Reply tn Office Action of May l6, 20l9
`
`Applieatien No. l4/558,648
`
`— 8 ~
`
`FUNK at all
`
`Recensideratien of this Applieatien is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry at the fnregeing amendment, elaims L2, 46, ‘7, 9—lO, lZ—lé, 18ml?) and Zl—ZI-l
`
`are pending in the applicatien, with claims l, 9 and 19 being the independent claims. Claims l, 7, 9,
`
`l9, and 23 are sought to be amended. Claim 8 is sought to be canceled without prejudice to or
`
`disclaimer ef the subject matter therein. New claim 24 is seught to he added. These changes are
`
`believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respeettiilly requested.
`
`Based en the ahnve amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reennsider all outstanding objections and rejectinns and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Statement af'lriterview
`
`Applicants thank Examiner Chin for the telephonie interview on July l, 2019 with
`
`Applieants’ representative l-larisli Ruchandani (Reg. No. 58,770). During the course of the
`
`interview, differences between the claimed invention and references were discussed. it was agreed
`
`during the course of the interview that the amendments provided herein would likely evereeme the
`
`cited art, and that a new search would he required. The amendments above and remarks below are
`
`consistent with and further refleet the issues, as well as the Examiner’s suggestions, discussed
`
`during the interview.
`
`Atty. Didi. N0 3634.0l60003
`
`

`

`Reply tn Office Action cf May l6, 2019
`
`Applicaticn Ne. l4/558,648
`
`— 9 _
`
`FUNK at al'.
`
`Rejections under 3’5 [REG 3? 103
`
`Claims ln2, 4me, 9—K), l2ml4, l8—l9, ill and, 23 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 USC. §
`
`103(a) as allegedly being unpa‘tentahle over US. Publicaticn 2009/0} 19254 to Cross et al, in view
`
`chS Publicatien MHZ/0072432 tc Cresa et al. and U S Publicaticn 2008/0033922 tc Cisler et al.
`
`and further in view cf US. Publicaticn BOW/Oi l28l 7 tn Danninger. Applicant respectfully
`
`traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the validity cf the rejection, and sclely to expedite prosecution,
`
`Applicant has amended the claims. Applicant respectfully suhnrits that the claims, as amended,
`
`cverccn‘re the rejecticn. For example, claim 1 recites:
`
`
`
`remexecutincF a first cne cf the revicusl 1' saved searches automaticall ' witlrcut
`
`user interventi en:
`
`receiving a most recent search result on at least a pcrticn cf the data that has
`
`been updated fer a mere recent date/time based on the re-executed first one cf the
`
`previously saved searches.
`
`The 0ft“; ce Acticn (”GA") alleged that Cross teaches er suggests requesting search results
`
`without user interventicn (0A, p. 16). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Cress does net teach or suggest automatic triggering (er rte—triggering) of new search results
`
`without user interventicn.
`
`Instead, Cress simply describes _t_'_t_:_t_i__t_'_r_l___e{ingngreyigussearghresults (based
`
`
`on what is determined to he cf user interest). Cross also describes tri.
`
`
`ers fer when search results
`
`
`are stered, but clues net teach 0r suggest an executicn of revicuslv saved searches withcut user
`
`intervention For example, Cress describes that:
`
`Search history ctuurnller
`
`
`at Kl...étsist‘sfit.E'sfillllfis truth as
`l6 stgg'esughi_s'_tt}_r_y__g_t_‘_gt=;_r_
`
`a histrny cf search result links £03,
`
`in reerdered search result histerjv database ills
`
`Atty. l)l<t. N0 3634.0l60003
`
`

`

`Rep1y t6 Office Action 0f May 16, 2019
`
`Applicatien Ne. 14/558,648
`
`~ 10 —
`
`FUNK 1210117.
`
`
`
`Reerdered search 11-15811 11111111131 database 11811111111383 1.11111 or 11111111 sets 0.1 11evinus1v
`
`
`
`generated search 1‘es1111is 1111 one 111‘ more 11111111311
`
`
`1 new 113111111.
`
`111 11111111:111111‘, 1‘e1‘11‘1‘1e1‘ed
`
`search res1111 1111111313;database 1 18 1111;111:1es
`
`s1::1111:11 1es1111s1ee1de1ed 11') indicate these
`
`Eeast user interest.
`
`18111111111
`
`111111611311
`
`11111111111111 116 a11ten:11111131111311
`
`11111111111111
`
`search
`
`1‘es111t
`
`Einks 1-38 and 31111es se1:11:11 113111111 111111111 118 as reerdereti by search 1'es1111' adjuster 11141,
`
`in renrdered search 1151111 1111116131 database .118 8
` triggered 111 stint-e search resnit 1111E1s 168 pen'1‘181ea11y,
`
`
`res ensive 10 1113111111111
`.
`1111511111
`11111111611111:
`
`111511111311111; 1111111 resu1t 11111111108 for
`
`examph:
`
`1n 11110111111"
`
`1911-1111111 a user 111111
`
`1111313111
`
`searc1'1 11111111131
`
`1:11111'1'1111111'16 111‘
`
`111e1erences
`
`set
`
`111
`
`erganizatien
`
`preferences 11211111111
`
`11111 11:
`
`seareh
`
`1113161711
`
`13611111111111"11610
`
`store 11112111511
`
`1'1s1111'
`
`11111111. 118111
`
`reerr.1erer,1
`
`seartzh 11151111
`
`111111111131
`
`11a1abasei§8 (tress 11111111111., {31111311115113 1111811
`
`Neither reerdering existing results not stering existing resuits, as described by Cress,
`
`teaches 01‘ suggests "re~executing a first one 61" the previeusly saved searches auternaticaiiy witheut
`
`user intervention" as recited by the claim ianguage. Apphcaht respectfitiiy submits that nnne er"
`
`Cress: (Lister: er Danninger overcome the deficiencies of Cross as described abcve, nor does the
`
`0A reiy on them t0 de se.
`
`As a nnn—iirniting exampie, the Specificaticn prevides:
`
`11 is important to note that searches cenducted tn pnpuiate persistent search
`
`searches and no user ingut is inveived. Additionaiiy,
`
`the autenratic search may be
`
`eendneted based on the occurrence of a tri
`
`
`
`er event. in one aspect. the trigger event
`
`may be based en an external event such as a news event er a trending event. Fer
`
`exah1p1e the user may have previensiy conducted a search en the ternr Arnadeus and
`
`Atty Did N0 363 4 0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of May l6, 2019
`
`Application No. l4/558,648
`
`~ ll —
`
`FUNK er oi.
`
`find nothing. However, if the a child prodigy playing a Mozart concerto made national
`
`news and thereby generated a lot
`
`interests on lyliozart,
`
`the movie Amadeus may
`
`suddenly be made available by one of the streaming providers. in such a scenario, the
`
`combination of the persistent search display area 730 and trigger event and helps the
`
`user discover contents relevant to the usei‘ls interests. (Spec, 0033, emphasis added).
`
`The 0A also alleges that combining Cross, Crosa, and Ciscler with Danninger would have
`
`been obvious because "This combination would simply provide each search result once in a
`
`concurrent display“ (0A, p. 3, emphasis added).
`
`Assuming the 0A allegation to be true (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant
`
`respectfully submits that the alleged combination does not teach or suggest the claim language and
`
`more so would be unduly limiting when compared to the claimed invention, and as such, the
`
`combination would not be obvious.
`
`For example, the claim language recites ”updatin g the display of the plurality of search
`
`results, wherein the updated display includes the nrost recent search result for the more recent
`
`date/time for the first one of the saved searches, displayed concurrently with the first set and the
`
`second set of search results that were reviously dis la 'ed.“
`
`
`
`Applicant respectfully submits the alleged combination of references would teach away
`
`from this feature, or at least necessarily limit destroying at least a portion of the utility or" the claim
`
`invention. As a non—limiting example, content providers are constantly adding and removing
`
`content which may be available for viewing on which a user may have previously saved searches.
`
`A first set of search results at a first date/time may return programs A, B, and C. A second
`
`set of search results, executing the same search at a different date/time, may return programs 8, C,
`
`Atty. l)l<t. No 3634.0l60003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of May l6, 20l9
`
`Application No. l4/558,648
`
`~ 12 —
`
`FUNK; at al.
`
`and D. In the claimed invention, both the first set of results (A, B, C) and tlre second set of results
`
`(8, C, B) would be displayed concurrently.
`
`l-lowever in view of the alleged combination, in which each search result is only displayed
`
`once (as indicated in the 0A), the display would necessarily have to be altered, thus changing the
`
`basic nature oftlre invention. For example, either the first set of search results or the second set of
`
`search would have to be altered to remove programs B and C, so that each result was only displayed
`
`pppe.
`
`l—iowever, removing or altering the programs in his manner would result in an inaccurate
`
`display thus changing the nature of the invention.
`
`For at least the reasons provided, Applicant respectfully submits that claim l, as amended,
`
`overcorn es the reiection, Applicant respectfully submits that clairns 9 and l9 recite distinguishing
`
`features substantially similar to those described above with respect to claim 1, and are allowable for
`
`at least similar reasons. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 2, 46, ll), l2~l4, and l7—l8 are
`
`allowable based on their dependence on an allowable independent claim and for recitation of their
`
`own unique distinguishing features.
`
`Claims 7—8 and lSwl 6 are rejected under pre~AlA 35 USC. § l 03(a) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Cross in View of Cisler and Danninger further in view of US. Publication
`
`200770078884 to Ott et al.
`
`Clainr 22 is rejected under pre—AlA 35 USC § l03tia) as allegedly being unpatentable over
`
`Cross in View of Cisler and Danninger further in view of US Patent 6,754,662 to Li and further in
`
`View ol‘US. Publication 20l l/‘QlSzl-963 to Singh Thalrur et al.
`
`Atty. Didi. No 3634.0l60003
`
`

`

`Reply tc Office Acticn cf May l6, 20l9
`
`Applicaticn Ne. l4/558,648
`
`~ l3 —
`
`FUNK; er all,
`
`Claim 23 is rejected under premAlA 35 USC. § l03(a) as allegedly being unpatentahle ever
`
`Cress in view cf Cisler and Danninger further in view er.S. Publication 2007/0244902 tc Seide et
`
`al.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejecticns. Applicant respectfully suhniits that none cf
`
`Ott, Singh, or Seide cvercornes the deficiencies cf Cress in view of Crosa, Cisler, and Danninger as
`
`described above with respect to clairn l, nor does the GA rely on thern to dc so. Applicant
`
`respectfiilly suhnrits that the dependent cl aims are allewable based en their dependence en an
`
`allcwable independent claim and fur recitaticn cf their own unique distinguishing features.
`
`Fer example, claim 23 recites "determining a selection cf a channel assnciated with the
`
`
`request to execute one or more of the revicusl ' saved searches executable avain st the channel
`
` i
`
`wherein the channel includes hcth relevant and irrelevant content corres tendin "I to the reviouslv
`
`r
`
`saved searches? l'he 0A alleges that this feature is taught or suggested by Seide (0A, p. Zl).
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Seide describes that a search may be saved as a channel, but does not teach, or suggest the
`
`claim language.
`
`instead, the channel of Seide is limited to only returning search results? and thus
`
`dees net include relevant and irrelevant centent. As described by Seide, if a second channel has a
`
`second search, the second search is necessarily net executable against a first channel with a first
`
`saved search.
`
`PEG. 6 depicts ancther feature in screen shot 600: the eptien to save a, search as a.
`
`channel. ane again, this cpticn may he engaged with a single—action user input, such
`
`as by pressing a single “save search” button on remote centrcl 20. When engaged, the
`
`saved search is asscciated with a channel. As depicted in screenshet 600, video
`
`Atty. l)l<t. N0 3634.0l60003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action 0f May l6, 20l9
`
`Application Ne. 14/558,648
`
`~ 14 —
`
`FUNK at al'.
`
`
`system 10 is asking for confirmation to save the search as a channel with the channel
`
`number 6. (Seide, 0042, emphasis added).
`
`0th er 1%ntters
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited ant teaches or suggests the features of
`
`new claim 24. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 24 is allewahle based on its dependence on
`
`an allowable independent claim and for recitation of its own unique distinguishing features.
`
`Support for the amendment may he found throughout the Speeifi ceti on including but not limited to
`
`0034.
`
`Atty. DEG. N0 36340160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of May to, 2019
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`~ 15 —
`
`FUNK er oi.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered nioot. Applicant therefore respecttiiily requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a tirll and complete reply has been rnade to the outstanding Office Action and, as such?
`
`the present application is in condition for allowance. if the Examiner believes, for any reason, that
`
`personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`telephone the undersigned at the number provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KessLER, Gorsnsrnrn & Fox PLLC.
`
`/Hari sh Rnchandani, Reg. No 58,770,"
`Bari sh Rochandani
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 58?7'70
`
`Date:
`
`lnly 2 2019
`
`lltlt) New York Avenue, NW.
`
`Washington. DC. 200056934
`(202) 371—25ch
`
`132121 l4_l.docx
`
`Atty. Didi. No 3634.0l60003
`
`