzes a video to
`detect an object and to determine attributes of the object detected
`in the video;
`
`an. output configured to transmit the attributes determined
`by the processor over a communications link,
`
`wherein the output is configured to transmit the attributes
`to a second location removed from the processor for a subsequent
`analysis of a combination of the attributes at the second, location,
`
`wherein the processor determines attributes independently
`of a subsequent analysis of a combination of attributes
`to
`determine an event that is not one of the determined attributes, and
`
`wherein the attributes are sufficient to allow detection of an
`report and an instruction for taking anaction___t_l_ie___e__y§nt not being
`that-tenet one ot the determined attributes and being determinable
`by analyzing the combination oi the attributes,
`
`wherein the attributes are sufficient to allow dejtme‘g‘t‘ignwg‘tlan
`ei'cntiv1t110Msmmaritieitcteoetthefirsttaaaroi
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on August 3 l, 2010. The Notice
`
`of Allowance included the following statement of the Examiner‘s reasons. for allowance:
`
`{Tlhe prior art of records {sic} does not disclose a video system
`comprising: a first processor which analyzes a video to determine
`attributes of objects detected in the video, the first processor being
`
`Canon EX. 1026 Page 15 of 118
`
`Canon Ex. 1026 Page 15 of 118
`
`

`

`in communication with a first communications iinh to transfer the
`
`determined attributes over the communications iinit; and a second
`processor, separate from the first processor, in communication with
`the first coimnunications iinh to receive the determined attributes
`
`transferred from the first processor over the first communications
`iinh, which determines a first event
`that
`is not one of the
`determined attributes by anaiyzing a combination of the received
`determined attributes and which provides,
`in response to a
`determination of the first event, at least one of an alert to a user;
`
`information for a report, and an instruction for taking an action,
`wherein the first processor determines attributes independent of a
`seiection of the tirst event by the second processor; and wherein
`the
`second processor
`determines
`the
`first
`event without
`reprocessing the video anaiyzed hy the first processor.
`(Notice of
`Aiiowance, page 26)
`
`The ‘912 patent issued with twenty-two claims on January 223 2011, of which claims it?
`
`a, 9, t2, and 18 are the oniy independent ciaims. Ciairns 1, s, 9, 12, and i8 are reproduced
`
`heiow;
`
`it A video syst