Reply to Office Action of February 26, 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, 2, 3, 9-11, 16, 17, and 19 are sought to
`
`be amended. New claim 20 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`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 19 is objected to because it “ends with a semicolon.” (Office Action, p. 2.) Applicant
`
`traverses. Without acquiescing to the merits of the objection, claim 19 is amended. Withdrawal of
`
`the objection is respectfully solicited.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA),
`
`second paragraph, as allegedly being indef1nite 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. Specifically, the Office Action alleges claims 3, 11, and 18 lack proper antecedent
`
`basis. (Office Action, p. 3.) Applicant traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the merits of the rejection, claims 3 and 11 are amended to recite “a
`
`setting” and “the second set of usage activities,” respectively. Regarding claim 18, the Office
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`
`
`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, 2, 3, 9-11, 16, 17, and 19 are sought to
`
`be amended. New claim 20 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`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 19 is objected to because it “ends with a semicolon.” (Office Action, p. 2.) Applicant
`
`traverses. Without acquiescing to the merits of the objection, claim 19 is amended. Withdrawal of
`
`the objection is respectfully solicited.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA),
`
`second paragraph, as allegedly being indef1nite 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. Specifically, the Office Action alleges claims 3, 11, and 18 lack proper antecedent
`
`basis. (Office Action, p. 3.) Applicant traverses.
`
`Without acquiescing to the merits of the rejection, claims 3 and 11 are amended to recite “a
`
`setting” and “the second set of usage activities,” respectively. Regarding claim 18, the Office
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of February 26, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- 9 -
`
`NORTH el a].
`
`Action alleges that “[c]laim 18 recites substantially similar deficiencies as discussed in claim 11.”
`
`(Office Action, p. 3.) However, claim 18 does not recite similar claim language as claim 11 and
`
`therefore should not be rejected under § 112 for the same reasons as claim 11.
`
`Based on the foregoing, withdrawal of the § 112 rejections is respectfully solicited.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected as allegedly being anticipated by
`
`Cammarata, (US 2014/0337752 A1). Claims 2, 10 and 17 are rejected as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Cammarata in view of Kilgore et al., (US 2011/0246812 A1). Claims 6 and 14
`
`are rejected as allegedly being unpatentable over Cammarata in view of Meyer et al., (US
`
`2014036551). Claim 8 is rejected as allegedly being unpatentable over Cammarata in view of
`
`London et al., (US 5,831,609).
`
`Applicant traverses.
`
`Cammarata does not anticipate “during the installation of the distributed content, preventing,
`
`by an operating system on the client device, invocation of an application program interface,” as
`
`recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 9 and 16. This limitation was previously recited
`
`in dependent claims 2, 10, and 17 and the Office Action acknowledges that Cammarata does not
`
`teach this feature. (Office Action, p. 11.)
`
`The Office Action relies on paragraphs 75-85 and figure 3 of Kil gore to cure Cammarata’s
`
`deficiencies. (Office Action, p. 11.) The Office Action summarizes Kilgore’s teaching as follows:
`
`“the operating system 50 prevents the calling of CreateWindow API when the window
`parameters for the window to be created match with window parameters of windows to be
`blocked, the API call is prevented and the operating system destroys the window to be
`created.”
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of February 26, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- lO -
`
`NORTH er a].
`
`(Office Action, p. 11.)
`
`The Office Action’s summary is not supported by Kilgore, specifically, there is no
`
`disclosure in Kilgore that “the operating system 50 prevents the calling of CreateWindow API,” as
`
`asserted by the Office Action. Indeed, Kilgore discloses the opposite — “the control application 44
`
`will request the operating system 50 to create a window [and] [t]his is implemented by the control
`
`application 44 calling a CreateWindow API.” (Kilgore, 11 0074.) This is represented by step 114 of
`
`figure 3. (Kilgore, 11 0074.)
`
`This call to CreateWindow API occurs regardless of whether the window is to be blocked.
`
`For example, Kilgore discloses that step 116 includes the creation of a “WM_CREATE message”
`
`that is used to create a window. (Kilgore, 11 0075.) Only after these calls to CreateWindow API
`
`occur (steps 114 and 116)) is when Kilgore discloses his window blocking feature (steps 122-130).
`
`Moreover, as pointed out by the Office Action, Kilgore discloses that the operating system 50
`
`“destroys the window to be created.” (Kil gore, 11 0085.) But this disclosure does not mean that the
`
`call to create the window (i.e., Kilgore’s WM_CREATE message) was prevented, in fact, this
`
`disclosure further supports the conclusion that Kilgore discloses making the call to the
`
`CreateWindow API because that call would result in the window that is to be destroyed. Put another
`
`way, if Kilgore’s operating system 50 prevented the API call as alleged by the Office Action, there
`
`would be no window to destroy.
`
`
`To sum, Kilgore does not disclose preventing an call to CreateWindow API as alleged by
`
`the Office Action. Instead, Kilgore discloses making the call to CreateWindow API and then
`
`determining whether to block or destroy the window.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of February 26, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- ll -
`
`NORTH et a].
`
`Accordingly, Kil gore does not teach or suggest “during the installation of the distributed
`
`content, preventing, by an operating system on the client device, invocation of an application
`
`program interface,” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 9 and 16. Meyer and
`
`London also do not cure Cammarata and Kilgore’s def1ciencies. Specifically, Meyer and London
`
`does not disclose “during the installation of the distributed content, preventing, by an operating
`
`system on the client device, invocation of an application program interface.” Claims 1, 9, and 16 are
`
`therefore patentable over Cammarata, Kilgore, Meyer, and London.
`
`Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are patentable based at least on their dependency on claims 1,
`
`9, and 16, and for their separately recited features. Withdrawal of the §§ 102 and 103 rejections is
`
`respectfully solicited.
`
`Other Matters
`
`New claim 20 is patentable based at least on its dependency on claim 16 and for its
`
`separately recited feature.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of February 26, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/400,584
`
`- 12 -
`
`NORTH er a].
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objection 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: May 28, 2019
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`130373181
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 3450.0570001
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
