`
`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.
`
`90/012,876
`
`05/23/2013
`
`7932923
`
`4079-116
`
`6419
`
`6449
`
`7590
`
`04/04/2014
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK,PC.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON,DC 20005
`
`BASEHOAR, ADAM L
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/04/2014
`
`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. 1017 Page 1 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 1 of 41
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`DINESH AGARWAL,P.C.
`
`5350 SHAWNEE ROAD
`
`SUITE 330
`
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/012,876.
`
`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)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, orthe timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 2 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 2 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AJAfirst to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses original claims 1-41 and newly presented claims 42-81 of
`
`United States Patent Number7,932,923 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’”’). A Non-Final Action was mailed 08/30/2013
`
`rejecting all original claims 1-41.
`
`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, new
`
`claims 42-81 have been added. Said amendmenthas been entered and madeof record. Thus,
`
`claims 1-81 are now currently pending and subject to this reexamination.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Amendmentand 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. 1017 Page 3 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 3 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`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. 7,932,923 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 08Borits equivalent, without an indication to the contrary in the record, do
`
`not signify that the information has been considered by the examiner any further than to the
`
`extent noted above.”
`
`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.
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 4 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 4 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`References Discussed in This Final Action
`
`= Courtney ‘584 - (European Patent Application No. EP 0 967 584 A2, published 12/29/1999)
`
`= Courtney ‘755 — (U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999)
`
`« Brill — (U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003)
`
`* Day-I — (“Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,” Proceedings on the
`
`Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401-408)
`
`" Day-II — (“Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Video Data for On-Line Object Oriented Query
`
`Processing,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Computing and
`
`Systems, IEEE, May 1995. p. 98-105)
`
`«
`
`Shotton — (“Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy Videos,” Fifth
`
`International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), September 2000)
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`6.
`
`Asnoted above, the Patent Owner’s Amendment and 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. The Examinernotes that the Remarks in PO’s Amendment and
`
`Reply appear to be substantially similar (see: Amendment and Reply,p. 40: “Each rejection is
`
`addressed by Dr. Zeger and summarized below”) and/or mirror the arguments presented in the
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 5 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 5 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`expert Zeger Declaration. Therefore, most citations will only be made in reference to the expert
`
`Zeger Declaration.
`
`Priority Determination
`
`PO argues (see: Amendmentand Reply, pp. 83-84) that the Lipton ‘923 patent “clearlyis
`
`a continuation of the ‘707 Application.” PO further argues that the specific reference
`
`requirementis met by the relationship between the applications being indicated on the Bib Data
`
`Sheets and on the Application Transmittal Sheets for the ‘116 Application (i.e., the application
`
`leading to the Lipton ‘923 patent) and the ‘707 Application (see: Exhibits R2-R4). Therefore,
`
`POstates that the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120 that a priority claim must “contain a specific
`
`referenceto the earlier filed application” has been satisfied.
`
`The Examinerrespectfully disagrees with the Patent Owner. As noted in the Order(see:
`
`Order, pp. 7-9), mailed 06/17/2013, the specific reference required must be included in an ADS
`
`or the specification must contain or be amended to contain such referencein the first sentence(s)
`
`following the title. MPEP 201.11(II)(D) expressly states that “Even if the Office has recognized
`
`a benefit claim by entering it into the Office's database and including it on applicant's filing
`
`receipt, the benefit claim is not a proper benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120
`
`and 37 CFR 1.78 unless the reference is included in an ADSorin the first sentence > (s) of the
`
`specification and all other requirements are met” (emphasis added). In the instantcase, it
`
`appears the Office did initially recognize a benefit claim (see: Applicant's Filing Receipt in the
`
`‘116 Application, mailed 10/14/2009), however, as noted abovethe benefit claim is not proper
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Therefore, PO’s noted Exhibits to the Bib Data Sheets
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 6 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 6 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`and Application Transmittal Sheets fail to cure the deficiencies originally noted in the
`
`Order/Non-Final Action. In general, the Examinernotes that the most recent Bib Data Sheet for
`
`the ‘116 Application (02/28/2011) lists no references to other applications under the
`
`“CONTINUING DATA” section. Thus, for reexamination purposes, original claims 1-41 of the
`
`Lipton ‘923 patent, as well as new claims 42-81, are considered to have an effective date of
`
`09/29/2009, the filing date of the Lipton ‘923 patent.
`
`The Day-I Reference (in further view of Day-II_ and Brill
`
`PO argues(see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 45-51 & 60-62), with regard to the
`
`independentclaims, that the Day-I reference fails to disclose the userrule filtering required by
`
`the claims. PO arguesthat instead offiltering video primitives, the system of Day-I performs
`
`user specified queries. PO arguesthat “filtering” and “querying” have different meanings and
`
`functions, noting that unlike filtering, querying is not normally capable of being applied to
`
`infinite/unlimited data input. PO further argues that Day-I discloses querying a finite database
`
`created through the processing of video clips, but cannot operate on infinite length video streams.
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with PO and notesthat the features upon which PO
`
`relies (i.e., “filtering”, “infinite/unlimited data input’, “standard input’, “data stream’’) are not
`
`recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claimsare interpreted in light of the specification,
`
`limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988
`
`F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The original independentclaims as currently
`
`recited only require identifying an event of an object by applying a selected new userrule to the
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 7 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 7 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`plurality of detected attributes. Therefore, PO’s specific arguments to an implied/inherent
`
`“filtering” requirement are not persuasive.
`
`For arguments sake, even if applying the new userrule had somesortoffiltering
`
`requirement, the user generated conceptual queries of Day-I wouldstill read on said filtering
`
`requirement based on the disclosure of the Lipton ‘923 patent. First, the Examiner notes that the
`
`disclosure of the Lipton ‘923 patent lacks an explicit definition of the term “filtering.” Aside
`
`from twice generally talking about the conceptoffiltering (see: Lipton ‘923: column 2,lines 37-
`
`47: “need exists to filter...An object of the inventionis to filter video surveillance data to
`
`identify desired portions of the video surveillance data’’), the Lipton ‘923 patent appears to only
`
`provide one specific description of how eventdiscriminatorsfilter detected attributes (see:
`
`Lipton ‘923: column 10, line 66-column 11, line 9: “event discriminators are used tofilter the
`
`video primitives...the event discriminator checksall video primitives being generated...and
`
`determinesif any video primitives exists which have the following properties”). In light of this,
`
`the event discriminators in Lipton ‘923 appearto disclose that all that is required by the term
`
`filtering is checkingto see if a set of input data (e.g., already detected video primitives) matchall
`
`the desired requirements defined in the event discriminator. Theresult of this filtering
`
`requirementidentifies desired portions of the video surveillance data. This appears to be exactly
`
`how the conceptual queries in Day-I are processed andthis interpretation is fully supported by
`
`PO’s dictionary definitions (see: Exhibit Z3, p. 185: “A databasefilter, for example, might flag
`
`information ofa certain age’, p. 186: “filtering program...filters information and presents only
`
`the results that match the qualifications defined in the program’, p. 368: “query...specific set of
`
`instructions for extracting particular data”; Exhibit Z4, p. 435: “filter...device or program that
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 8 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 8 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`separates data, signals, or material in accordance with specific criteria”). Day-I explicitly states
`
`that, “a user can specify queries and hence can retrieve corresponding video clips without ever
`
`processing raw video data.” (see: Day-I, Conclusion).
`
`The Examinerfurther disagrees with PO’s reliance on the dictionary definitions in
`
`Exhibits Z3 and Z4 to arguethat filtering specifically requires receiving standard(i.e., potentially
`
`infinite/unlimited data). First, the definition relied upon by PO further requires that the standard
`
`input be transformedbythe filter in some desired way (see: Exhibit Z3, p. 185: “filter...reads in
`
`standard input or designated input, transforms the input in some desired way”). The disclosure
`
`of the Lipton ‘923 patent does not appear to support such an interpretation as the event
`
`discriminators only look at detected video primitives to determine if an event has occurred, and
`
`do not actually transform the video primitives in any way. Second, as currently claimed, the new
`
`user rule is only applied toafinite set of detected attributes. Each of the independent claims
`
`specifically require that the new userrule is applied after the plurality of attributes have been
`
`detected and after the selection of said new userrule. Specifically, at least independent claims 9
`
`and 30 explicitly require the already detected attributes to be previously stored in memory.
`
`Finally, the Examiner notes that the Day-I reference does not appear to put any limitations on the
`
`on the amountof video input that can be processed and represented in the directed graph. Day-I
`
`also does not appear to put any limitations on the amountof detected video input information a
`
`user can query against.
`
`POalso argues (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraph 63) that the disclosure of Day-I
`
`contains several gaps that leave a person skilled in the art unable to accomplish someofthe
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 9 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 9 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`assertions. PO argues that Day-I does not include any disclosure that would enable one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to accomplish the described assertions andat the publication time (1995)
`
`of Day-I said described assertions were technically impossible. PO further argues that a skilled
`
`artisan would therefore have to make numerous guesses and assumptions as to how to implement
`
`the system of Day-I. PO finally argues that the basic Boolean input variables for the predicate
`
`logic equations were not algorithmically feasible to determine.
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with PO. Aside from mere statements, the PO has
`
`provided no facts rebutting the operability of the disclosure of the Day-I reference. The PO has
`
`also failed to provided evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make
`
`and use the system of Day-I without undue experimentation. Day-I describes that “we can use
`
`various techniques currently available according to the requirements of different situations that
`
`mayoccur in the input.” (see: Day-I, pp. 401-402). For each of the example predicate logic
`
`equations(e.g., slam-dunk, pass, walking, etc.) Day-I explicitly lists the required detected objects
`
`as well as their relationships. Day-I also assumesthe proper object recognition methodsare used
`
`to identify the objects (see: Day-I, p. 404: Section 2.3) and even gives another specific example
`
`for querying for a slam-dunk event in the form of a temporal video example (QTVE)(see: Day-I,
`
`p. 408: Section 3.3). Day-I finally stating that the methodology employs computer vision and
`
`image processing (CVIP) techniques to automate the construction of the video database based on
`
`the VSDG model(see: Day-I, p. 408: Section 4). The Examinernotesthat the fact that some
`
`experimentation could be necessary and may be complex does not necessarily make it undue.
`
`Therefore, PO’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 10 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 10 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`POalso argues (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraph 102), with regard to dependent claims
`
`14 and 35, that there is no suggestion or motivation for a skilled person to add the extra storage
`
`to Day-I.
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with PO. The Examinernotesthat the Day-I
`
`reference puts no restriction on how long the identified attributes are stored in the graphical
`
`model (VSDG). Day-I also recognizes issues with regard to the amount of storage required to
`
`store the detail information maintained by the VSDG model(see: Day-I, p. 403: “overhead
`
`associated with such detailed specification may be formidable...obvious tradeoff between the
`
`amount of storage needed for temporal specification and the detail of information maintained by
`
`the VSDG model”).
`
`In light of this, the Examiner notes that PO’s arguments have not
`
`specifically addressed the well-known andexpected benefits listed as the obviousrationales for
`
`storing the detected attributes for “at least two months” in the adopted Request and claim charts
`
`(see: Request, p. 30; AttachmentI, p. 2). Therefore, PO’s argumentis not considered persuasive.
`
`POalso argues (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 104-108), with regard to dependent
`
`claims 11 and 32, that the combination of Day-I and Day-II does not teach “meansfor
`
`identifying a first event of the object in real time.” PO arguesthat in the Lipton ‘923 patent “real
`
`time”’ is consistently used to meanreal timerelative to the video input, whereby identification of
`
`events are meant to keep in time with the video. PO arguesthat the “real-time” described in
`
`Day-II cannot keep up with the video, and is described to mean that at the time the user query is
`
`madethe result is determined very fast.
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 11 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 11 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with PO. The Day-II reference explicitly teaches
`
`wherein the processing of user generated content-based queries was donein real time (see: Day-
`
`II, p. 99: “queries in real time”). The Examiner disagrees with the PO that the disclosure of the
`
`Lipton ‘923 patent consistently uses real time to mean relative to video input, whereby
`
`identification of events are kept in time with the video. First, the Examinernotes that the
`
`disclosure of the Lipton “923 patent does not explicitly define real time. Second, the Examiner
`
`notes that dependent claims 11 and 32, whichrecite the “real time” limitation, depend from
`
`independentclaims 9 and 30 respectively. Independent claims 9 and 30 each require that the
`
`plurality of attributes, which dependent claims 11 and 32 analyzein real time, be stored in
`
`memoryandidentifying an event by applying the new userrule specifically to said plurality of
`
`stored attributes (see: Lipton ‘923: column 16, lines 61-65). The Lipton ‘923 patent makesit
`
`clear that applying event discriminators to any archived/stored video primitives, after the video
`
`source has been processed, can be analyzed in a “relatively short time” because only the video
`
`primitives are reviewed and because the video sourceis not reprocessed (see: Lipton ‘923,
`
`column 14, lines 58-66). Therefore, without an explicit definition of real time, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation for the term real time in light of the disclosure of the Lipton ‘923 patent
`
`merely means performing system operations that match the human perception oftime(i.e., at the
`
`time a user query is madeor a selected new userrule is applied, the system result is determined
`
`very fast). As shown in the adopted claim charts, the combination of Day-I and Day-II clearly
`
`meets the claimed“real time” limitation. Thus, PO’s arguments are not persuasive and appearto
`
`ignore the specific limitations of the claims in light of the disclosure of the Lipton ‘923 patent.
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 12 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 12 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Specifically with regard to someof the new independentclaims, PO also arguesthat the
`
`Day-I reference does not teach new limitations of, (1) “filtering” (see: Zeger Declaration,
`
`Paragraph 129); (2) “in real time” (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 130-131); (3) “velocity”
`
`(see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraph 132); and (4) applying the “user rule only to the detected
`
`attributes” (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 133-134).
`
`(1) As noted below with regard to at least new independent claims 43-46, the Examiner
`
`disagrees with PO andnotesthat the Day-I reference clearly teaches the new limitation of
`
`“filtering.” While the term “filtering” is not specifically disclosed in Day-I, the Day-I reference
`
`explicitly teaches wherein user defined conceptual queries were utilized to query a video
`
`databaseto retrieve video clips that match the attributes that are defined in the predicate logic of
`
`said queries. As noted above, said functionality described in Day-I meets the new claim
`
`limitation of “filtering” as supported by the disclosure of the Lipton '923 patent.
`
`(2) As noted below with regard to at least new independent claims 47-50, the Examiner
`
`disagrees with PO andnotesthat the Day-I reference clearly teaches the new limitation of “in
`
`real time.” Day-I explicitly teaches an automated process by whichattributes of objects are
`
`identified by computer vision and image processing techniquesin real time (see: Day-I, p. 401:
`
`“an automated video-database system requires an effective and robust recognition of objects
`
`present in the video database”; p. 402: “For each input video clip, using a database of known
`
`objects, wefirst identify the corresponding objects, their sizes and locations, their relative
`
`positions and movements, and then encode this information in the proposed graphical model”; p.
`
`408: “The modelextracts spatial and temporal information of objects in a video clip and
`
`represents it in the form of a directed graph...automate the construction of the video database
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 13 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 13 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`based on the VSDG model”). For arguments sake, even if the Examiner agreed with the PO that
`
`Day-I did notat least teach detecting the plurality of attributes in real time, the Examiner notes
`
`that the other cited prior art references (e.g., Courtney “755, Courtney ‘584, and Shotton) each
`
`explicitly teach automated/live object tracking and attribute determination in real time. Said
`
`feature is not believed to be a novel conceptin light of the prior art.
`
`(3) As noted below with regard to at least new independent claims 51-54, while the Day-
`
`I reference can identify object movements in an input video clip, the Examiner agrees with PO
`
`that the Day-I reference does not specifically teach the new limitation of identifying a “velocity”
`
`attribute of the object. However, as noted below, the Shotton reference has been newlyrelied
`
`upon in combination with Day-I to teach said new limitation.
`
`(4) As noted below with regard to new independentclaims 55-58, the Examiner agrees
`
`withPOthat the Day-I reference does not teach or suggest the new limitation of applying the
`
`“user rule only to the detected attributes.” Said claims being found patentable and are further
`
`discussed below in the “STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR
`
`CONFIRMATION” section.
`
`The Courtney ‘755 Reference
`
`In light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 52-57 & 64-79) and upon
`
`further examination of the Courtney ‘755 reference, the Examiner agrees with PO that the
`
`Courtney “755 reference does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based
`
`claim elements of the independentclaims of Lipton ‘923 patent. In light of the disclosure of the
`
`Lipton ‘923 patent, the Examiner agrees that the three components to the independence-based
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 14 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 14 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`claim elements require, (1) identifying an event that refers to one or more objects engaged in an
`
`activity by analyzing the detected attributes; (2) the detected attributes are independentof the
`
`event identified; and (3) the identified event is not one of the detected attributes. Specifically,
`
`with regard to the first and third listed components, the Examineragreesthat an “event” may be
`
`referenced with respect to a location and/or time (see: Lipton “923: column3, lines 44-46), but
`
`merely referencing an already determined/detected event with respect to variably selected
`
`locations and/or timesis not a determination/identification of a new independent event.
`
`Therefore, the event querying/filtering system of Courtney ‘755 fails to teach the independence-
`
`based claim elements because said event querying/filtering system relies onalist of
`
`predefined/predetermined “events” of interest (see: Courtney ‘755: column3, 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 ‘755 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 ‘755: column5, lines 4-23; column 10, 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/identification of a new independent event as required by the
`
`claims.
`
`Thus, all the rejections involving the Courtney ‘755 reference have been withdrawn.
`
`The Shotton Reference (in further view of Brill)
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 15 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 15 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`In light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 52-57 & 80-99) and upon
`
`further examination of the Shotton reference, the Examiner agrees with PO that the Shotton
`
`reference does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based claim elements of
`
`the independentclaims of Lipton ‘923 patent. Specifically, the Examiner agrees that the user
`
`defined database queries of Shotton’s content-based video query andretrieval system appearto
`
`only search for already detected events stored in the searchable database. Said searchable
`
`database having been populated with specific intrinsic metadata resulting from the automated
`
`analysis of video frames (see: Shotton, Sections 2 & 2.1). Shotton teaches that spatio-temporal
`
`attributes of objects and events detected, which makeup the specific intrinsic metadata, are
`
`organized in said database to allow queries to locate particular cells, events, or behaviors within
`
`the video as a whole (see: Shotton, Section 3). Thus, because Shotton can only search for events
`
`in the searchable database if the metadata for the event itself has already been recorded(see:
`
`Shotton, Figure 1), the metadata for the event cannot be considered detected independent from
`
`the event. Similar to the discussion above with regard to Courtney “755, merely referencing an
`
`already determined/detected event (see: Shotton, Section 3: e.g., a bacteria
`
`“swimming...tumbling...stationary”) with respect to variably selected spatio-temporal positions
`
`(See: Shotton, Section 3: e.g., “instantaneous velocity, the duration, the direction and curvature
`
`of individual trajectories”’) is not a determination/identification of a new independent event as
`
`required by the claims.
`
`Regarding the Brill reference, in light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration,
`
`Paragraphs 52-57 & 111-120) and upon further examination of the Brill reference, the Examiner
`
`agrees with PO that the Brill reference also does not specifically teach the limitations of the
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 16 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 16 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`independence-based claim elements of the independent claims of Lipton ‘923 patent. Like the
`
`Courtney ‘755 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-column4,line 27; Figures 2, 6, and 7). Additionally, the defined complex events of
`
`Brill (see: Brill: column 4, lines 51-67), 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 Shotton reference.
`
`Thus,all the rejections involving the Shotton reference have been withdrawn.
`
`The Courtney
`
`‘584 Reference (in further view of Brill
`
`In light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration, Paragraphs 52-57 & 122-127) and
`
`upon further examination of the Courtney ‘584 reference, the Examiner agrees with PO that the
`
`Courtney *584 reference does not specifically teach the limitations of the independence-based
`
`claim elements of the independent claims of Lipton ‘923 patent. The Examinernotesthat the
`
`automatic video monitoring system of Courtney ‘584 (see: Courtney ‘584: e.g., Paragraphs 36-37
`
`& 69-71; Figures 3 and 9) is substantially similar to the event querying/filtering system of
`
`Courtney *755 discussed above. Thusfor at least the same reasons as discussed above with
`
`regard to Courtney ‘755, the automatic video monitoring system of Courtney ‘584 fails to teach
`
`the independence-based claim elements because said automatic video monitoring system relies
`
`on a list of predefined/predetermined “events” of interest to satisfy the user event selection
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 17 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 17 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`conditions (see: Courtney °584, Paragraphs 69-71: “includes an event selection box 136, which
`
`an operator can use to indicate that the image processing section 27 is to check for a specified
`
`event, and to indicate whataction is to be taken if the specified event occurs...allows user to
`
`restrict the monitoring eventto a particular region...allows the user to specify a time duration in
`
`seconds.”). As noted above with regard to Courtney “755, merely referencing an already
`
`determined/detected event with respect to variably selected locations and/or timesis not a
`
`determination/identification of a new independent event as required by the claims.
`
`Regarding the Brill reference, in light of PO’s arguments (see: Zeger Declaration,
`
`Paragraphs 52-57, 111-120, and 127) and upon further examination of the Brill reference, the
`
`Examiner agrees with PO that the Brill reference also does not specifically teach the limitations
`
`of the independence-based claim elements of the independent claims of Lipton ‘923 patent. Like
`
`the Courtney “755 and Courtney ‘584 references, 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-column4,line 27; Figures 2, 6, and 7). Additionally, the
`
`defined complex events of Brill (see: Brill: column4, lines 51-67), 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 independent as required by the claims. Therefore, the Brill reference
`
`does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above with regard to the Courtney ‘584 reference.
`
`Thus, all the rejections involving the Courtney ‘584 reference have been withdrawn.
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 18 of 41
`
`Canon Ex. 1017 Page 18 of 41
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`The Capuano and Venetianer Declarations — Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness
`
`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., “(1)
`
`achieved commercial success in the relevant market; (2) was co