w’l AND1%
`
` 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
`
`1092/0101PUS1
`
`6419
`
`6449
`
`7590
`
`08/30/2013
`
`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
`
`08/30/2013
`
`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-04m)
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 1 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

` 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. 1015 Page 2 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/012,876
`
`Examiner
`ADAM BASEHOAR
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`7932923
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`bI:I This action is made FINAL.
`aIXI Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 23 May 2013 .
`CIXI A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire g month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parie reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part |
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`
`3. El
`
`Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`
`I] Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/OB.
`
`4.
`
`El
`
`.
`
`Part II
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims 1-41 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims
`
`are not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims _ have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims _ are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims M are rejected.
`
`Claims _ are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on
`
`are acceptable.
`
`. [I The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`
`has been (7a)I:I approved (7b)I:I disapproved.
`
`. El Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119( )-(d) or (f).
`
`a)|:l All b)I:l Some* c)|:l None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`
`
`1|:I been received.
`
`2|:I not been received.
`
`3|:I been filed in Application No. _
`
`4:] been filed in reexamination Control No.
`
`5:] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`9. I] Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quayle, 1935 CD.
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`10. D Other:
`
`cc: Recuester (if third
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130726
`
`Canon EX. 1015 Page 3 0f15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1—41 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”).
`
`This is a Non—Final Action.
`
`Reexamination
`
`2.
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to
`
`apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving
`
`Patent No. 7,932,923 B2 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third
`
`party requester is also reminded of 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.
`
`3.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings
`
`because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings
`
`"will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte
`
`reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 4 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`4.
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations, or
`
`other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in response to
`
`this Office action. Submissions after the next Office action, which is intended to be a final
`
`action, will be governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116, after final rejection and 37 CFR
`
`41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly enforced.
`
`References Submitted by Requester
`
`5.
`
`The following siX references have been cited as establishing a substantial new question of
`
`patentability. See Order, mailed 06/ 17/2013.
`
`I Courtney ‘584 — (European Patent Application No. EP 0 967 584 A2, published 12/29/1999)
`
`I Courtney ‘755 — (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999)
`
`I Brill — (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003)
`
`I Day-I — ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the
`
`Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408)
`
`I 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)
`
`I
`
`Shotton — (”Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy Videos," Fifth
`
`International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), September 2000)
`
`Canon EX. 1015 Page 5 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Priority Determination
`
`6.
`
`As described in more detail in the Order (see: Order, pp. 7—9), the specific reference to
`
`earlier filed applications (i.e., US. Patent Application Ser. Nos. 09/987,707 and 09/694,712)
`
`found in the Lipton “923 patent is deficient for failing to indicate the proper relationship between
`
`the applications (e.g., continuation, continuation—in—part, divisional, etc.). Thus the benefit claim
`
`of the Lipton “923 patent does not appear to comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR
`
`l.78(a)(2)(i). Therefore, for reexamination purposes, claims 1—41 of the Lipton “923 patent are
`
`considered to have an effective date of 09/29/2009, the filing date of the Lipton “923 patent.
`
`7.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. ll2(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. 7 An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
`as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or
`acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`8.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(f) (pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre—AIA § 112,
`
`sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure,
`
`material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 6 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre—AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre—AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is
`
`not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently
`
`definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
`
`Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed
`
`to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements
`
`that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as
`
`otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`The limitations of independent claims 9 and 30 that recite(s) “means for detecting”,
`
`“means for detecting”, “means for selecting”, and “means for identifying” is/are not being
`
`treated in accordance with 112(f) because the claimed function is modified by structure that
`
`performs the function. In the instant case, the limitations are modified by sufficient structure in
`
`support for performing the recited function, such as, “from a single camera”, “from said single
`
`44
`H
`camera , are stored in memory”, and “stored in memory” respectively.
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`9.
`
`The rejections below are confined to what has been deemed to be the best available art
`
`from the Request. However, prior to conclusion of this reexamination proceeding, claims must
`
`be patentable over all prior art cited in the order granting reexamination in order to be considered
`
`patentable or confirmed on the reexamination certificate.
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 7 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`10.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre—AIA 35 USC. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ,
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the
`United States.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1—9, 13, 15—18, 20—30, 34, and 36—40 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Day-I ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,"
`
`Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995,
`
`pp. 401—408).
`
`—Regarding claims 1—9, 13, 15—18, 20—30, 34, and 36—40, Day—I teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claims (see pages 24—29 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—47, 53,
`
`57—65, 67—122, 127—128, 132—141 of Attachment H, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—28 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Courtney ‘755 (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/ 19/ 1999).
`
`—Regarding claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—28, Courtney “755 teaches each and every limitation
`
`of the claims (see pages 36—40 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—59 of Attachment
`
`L, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Canon EX. 1015 Page 8 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`13.
`
`Claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—28 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Shotton (”Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy
`
`Videos," Fifth International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), September 2000).
`
`—Regarding claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—28, Shotton teaches each and every limitation of the
`
`claims (see pages 41—46 of Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—68 of Attachment N, which
`
`are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`14.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`15.
`
`Claims 14 and 35 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Day-I ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the
`
`Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408).
`
`—Regarding claims 14 and 35, Day—I in view of one of ordinary skill in the art teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 29—31 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 1—6 of Attachment 1, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Canon EX. 1015 Page 9 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`16.
`
`Claims 10, 19, 31, and 41 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Day-I ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings
`
`on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408)
`
`in view of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims 10, 19, 31, and 41, the combination of Day—I in view of Brill teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 31—33 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 1—8 of Attachment J, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`17.
`
`Claims 11, 12, 32, and 33 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Day-I ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings
`
`on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408)
`
`in view of 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).
`
`—Regarding claims 11 and 32, the combination of Day—I in view of Day—II teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 33—36 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1— 12 of Attachment K, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`—Regarding claims 12 and 33, the combination of Day—I in view of Day—II teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see the claim charts on pages 51—52 and 125—126 of
`
`Attachment H, which is hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Canon EX. 1015 Page 10 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`18.
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Courtney ‘755 (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999).
`
`—Regarding claim 14, Courtney ‘755 in view of one of ordinary skill in the art teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim (see pages 40—41 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 1—2 of Attachment M, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`19.
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shotton
`
`("Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy Videos," Fifth International
`
`Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), September 2000).
`
`—Regarding claim 14, Shotton in view of one of ordinary skill in the art teaches each and
`
`every limitation of the claim (see pages 46—47 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—2
`
`of Attachment 0, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`20.
`
`Claims 8 and 29—41 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Shotton (”Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy Videos," Fifth
`
`International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2000), September 2000) in view of Brill
`
`(US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims 8 and 29—41, the combination of Shotton in view of Brill teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 47—55 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1—88 of Attachment P, which are hereby incorporated by reference). By incorporating by
`
`reference the above noted pages in the Request and the corresponding claim charts, the Examiner
`
`is able to discern that Brill is being cited for the limitations of claims 8 and 29—41 that are not
`
`Canon EX. 1015 Page 11 of15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`present in claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—28, for which an anticipation rejection over Shotton has been
`
`described above. Further, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the video analysis and content—based query
`
`and retrieval based system of Shotton (Shotton: Abstract: "video analysis and content—based
`
`video query and retrieval system”; Section 3, Paragraphs 3—5: “Once the metadata database has
`
`been built, the system allows the following types of query to be made concerning such videos”)
`
`with the described features of the automated complex video event based detection system of
`
`Brill, because Brill taught that said described features provided the benefit of recognizing
`
`complex events in videos which thereby help filter out false positive determinations (Brill:
`
`column 1, lines 36—52: “recognize complex events an thus filter out false positive alarms”).
`
`21.
`
`Claims 1—41 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Courtney ‘584 (European Patent Application No. EP 0 967 584 A2, published 12/29/1999) in
`
`view of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims 1—41, the combination of Courtney ‘584 in view of Brill teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 55—60 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1—303 of Attachment Q, which are hereby incorporated by reference). Further, the Examiner
`
`notes that the disclosure of Courtney “584 combined with Brill are likely to be obvious over one
`
`another in view of the fact that Figure l of both Courtney ‘584 and Brill disclose an identical
`
`video surveillance and monitoring system. More specifically, the Examiner notes that it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
`
`event based video monitoring system of Courtney ‘584 (Courtney “584: Paragraphs 69—71:
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 12 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`“event selection box. . .check for a specified event, and to indicate what action is to be taken if
`
`the specified event occurs”) to include the described features of the automated complex video
`
`event based detection system of Brill, because Brill taught that said described features provided
`
`the benefit of recognizing complex events in videos which thereby help filter out false positive
`
`determinations (Brill: column 1, lines 36—52: “recognize complex events an thus filter out false
`
`positive alarms”).
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 13 oflS
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Conclusion
`
`22.
`
`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@353l.212951.12.gnaflefsi’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. 1015 Page 14 of 15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,876
`
`Page 13
`
`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:
`
`/JDC/
`
`/Alexander J Kosowski/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 15 of15
`
`Canon Ex. 1015 Page 15 of 15
`
`