`
` 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.
`
`90/012,878
`
`05/24/2013
`
`7868912
`
`1092/0102PUS1
`
`3806
`
`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'goA “‘6“ 04/07)
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 1 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
` TJNI TED S TATES PATEN T AND TRADEWK QFFI CE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O.Elo}t145I:i
`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. 90/012 878.
`
`PATENT NO. 7868912.
`
`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. 1028 Page 2 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/012,878
`
`Examiner
`ADAM BASEHOAR
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`7868912
`
`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.
`aIZ Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 24 May 2013 .
`CIZ 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 parte 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.
`
`[I Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`
`3.
`
`[I Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`
`[I Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`4.
`
`[I
`
`.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`[XI Claims 1-_22are subject to reexamination.
`
`El Claims
`
`are not subject to reexamination.
`
`[I Claims
`
`have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`[I Claims
`
`are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`.
`
`[Z CIaims1-_22are rejected.
`
`. [I Claims
`
`are objected to.
`
`. [I The drawings, filed on
`
`are acceptable.
`
`. [I The proposed drawing correction, filed on _ has been (7a)I:I approved (7b)|:l disapproved.
`
`. El Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119( )-(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I All b)|: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|:I been filed in reexamination Control No.
`
`5|:I 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 0.6. 213.
`
`10. El 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. 1028 Page 3 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1—22 of United States Patent Number 7,868,912 B2
`
`(Venetianer et al), for which it has been determined in the Order Granting Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination (hereafter the “Order”) mailed 06/20/2013 that a substantial new question of
`
`patentability was raised in the Request for Ex Parte reexamination filed on 05/24/2013 (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. 7,868,912 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. 1028 Page 4 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`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 seven references have been cited as establishing a substantial new question
`
`of patentability. See Order, mailed 06/20/2013.
`
`I Gilge — (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003.
`
`Reference to the Gilge Patent Publication will be made via its accompanying certified
`
`translation (See: Attachment C of the Request))
`
`I Lipton — (”ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, UK, February 23, 2004)
`
`I Courtney — (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/ 19/ 1999)
`
`I Olson — (”Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,"
`
`Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997, pp. 159—
`
`175)
`
`I Brill — (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003)
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 5 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`. Day — ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408)
`
`.
`
`JP ‘783 — (Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/16/1997.
`
`Reference to the JP “783 Published Application will be made via its accompanying certified
`
`translation (See: Attachment J of the Request))
`
`Priority Determination
`
`6.
`
`As described in more detail in the Order (see: Order, pp. 7—9), certain limitations of the
`
`independent claims of the Venetianer ‘912 patent do not appear to be adequately supported by
`
`the disclosures of the parent applications (i.e., US. Patent Application Ser. Nos. 11/057,154,
`
`09/987,707, and 09/694,712). Therefore, for reexamination purposes, independent claims 1, 6, 9,
`
`12, and 18 as well as dependent claims 2—5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13—17, and 19—22 (via dependency) of
`
`the Venetianer ‘912 patent are considered to have an effective date of 04/05/2005, the filing date
`
`of the Venetianer ‘912 patent.
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`7.
`
`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. 1028 Page 6 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`8.
`
`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 i
`(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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims l—3 and 6—22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al, published 05/08/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims l—3 and 6—22, Gilge teaches each and every limitation of the claims
`
`(see pages 17—22 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages l—51 of Attachment K, which are
`
`hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`10.
`
`Claims l—4 and 6—22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Lipton (”ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For Physical
`
`Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04), The IEE, Savoy
`
`Place, London, UK, February 23, 2004).
`
`—Regarding claims l—4 and 6—22, Lipton teaches each and every limitation of the claims
`
`(see pages 22—26 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages l—8l of Attachment L, which are
`
`hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`ll.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Courtney (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/l9/l999).
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 7 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`—Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22, Courtney teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claims (see pages 26—30 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—51 of
`
`Attachment M, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for
`
`Smart Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May
`
`1997, pp. 159—175).
`
`—Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22, Olson teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claims (see pages 31—34 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—39 of
`
`Attachment N, which are hereby incorporated by reference). On page N—19 of the claim charts it
`
`is noted that dependent claim 10 is listed instead of properly rejected claim 11. This appears to
`
`be a minor informality and the Examiner notes that the citations referenced in Olson as reading
`
`on the limitations, appropriately correspond to the limitations of claim 11 (as shown by
`
`substantially similar limitations rejected for claim 3 on page N—6). Thus it is clear that claim 11,
`
`and not claim 10, is being rejected by Olson.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 8 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`14.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilge
`
`(German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003) in view of JP ‘783
`
`(Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/16/ 1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilge in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claim (see pages 48—50 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—7 of
`
`Attachment X, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`15.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lipton
`
`("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For Physical Security
`
`Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04), The IEE, Savoy Place,
`
`London, UK, February 23, 2004) in view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No.
`
`1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claim (see pages 50—51 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—8 of
`
`Attachment Y, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`16.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Courtney
`
`(US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/ 19/ 1999) in view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published
`
`Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 9 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courtney in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and
`
`every limitation of the claim (see pages 51—52 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—5
`
`of Attachment Z, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`17.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olson
`
`("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras," Proceedings
`
`of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997, pp. 159—175) in view of
`
`JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Olson in view of JP ‘783 teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the claim (see pages 52—53 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—6 of
`
`Attachment AA, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Alternate Rejections
`
`18.
`
`Claims 1—3 and 6—22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 A1, published 05/08/2003) in view
`
`of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims 1—3 and 6—22, the combination of Gilge in view of Brill teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 34—37 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1—72 of Attachment 0, which are hereby incorporated by reference). 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
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 10 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`modify the video analysis and event detection system of Gilge (Gilge: Paragraphs 69—70:
`
`“transmitted with an alarm to the user 38 when the evaluation device 30 has determined that
`
`striking behavior patterns were detected") 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”).
`
`19.
`
`Claims l—4 and 6—22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lipton (”ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, UK, February 23, 2004) in view of Brill (US. Patent No.
`
`6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims l—4 and 6—22, the combination of Lipton in view of Brill teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see page 38 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages 1—
`
`105 of Attachment P, which are hereby incorporated by reference). 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 event detection system of Lipton (Lipton: e. g., pp. 56—57: Section
`
`1.2 “Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval") 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
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 11 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`out false positive determinations (Brill: column 1, lines 36—52: “recognize complex events an
`
`thus filter out false positive alarms”).
`
`20.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Courtney (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/ 19/ 1999) in view
`
`of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`—Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22, the combination of Courtney in
`
`view of Brill teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 39—40 of the Request,
`
`and the claim charts on pages 1—71 of Attachment Q, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference). 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 event detection system of
`
`Courtney (Courtney: column 2, line 66—column 3, line 8; Fig. 1) 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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms
`
`for Smart Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans,
`
`May 1997, pp. 159—175) in view of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 12 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`—Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22, the combination of Olson in view
`
`of Brill teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 40—41 of the Request, and the
`
`claim charts on pages 1—60 of Attachment R, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`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 automated video surveillance system of Olson (Olson: pp.
`
`166-167: “the user can then specify the conditions and actions for alarms by creating one or more
`
`monitors”; Figure 5) 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”).
`
`On page R—32 of the claim charts it is noted that dependent claim 10 is listed instead of
`
`properly rejected claim 11. This appears to be a minor informality and the Examiner notes that
`
`the citations referenced in Olson as reading on the limitations, appropriately correspond to the
`
`limitations of claim 11 (as shown by substantially similar limitations rejected for claim 3 on page
`
`R—l 1). Thus it is clear that claim 11, and not claim 10, is being rejected by Olson in view of
`
`Brill.
`
`22.
`
`Claims 1—3 and 6—22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al, published 05/08/2003) in view
`
`of Day ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 13 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`—Regarding claims 1—3 and 6—22, the combination of Gilge in view of Day teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 41—45 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1—93 of Attachment S, which are hereby incorporated by reference). 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 event detection system of Gilge (Gilge: Paragraphs 69—70:
`
`“transmitted with an alarm to the user 38 when the evaluation device 30 has determined that
`
`striking behavior patterns were detected") with the described features of the conceptual modeling
`
`and heterogeneous query system of Day, because Day taught that said described features
`
`provided the benefits of allowing users maximum flexibility in processing heterogeneous queries
`
`as well as efficient online query processing against a graphical abstraction of data without
`
`performing computations on actual raw video data (Day: p. 402).
`
`23.
`
`Claims 1—4 and 6—22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lipton (”ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval For
`
`Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04), The
`
`IEE, Savoy Place, London, UK, February 23, 2004) in view of Day ("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—4 and 6—22, the combination of Lipton in view of Day teaches each
`
`and every limitation of the claims (see pages 45—46 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`1— 127 of Attachment T, which are hereby incorporated by reference). Further, the Examiner
`
`notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 14 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`invention to modify the video analysis and event detection system of Lipton (Lipton: e. g., pp. 56—
`
`57: Section 1.2 “Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval") with the described features of
`
`the conceptual modeling and heterogeneous query system of Day, because Day taught that said
`
`described features provided the benefits of allowing users maximum flexibility in processing
`
`heterogeneous queries as well as efficient online query processing against a graphical abstraction
`
`of data without performing computations on actual raw video data (Day: p. 402).
`
`24.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Courtney (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/ 19/ 1999) in view
`
`of Day ("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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22, the combination of Courtney in
`
`view of Day teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 46—47 of the Request, and
`
`the claim charts on pages 1—97 of Attachment U, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`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 event detection system of Courtney
`
`(Courtney: column 2, line 66—column 3, line 8; Fig. 1) with the described features of the
`
`conceptual modeling and heterogeneous query system of Day, because Day taught that said
`
`described features provided the benefits of allowing users maximum flexibility in processing
`
`heterogeneous queries as well as efficient online query processing against a graphical abstraction
`
`of data without performing computations on actual raw video data (Day: p. 402).
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 15 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 15 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`25.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms
`
`for Smart Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans,
`
`May 1997, pp. 159—175) in view of Day ("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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15—20, and 22, the combination of Olson in view
`
`of Day teaches each and every limitation of the claims (see pages 47—48 of the Request, and the
`
`claim charts on pages 1—79 of Attachment V, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`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 automated video surveillance system of Olson (Olson: pp.
`
`166-167: “the user can then specify the conditions and actions for alarms by creating one or more
`
`monitors”; Figure 5) with the described features of the conceptual modeling and heterogeneous
`
`query system of Day, because Day taught that said described features provided the benefits of
`
`allowing users maximum flexibility in processing heterogeneous queries as well as efficient
`
`online query processing against a graphical abstraction of data without performing computations
`
`on actual raw video data (Day: p. 402).
`
`On page V—42 of the claim charts it is noted that dependent claim 10 is listed instead of
`
`properly rejected claim 11. This appears to be a minor informality and the Examiner notes that
`
`the citations referenced in Olson as reading on the limitations, appropriately correspond to the
`
`limitations of claim 11 (as shown by substantially similar limitations rejected for claim 3 on page
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 16 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 16 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`V—14). Thus it is clear that claim 11, and not claim 10, is being rejected by Olson in view of
`
`Day.
`
`26.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al, published
`
`05/08/2003) in view of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view
`
`of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilge and Brill in further view of JP ‘783 teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim 5 (see page 53 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 8— 19 of Attachment X, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`27.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Lipton ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval
`
`For Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04),
`
`The IEE, Savoy Place, London, UK, February 23, 2004) in view of Brill (US. Patent No.
`
`6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application
`
`No. 1997-130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton and Brill in fiarther view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim 5 (see pages 53—54 of the Request, and the claim
`
`charts on pages 9—22 of Attachment Y, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 17 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 17 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`28.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Courtney (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/ 19/ 1999) in view of Brill
`
`(US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese
`
`Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/ 16/ 1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courtney and Brill in further view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim 5 (see pages 54—55 of the Request, and the claim
`
`charts on pages 6—14 of Attachment Z, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`29.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Olson ("Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart
`
`Cameras," Proceedings of the 1997 Image Understanding Workshop, New Orleans, May 1997,
`
`pp. 159-175) in view of Brill (US. Patent No. 6,628,835, published 09/30/2003) in further view
`
`of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/ 16/ 1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Olson and Brill in fiarther view of JP ‘783 teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim (see pages 55—56 of the Request, and the claim charts on
`
`pages 7— 16 of Attachment AA, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`30.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Gilge (German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484 Al, published
`
`05/08/2003) in view of Day ("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data,"
`
`Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995,
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 18 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 18 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`pp. 401—408) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783,
`
`published 05/16/1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilge and Day in fiarther view of JP ‘783 teaches
`
`each and every limitation of the claim (see page 56 of the Request, and the claim charts on pages
`
`20—33 of Attachment X, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`31.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Lipton ("ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity—Based Video Indexing and Retrieval
`
`For Physical Security Applications," Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems (IDSS—04),
`
`The IEE, Savoy Place, London, UK, February 23, 2004) in view of Day ("Object Oriented
`
`Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh International Conference on
`
`Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408) in further view of JP ‘783 (Japanese
`
`Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/16/1997).
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton and Day in further view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim (see page 57 of the Request, and the claim charts
`
`on pages 23—39 of Attachment Y, which are hereby incorporated by reference).
`
`32.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Courtney (US. Patent No. 5,969,755, published 10/19/1999) in view of Day
`
`("Object Oriented Conceptual Modeling of Video Data," Proceedings on the Eleventh
`
`International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE, March 1995, pp. 401—408) in further view
`
`of JP ‘783 (Japanese Published Application No. 1997—130783, published 05/ 16/ 1997).
`
`Canon EX. 1028 Page 19 of 22
`
`Canon Ex. 1028 Page 19 of 22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,878
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`—Regarding claim 5, the combination of Courtney and Day in fiarther view of JP ‘783
`
`teaches each and every limitation of the claim