Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 9 —
`
`FUNK et al.
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1—2, 4—5, 7, 9—10, 12, 14—16, 18—19 and 21—
`
`25 are pending in the application, with claims 1, 9 and 19 being the independent claims. Claims 1,
`
`9, and 19 are sought to be amended. Claim 13 is sought to be canceled without prejudice to or
`
`disclaimer of the subject matter therein. New claim 25 is sought to be added. These changes are
`
`believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Statement of Interview
`
`Applicants thank Examiner Chiu for the telephonic interview on March 9, 2020 with
`
`Applicants’ representative Harish 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 overcome the
`
`cited art and the 112 rejection, and that a new search may be required. The amendments above and
`
`remarks below are consistent with and further reflect the issues, as well as the Examiner’s
`
`suggestions, discussed during the interview.
`
`Response to Remarks
`
`The Office Action (“0A”) indicated the set of claims filed on July 3, 2018 introduced a new
`
`claim 23, and that the claims filed on January 10, 2019 did not reiterate or cancel this claim. Upon
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 10 —
`
`FUNK er al.
`
`reviewing the file history, it appears that claim 23 (from the July 3, 2018 0A response) was
`
`mistakenly omitted. As such, Applicant adds the previously recited claim 23, as new claim 25 in
`
`the instant response.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 1, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § ll2(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA),
`
`second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the applicant regards
`
`as the invention. Applicant respectfully traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the validity of the rejection, and solely to eXpedite prosecution,
`
`Applicant has amended the claims. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended,
`
`overcome the rejection. For example, claim 1 recites:
`
`displaying the plurality of search results for each of the plurality of previously
`
`saved searches on data across a plurality of individual time periods, wherein a first set
`
`of the displayed search results corresponding to a first time period of a first one of the
`
`previously saved searches differs from a second set of the displayed search results
`
`corresponding to a second time period of the first one of the previously saved searches,
`
`wherein the first set of displayed search results and the second set of displayed search
`
`results include at least one overlapping result that is displayed.
`
`The DA alleged that the claims describe the degree or difference between the sets of objects.
`
`(OA, p. 4). As discussed and agreed to during the course of the interview, Applicant respectfully
`
`submits that the claim language, as amended, overcomes the rejection.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 11 —
`
`FUNK er al.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1—2, 4—5, 9—10, 12—16, 18—19 and 21 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`allegedly being unpatentable over US. Publication 2009/0119254 to Cross et al., in view of U.S.
`
`Publication 2012/0072432 to Crosa et al., US. Publication 2008/0033922 to Cisler et al and U.S.
`
`Publication 2007/0112817 to Danninger and further in view of U.S. Publication 2013/0133007 to
`
`White et al. Applicant respectfully traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the validity of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution,
`
`Applicant has amended the claims. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended,
`
`overcome the rejection. For example, claim 1 recites:
`
`displaying the plurality of search results for each of the plurality of previously
`
`saved searches on data across a plurality of individual time periods, wherein a first set
`
`of the displayed search results corresponding to a first time period of a first one of the
`
`previously saved searches differs from a second set of the displayed search results
`
`corresponding to a second time period of the first one of the previously saved searches,
`
`wherein the first set of displayed search results and the second set of displayed search
`
`results include at least one overlapping result that is displayed.
`
`As agreed to during the course of the interview, Applicant respectfully submits that the
`
`claim language, as amended, overcomes the claim language. Applicant submits that none of the
`
`cited art teach or suggest the claim language, as amended, nor does the OA rely on the art to do so.
`
`Further, 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 of 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.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 12 —
`
`FUNK er al.
`
`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 B, C,
`
`and D. In the claimed invention, both the first set of results (A, B, C) and the second set of results
`
`(B, C, D) would be displayed concurrently.
`
`However in view of the alleged combination, in which each search result is only displayed
`
`M (as indicated in the Office Action (“OA”)), the display would necessarily have to be altered,
`
`thus changing the basic nature of the 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 m. However, removing or altering the programs in his manner would result
`
`in an inaccurate display thus changing the nature of the invention.
`
`The DA acknowledged that “the addition of Danninger would destroy the specific example
`
`provided by the Applicant” if the claims required either of the two sets of search results to have at
`
`least an overlap in programs, which Applicant uses as an example. (OA, p. 3).
`
`As a non—limiting example, the Specification provides that:
`
`At 410, the search is automatically re—executed upon an occurrence of a trigger
`
`event. In one aspect, search on one or more of the previous search terms is re—executed.
`
`The trigger event may be the amount of time since the last search was executed. For
`
`example, process 400 may schedule the search to be re—executed every week or month
`
`and display the subsequent search results to the user. In one aspect, the results of the
`
`ori inal search and results of subse uent searches can be visuall dis la ed at 412 in a
`
`
`timeline format. In this way, the user is able to quickly distinguish which contents are
`
`new in the search results. (Spec, 0027, emphasis added).
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 13 —
`
`FUNK er al.
`
`For at least the reasons provided, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended,
`
`overcomes the rejection. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 9 and 19 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, 4—5, 10, 12—14, and 17—18 are
`
`allowable based on their dependence on an allowable independent claim and for recitation of their
`
`own unique distinguishing features.
`
`Claim 22 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over
`
`U.S. Publication 2009/0119254 to Cross et al., U.S. Publication 2012/0072432 to Crosa et al., U.S.
`
`Publication 2008/0033922 to Cisler et al., U.S. Publication 2007/012817 to Danninger and U.S.
`
`Publication 2013/0133007 to White et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6,754,662 to Li and further in view
`
`of U.S. Publication 2011/0184963 to Singh Thakur et al.
`
`Claims 7 and 23—24 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2009/0119254 to Cross et al., U.S. Publication 2012/0072432 to
`
`Crosa et al., U.S. Publication 2008/0033922 to Cisler et al., U.S. Publication 2007/0112817 to
`
`Danninger, U.S. Publication 2007/0244902 to White et al. and in view of U.S. Publication
`
`2007/0244902 to Seide et al.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. Applicant respectfully submits that none of
`
`cited against claims 7 or 22—24 overcomes the deficiencies of the cited art as described above with
`
`respect to claim 1, nor does the OA rely on them to do so. Applicant respectfully submits that the
`
`dependent claims are allowable based on their dependence on an allowable independent claim and
`
`for recitation of their own unique distinguishing features.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 14 —
`
`FUNK er al.
`
`For example, claim 23 recites "determining a selection of a channel associated with the
`
`request to execute one or more of the previously saved searches executable against the channel,
`
`wherein the channel includes both relevant and irrelevant content corresponding to the previously
`
`saved searches." The DA alleges that this feature is taught or suggested by Seide (OA, p. 21).
`
`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
`
`does not include relevant and irrelevant content. As described by Seide, if a second channel has a
`
`second search, the second search is necessarily not executable against a first channel with a first
`
`saved search.
`
`FIG. 6 depicts another feature in screenshot 600: the option to save a search as a channel.
`
`Once again, this option may be engaged with a single—action user input, such as by pressing a single
`
`“save search” button on remote control 20. When engaged, the saved search is associated with a
`
`channel. As depicted in screenshot 600, video system 10 is asking for confirmation to save the
`
`
`search as a channel with the channel number 6. (Seide, 0042, emphasis added).
`
`Further, claim 24 recites “wherein the at least one of the previously saved searches is
`
`associated with a channel other than the selected channel.” Applicant respectfully submits none of
`
`
`the cited art teach or suggest this feature. Seide simply describes that there are variety of saved
`
`channels, but does not teach or suggest the claim language in which at least one of the previously
`
`searches is saved and associated with a different channel, other than the selected channel.
`
`For example, Seide describes that “FIG. 7 shows a variety of saved channels and their
`
`associated channel numbers, accompanied by a text caption of the search term for each search
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— l5 —
`
`FUNK et al.
`
`
`channel.” There is no teaching or suggesting of the other channel as recited by the claim language.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that any allegation to the contrary necessarily relies on
`
`impermissible hindsight and is not supported by the language of Seide.
`
`Other Matters
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited art teaches or suggests the features of
`
`new claim 25. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 25 is allowable based on its dependence on
`
`an allowable independent claim and for recitation of its own unique distinguishing features.
`
`As discussed during the course of the interview, Applicant respectfully requests that if any
`
`amendments may be necessary for eXpedite allowance, that the Examiner call Applicant’ s
`
`representative directly to discuss.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of January 10, 2020
`
`Application No. 14/558,648
`
`— 16 —
`
`FUNK er al.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be Withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a full and complete reply has been made 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, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`/Harish Ruchandani, Reg. No. 58,770/
`
`Harish Ruchandani
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 58,770
`
`Date: March 11 2020
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`
`Washington, DC. 20005—3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`l4572726_l
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3634.0160003
`
`