`
`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
`
`04/30/2014
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK,PC.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON,DC 20005
`
`BASEHOAR, ADAM L
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/30/2014
`
`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. 1019 Page 1 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 1 of 8
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENTAND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USEIN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`DINESH AGARWAL,P.C.
`
`5350 SHAWNEE ROAD
`
`SUITE 330
`
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/012,876.
`
`PATENT NO. 7932923.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosedis a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (87 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 2 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 2 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
` Notice of Intent to Issue 90/012,876 7932923
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate|Examiner Art Unit AIA (First Inventorto File)
`
`Status
`No
`
`ADAM L. BASEHOAR
`
`3992
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`1. X] 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. Cf 37 CFR 1.318(a). A Certificate will be issued
`in view of
`(a) XX] Patent owner’s communication(s) filed: 16 Apri! 2014.
`b)
`[_] Patent owner's failure to file an appropriate timely response to the Office action mailed:
`[_] Patent owner’sfailure to timelyfile an Appeal Brief (37 CFR 41.31).
`[] The decision on appeal by the [_] Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences [] Court dated
`[J Other:
`e Reexamination Certificate will indicate the following:
`a) Change in the Specification:
`[J Yes L] No
`b) Change in the Drawing(s):
`L] Yes KJ No
`Status of the Claim(s):
`
`Patent claim(s) amended(including dependent on amended claim(s)): 7-47
`Patent claim(s) canceled:
`.
`Newly presented claim(s) patentable:
`Newly presented canceled claims: 42-81.
`Patent claim(s) (] previously [] currently disclaimed:
`Patent claim(s) not subject to reexamination:
`
`.
`3. A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`4. X] 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. L] Note attached NOTICE OF REFERENCESCITED (PTO-892).
`
`6. L] Note attached LIST OF REFERENCESCITED (PTO/SB/08 or PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`7. The drawing correction requestfiled on
`is: LJapproved
`[J disapproved.
`8. L] Acknowledgmentis made ofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`
`a)LJ All b)L]Some*—c)L] None of the certified copies have
`L] been received.
`[] not been received.
`;
`_] been filed in Application No.
`L] been filed in reexamination Control No.
`_] been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No.
`
`“ Certified copies not received:
`[1 Note attached Examiner's Amendment.
`
`9.
`
`10.(.] Note attached Interview Summary (PTO-474).
`11.(] Other: .
`
`All correspondencerelating 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
`
`requester)
`cc: Requester (if third party
`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
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AIAfirst to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses original claims 1-41 and newly presented claims 42-81 of
`
`United States Patent Number 7,932,923 B2 (Liptonet al), for which it has been determinedin 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 amendmentto the specification, said amendmentis 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 shownbyits inclusion onthefirst filing
`
`receipt...still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an amendmentto the first
`
`sentence(s) of the specification’’) to satisfy the specific reference requirement found lacking and
`
`discussedin 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
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`In view of PO’s amendmentsto original independentclaims 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(1.e., rejections relating to original claims 1-41) related to the
`
`primary Day-I reference (see: Final Action, pp. 24, 25, and 29-31) have been withdrawn.
`
`Therefore, amended original claims 1-41 are found patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR CONFIRMATION
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-41 are patentable and/or confirmed. The following is an Examiner's statement
`
`of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation of claims 1-41 found in this reexamination
`
`proceeding. Claims 1-41 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 andoverthe prior art that was applied and discussed by the Examiner in
`
`the present reexamination proceeding because of the following:
`
`Independent claim | has been amendedto incorporate the new limitation of, “applying
`
`the new userrule 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 | by
`
`virtue of the features presented in new independentclaim 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 shownin 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
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`(“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 eventis
`
`identified.” Therefore, the combination ofthe cited references do not appear to remedy the
`
`various deficiencies as noted above.
`
`Regarding additional independentclaims 8, 9, 20, 22, 29, and 30, the additional
`
`independent claims have each been amendedto recite substantially similar limitations as
`
`discussed above with regard to amended independent claim | andare thus patentable and/or
`
`confirmable based on the samerationale.
`
`Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 10-19, 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 OWNERregarding the above
`
`statement must be submitted promptly to avoid processing delays. Such submission by the
`
`patent ownershould be labeled: "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or
`
`Confirmation" and will be placed in the reexaminationfile.
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 6 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 6 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`4,
`
`All correspondencerelating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`Conclusion
`
`as follows:
`
`By U.S. Postal Service Mailto:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAXto:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By handto:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 DulanySt.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`By EFS-Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondencevia the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`https://etsuspto.gov/efile/myportal/efs-registered
`
`EFS-Weboffers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissionsare “soft scanned” (i.e.,
`electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
`offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissionsafter the “soft scanning”
`process is complete.
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 7 of 8
`
`Canon Ex. 1019 Page 7 of 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be
`
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
`
`/Adam L Basehoatr/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/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
`
`