REMARKS
`
`Claims 1—20 were pending in this application, and claims 1 and 11 were the independent
`
`claims. Claims 1—20 were rejected in the Office action. In this amendment, claims 1, 4—6, 10—1 1,
`
`14—16, and 20 are amended. Support for the amendment can be found throughout the
`
`specification, for example, in paragraphs 49—50, and 56. In view of the Amendments herein,
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of any and all outstanding rejections, and
`
`withdrawal of them.
`
`Statement of Substance of Interview
`
`Appalicant’s representative Rajiv Patel (Reg. No. 39,327) and Fredrick Tsang (Reg. No.
`
`68,680) conducted a telephonic interview with Examiner Dinh on August 8, 2019. During the
`
`interview, a proposed amendment was presented and the Section 103 rejection was discussed.
`
`An agreement was reached that the proposed amendment would overcome the cited references,
`
`but a new search would be required.
`
`
`
`Claims Not Rendered Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Claims 1—5, 7—8, 10—15, 17—18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Maharajh et al., US Pub. No. 20140342659 in View of Grarg et al., US Pub.
`
`No. 20140108382. Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
`
`over Maharajh and Grarg and further in view of Fedorov et al,, US Pub. No. 20130073632.
`
`Without conceding to the Office action’s positions and for the sole purpose of expediting
`
`prosecution, claim 1 is amended to recite, among other limitations,
`
`0
`
`the particular mobile event notification comprising (i) an event
`descriptor describing the action, (ii) a particular destination address
`associated with a message publisher, and (iii) a tag trigger that is
`associated an automated message set by the message publisher;
`
`
`
`Claims 1—20 were pending in this application, and claims 1 and 11 were the independent
`
`claims. Claims 1—20 were rejected in the Office action. In this amendment, claims 1, 4—6, 10—1 1,
`
`14—16, and 20 are amended. Support for the amendment can be found throughout the
`
`specification, for example, in paragraphs 49—50, and 56. In view of the Amendments herein,
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of any and all outstanding rejections, and
`
`withdrawal of them.
`
`Statement of Substance of Interview
`
`Appalicant’s representative Rajiv Patel (Reg. No. 39,327) and Fredrick Tsang (Reg. No.
`
`68,680) conducted a telephonic interview with Examiner Dinh on August 8, 2019. During the
`
`interview, a proposed amendment was presented and the Section 103 rejection was discussed.
`
`An agreement was reached that the proposed amendment would overcome the cited references,
`
`but a new search would be required.
`
`
`
`Claims Not Rendered Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Claims 1—5, 7—8, 10—15, 17—18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Maharajh et al., US Pub. No. 20140342659 in View of Grarg et al., US Pub.
`
`No. 20140108382. Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
`
`over Maharajh and Grarg and further in view of Fedorov et al,, US Pub. No. 20130073632.
`
`Without conceding to the Office action’s positions and for the sole purpose of expediting
`
`prosecution, claim 1 is amended to recite, among other limitations,
`
`0
`
`the particular mobile event notification comprising (i) an event
`descriptor describing the action, (ii) a particular destination address
`associated with a message publisher, and (iii) a tag trigger that is
`associated an automated message set by the message publisher;
`
`
`
`0
`
`0
`
`the plurality of mobile event
`filter, by the computing server,
`notifications
`based on destination addresses included in the
`
`plurality of mobile event notifications
`
`transmit, by the computing server and based on the tag trigger
`remained in the filtered information, the automated message set by
`the message publisher to the one of the event source devices.
`
`Maharajh only discloses a video stream system that is unrelated to transmitting automated
`
`messages based on tag triggers. Maharajh discusses a system that has multiple video sources that
`
`capable of providing the same video to an end user, depending the source’s bandwidth.
`
`(Maharajh (M 236—237.) Maharajh discloses that a user may pause the video stream delivered
`
`from one source and, at another electronic device, to resume the same video stream that is going
`
`to be delivered from another source. (Maharajh ‘J[ 237.)
`
`Maharajh fails to disclose, “the particular mobile event notification comprising (i) an
`
`event descriptor describing the action, (ii) a particular destination address associated with a
`
`message publisher, and (iii) a tag trigger that is associated an automated message set by the
`
`message publisher,” “filtering
`
`the plurality of mobile event notifications
`
`based on one or
`
`more criteria specified by the message publisher and based on destination addresses included in
`
`the plurality of mobile event notifications,” and “transmitting, by the computing server and based
`
`on the tag trigger remained in the filtered information, the automated message set by the message
`
`publisher to the one of the event source devices.” Other references, such as Garg, also fail to
`
`compensate for the deficiency of Maharajh.
`
`Consequently, as agreed in the examiner interview, claims 1 is distinguished from the
`
`cited references. Claim ll is amended in a similar fashion. The rest of the rejected claims,
`
`namely claims 2—9 and 12—20, are dependent on either claim 1 or claim ll and, thus, are
`
`patentable for the same reasons and also based on their own limitations.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, reconsideration and Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`lO
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, the application is in condition for allowance of all claims, and a
`
`Notice of Allowance is respectfully requested. If the examiner believes for any reason direct
`
`contact would help advance the prosecution of this case to allowance, the examiner is
`
`encouraged to telephone the undersigned at the number given below.
`
`If extensions of time are necessary to prevent abandonment of this application, then such
`
`extension of time are hereby petitioned under 37 CFR 1.136(a), and any fees required therefore
`
`are hereby authorized to be charged to our Deposit Account 19—2555.
`
`Dated:
`
`8/8/2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Fredrick Tsang/
`Fredrick Tsang, Reg. No. 68,680
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`801 California Street
`
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`Phone: (650) 335—8687
`
`11
`
`
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
We are unable to display this document.
Connectivity issues with tsdrapi.uspto.gov. Try again now (HTTP Error 429: ).
