Reply to Office Action of September 4, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- 8 -
`
`NORTH el a].
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with
`
`claims 1, 9, and 16 being the independent claims. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are sought to be amended.
`
`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`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Cammarata, (US 20140337752 A1) (hereinafter Cammarata) in view of Kilgore et al., (US
`
`20110246812 A1) (hereinafter Kilgore). Applicant traverses.
`
`Cammarata and Kilgore do not teach or suggest (1) “install the distributed content, by an
`
`operating system on the client device,-without invoking an application program interface that
`
`requires additional input activity or directed response interaction,” with respect to claims 1, 9, and
`
`16 and (2) “receiving, at the client device via a drag and drop interface, an instruction and
`
`distributed content from a device controller, wherein the distributed content is represented by a
`
`thumbnail provided via the drag and drop interface,” with respect to claims 1 and 9.
`
`Regarding (1), the Office Action alleges that Kilgore’s “operating system does not make the
`
`call to the API.” Office Action, 4. Specifically, the Office Action alleges that, based on figure 2,
`
`elements 44 and 50, Kilgore teaches that “although the call to the CreateWindow API was made, it
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of September 4, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- 9 -
`
`NORTH ei a].
`
`was not made by the operating system, rather, it was made by a control application (fig. 2 element
`
`44), which is separate from the operating system.” Office Action, 3-4.
`
`The Office Action misconstrues Kilgore and takes an interpretation of Kilgore’s operating
`
`system that contradicts how one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted that term. While
`
`figure 2 does show control application separately from the operating system, Kilgore specifies that
`
`after starting up the operating system, Kil gore, 11 72, “[t]he control application 44 is then executed
`
`within the environment of the operating system 50 (step 112).” Kilgore, 11 73. While the control
`
`application 44 is within the operating system, “control application 44 will request the operating
`
`system to create a window for presenting on the customer display module.” Kilgore, 11 74. Based on
`
`these explicit disclosures, control application 44 is part ofthe operating system when the
`
`CreateWindow API is called.
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would also understand that there is a difference between calling a
`
`function versus invoking a function. These are standard terms in the art. Where calling a function
`
`refers to a program executing a function while invoking a function refers to when another program
`
`executes a function for the program. Here, Kilgore teaches that control application 44 calls the
`
`program. Kilgore, 11 74 (“control application 44 calling a CreateWindow API”). A POSITA would
`
`further understand that Kilgore’s application is running under the control of the operating system,
`
`this understanding is reinforced by Kilgore’s express teaching that the application is executed
`
`within the operating system.
`
`For at least these reasons, Kilgore does not teach “install[ing] the distributed content, by an
`
`operating system on the client device,—without invoking an application program interface that
`
`requires additional input activity or directed response interaction,” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 16.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of September 4, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- lO -
`
`NORTH er a].
`
`Regarding (2), Cammarata and Kilgore does not teach or suggest “receiving, at the client
`
`device via a drag and drop interface, an instruction and distributed content from a device controller,
`
`wherein the distributed content is represented by a thumbnail provided via the drag and drop
`
`interface” and “based on the received instruction received via the drop and drop interface, initiate
`
`installation of the distributed content on the client device.” Cammarata and Kilgore do not teach a
`
`drag and drop interface for receiving content or an instruction.
`
`In rejecting dependent claim 20, the Office Action acknowledges that Cammarata and
`
`Kilgore fail to teach a drag and drop interface. Office Action, 19. The Office Action relies on Shin.
`
`Office Action, 20. The Office Action alleges that Shin teaches drag and drop interface with
`
`thumbnails but this interface does not provide an instruction where “based on the received
`
`instruction received via the drop and drop interface, initiate installation of the distributed content on
`
`the client device, “as recited in claims 1 and 9. Shin does not teach installing any of the content
`
`associated with the alleged drag and drop interface and thumbnail images. Accordingly, Shin also
`
`does not cure Cammarata and Kilgore’s deficiencies.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 9, and 16 are patentable over Cammarata and
`
`Kilgore. Claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 17, and 18 are patentable based at least on their dependency and
`
`for their separately recited features.
`
`Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammarata in
`
`view of Kil gore as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Meyer et al., (US
`
`20140365561 A1) (hereinafter Meyer). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Cammarata in view of Kilgore as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view
`
`of Tylor et al., (US 20160209968 A1) (hereinafter Tylor). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of September 4, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- ll -
`
`NORTH er a].
`
`as being unpatentable over Cammarata in view of Kilgore as applied to claim 16 above, and further
`
`in view of Shin et al., (US 20160210016 A1) (hereinafter Shin).
`
`Claims 6, 14, 19 and 20 are patentable based on their dependency and for their separately
`
`cited features. Moreover, Meyer, Kilgore and Shin do not cure the deficiencies of Cammarata and
`
`Kilgore described above. Meyer and Kilgore do not teach “install the distributed content, by an
`
`operating system on the client device,—without invoking an application program interface that
`
`requires additional input activity or directed response interaction,” and “receiving, at the client
`
`device via a drag and drop interface, an instruction and distributed content from a device controller,
`
`wherein the distributed content is represented by a thumbnail provided via the drag and drop
`
`interface.” Shin does not cure the deficiencies for the reasons discussed above.
`
`Claims 1-20 are patentable over the cited prior art. Withdrawal of the § 103 rejection is
`
`respectfully solicited.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of September 4, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- 12 -
`
`NORTH er a].
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of rejection have been properly traversed, accommodated, or
`
`rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider all presently
`
`outstanding 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.
`
`/Dohm Chankong/
`
`Dohm Chankong
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 70,524
`
`Date:
`
`
`December2 2019
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`137700621
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`