REMARKS
`
`In an Office Action dated August 28, 2019, claims 1 and 4-6 were rejected. Herein,
`
`claims 1 and 4-6 have been amended. No new matter has been added. Applicant respectfully
`
`requests further examination and reconsideration in view of the following remarks.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
`
`Claims 1 and 4-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the
`
`written description requirement. In particular, on page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner
`
`states the following:
`
`“Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the claimed feature of "an extraction rate
`lower than or equal to a maximum transmission rate of the packet header of the
`fixed length
`" however the examiner is unable to find support for said feature.
`The specification (PG Pub) [0782] discloses the extraction rate of the TLV packet
`buffer is set by taking into account the transmission rate after the 1P header is
`decompressed. However the examiner is unable to find an mention, teaching or
`suggestion the extraction rate is love than the maximum transmission rate
`obtained or set by decompressing the 1P header (packet header of variable
`length).”
`
`However, Applicant notes that support for the above-noted feature of claim 1 is found at
`
`least at paragraphs [0767], [0768], and [0782]-[0785] of US 2017/0180766, which is the pre-
`
`grant publication of the instant application.
`
`In particular, Applicant notes that (i) paragraphs [0782] and [0783] disclose that an
`
`extraction rate of the TLV packet buffer is set by taking into account a transmission rate after an
`
`IP header is decompressed, (ii) paragraph [0784] discloses that the TLV packet includes a packet
`
`whose 1P header is compressed or a packet whose 1P header is not compressed, and as a result, a
`
`transmission rate of an IP packet output from the TLV packet is not uniform, and (iii) paragraph
`
`[0785] discloses that a maximum transmission rate after an IP header is decompressed is defined
`
`in such a case.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the above-noted disclosure to support that the extraction rate of the first packet is set
`
`by taking into account the maximum transmission rate after an IP header is decompressed, that
`
`

`

`is, the extraction rate of the first packet is set to be less than or equal to the maximum
`
`transmission rate after an IP header is decompressed.
`
`In view of the above, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1 and 4-6
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) be withdrawn.
`
`II.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
`
`Claims 1 and 4-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In particular,
`
`on page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner states the following:
`
`“Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "an extraction rate is lower than or equal to
`a maximum transmission rate of the packet header of the fixed length
`"
`However, it is unclear whether the packet header of the fixed length refers to the
`transmitting packet which includes a packet header of a fixed length or the first
`packet which also has a packet header of a fixed length.”
`
`In view of the Examiner’s comment, Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to
`
`recite --... an extraction rate is lower than or equal to a maximum transmission rate of the first
`
`p_acket having the packet header of the fixed length...--. Similar amendments have been made to
`
`claims 4-6, and it is noted that support for the amendment is found at least at paragraphs [0767],
`
`[0768], and [O782]—[0785] of US 2017/0180766. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that
`
`the rejection of claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) be withdrawn.
`
`111.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`claims l-6 are clearly in condition for allowance. An early notice thereof is earnestly solicited.
`
`

`

`If, after reviewing this Amendment, the Examiner believes that there are any issues
`
`remaining which must be resolved before the application can be passed to issue, it is respectfully
`
`requested that the Examiner contact the undersigned by telephone in order to resolve such issues.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen W. Kopchik/
`2019.11.29 07:41 :30
`
`
`-05'00'
`
`Stephen W. Kopchik
`Registration No. 61,215
`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
`November 29, 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.
`
`