REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are all the claims pending in the application.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`A. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8-10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Laurent et al. (US 2013/0335629) in view of Mitsuya et al. (W0
`
`2012/ 161 129) (Mitsuya et al. (US 2014/0075472) will be referenced as the English translation),
`
`and in further view of Yu (US 2007/0266415).
`
`Claim 1, as amended, recites that “the enhanced application information table includes:
`
`attribute information which includes information indicating a broadcast content and a
`
`communication content to be reproduced synchronously with each other, and information
`
`indicating a correlation between the broadcast content and the communication content, and
`
`wherein the broadcast content and the communication content to be reproduced synchronously
`
`with each other are content data which constitutes one content”.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest at
`
`least the above-noted features of amended claim 1.
`
`For example, regarding Yu, based on paragraphs [0053]-[0058], [0061]-[0063], [0003],
`
`[003 5]-[003 8], and [0061] of Yu, as well as Figs. 6a through 6c of Yu, it is clear that Yu is
`
`directed to a technology of simultaneously providing data of a VOD content (video) and an
`
`application related to the VOD content (for example, a quiz) via network communication service
`
`(for example, the Internet), without multiplexing the data and the application. For example,
`
`paragraph [0063] of Yu indicates that “an application related to the AV which is replayed in real
`
`time can be simultaneously provided”.
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are all the claims pending in the application.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`A. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8-10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Laurent et al. (US 2013/0335629) in view of Mitsuya et al. (W0
`
`2012/ 161 129) (Mitsuya et al. (US 2014/0075472) will be referenced as the English translation),
`
`and in further view of Yu (US 2007/0266415).
`
`Claim 1, as amended, recites that “the enhanced application information table includes:
`
`attribute information which includes information indicating a broadcast content and a
`
`communication content to be reproduced synchronously with each other, and information
`
`indicating a correlation between the broadcast content and the communication content, and
`
`wherein the broadcast content and the communication content to be reproduced synchronously
`
`with each other are content data which constitutes one content”.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest at
`
`least the above-noted features of amended claim 1.
`
`For example, regarding Yu, based on paragraphs [0053]-[0058], [0061]-[0063], [0003],
`
`[003 5]-[003 8], and [0061] of Yu, as well as Figs. 6a through 6c of Yu, it is clear that Yu is
`
`directed to a technology of simultaneously providing data of a VOD content (video) and an
`
`application related to the VOD content (for example, a quiz) via network communication service
`
`(for example, the Internet), without multiplexing the data and the application. For example,
`
`paragraph [0063] of Yu indicates that “an application related to the AV which is replayed in real
`
`time can be simultaneously provided”.
`
`
`
`Thus, the “application related to a VOD content” and a “VOD content” disclosed in Yu
`
`are related to each other, but they are clearly different content data.
`
`In contrast, the broadcast content and the communication content according to the present
`
`application are the same contents (see, for example, paragraphs [0037] and [0120] of the present
`
`application).
`
`Accordingly, because the “application related to a VOD content” and a “VOD content”
`
`disclosed in Yu are different content data, Applicant submits that Yu does not disclose the
`
`above-noted feature recited in amended claim 1 which indicates that “the broadcast content and
`
`the communication content to be reproduced synchronously with each other are content data
`
`which constitutes one content”.
`
`Further, Applicant submits that Laurent and Mitsuya do not cure the above-noted
`
`deficiency of Yu, and that the above-noted feature of amended claim 1 would not have been
`
`obVious based on a combination of Laurent, Mitsuya and Yu.
`
`In View of the foregoing, Applicant submits that the cited prior art references do not
`
`teach, suggest or otherwise render obVious the above-noted features of amended claim 1 which
`
`recite that “the enhanced application information table includes: attribute information which
`
`includes information indicating a broadcast content and a communication content to be
`
`reproduced synchronously with each other, and information indicating a correlation between the
`
`broadcast content and the communication content, and wherein the broadcast content and th_e
`
`communication content to be reproduced synchronously with each other are content data which
`
`constitutes one content”.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, amended claim 1 is considered to be patentable over the cited prior art, an
`
`indication of which is kindly requested. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and is therefore
`
`considered patentable at least by virtue of its dependency.
`
`Regarding independent claims 5, 9 and 10, Applicant notes that each of these claims has
`
`been amended in a similar manner as discussed above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly,
`
`for reasons at least similar to those as discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`claims 5, 9 and 10 are patentable over the cited prior art, an indication of which is kindly
`
`requested.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Applicant notes that this claim depends from claim 5 and is therefore
`
`considered patentable at least by virtue of its dependency.
`
`B. Claims 2, 6, and 7 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Laurent et al. (US 2013/0335629) in view of Mitsuya et al. (W0 20l2/l6l 129) and Yu (US
`
`2007/0266415), and further in view of Kitahara et al. (WO 2013/099101) (Kitahara et al. (US
`
`2014/0344884) will be cited and relied upon as the English translation).
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5. Applicant
`
`submits that Kitahara does not cure the deficiencies of Laurent, Mitsuya, and Yu, as discussed
`
`above, in connection with amended claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claims
`
`2, 6 and 7 are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency.
`
`lO
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the above, reconsideration and allowance of this application are now believed
`
`to be in order, and such actions are hereby solicited. If any points remain in issue, the Examiner
`
`is kindly requested to contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Kenneth W. Fields/
`
`
`Kenneth W. Fields
`
`Registration No. 52,430
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
`
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, DC. 20036
`Telephone (202) 721-8200
`Facsimile (202) 721-8250
`June 14, 2019
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment
`to Deposit Account No. 23-09 75.
`
`11
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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
