REMARKS
`
`This Amendment is fully responsive to the final Office Action dated August 14, 2019,
`
`issued in connection with the above-identified application. A request for continued examination
`
`(RCE) is included. Claims 1-14 are pending in the present application. With this Amendment,
`
`claims 1, 7, 13, and 14 have been amended. The amendments made to the claims are fully
`
`supported by the Applicant’s disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0119]-[0125] of the US publication of
`
`the present application). Therefore, no new matter has been introduced by the amendments made
`
`to the claims. Favorable reconsideration is respectfully requested.
`
`In the Office Action, claims 13 and 14 are objected to because the phrase “to operates as”
`
`is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to “to operate as.”
`
`The Applicant has amended claims 13 and 14, as suggested by the Examiner (e.g., “to
`
`operate as”). Based on the amendments made to the claims, withdrawal of the objection to the
`
`claims is respectfully requested.
`
`In the Office Action, claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2017/0171070, hereafter “K1”) in view of (“WT-
`
`Based Media Transport Scheme in Digital Broadcasting Systems,” hereafter “ARIB”).
`
`The Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 14. For example,
`
`independent claim 1 (as amended) recites the following features:
`
`“A transmission method comprising:
`
`generating a frame for transfer in which one or more first internet protocol (1P) packets
`
`and one or more second IP packets are stored, the one or more first IP packets storing content,
`
`and each of the one or more second IP packets including first reference clock information which
`
`indicates a time for playing back the content, and
`
`transmitting the generated frame through broadcasting including attaching, to each of the
`
`one or more first IP packets and each of the one or more second IP packets, a context identifier
`
`indicating a preset fixed value in accordance with a type of an IP data flow,
`
`wherein second reference clock information is stored in control information in a physical
`
`layer and the control information is transmitted, and
`
`in the generating, header compression is performed on the one or more first IP packets
`
`and the header compression is not performed on the one or more second IP packets.” (Emphasis
`
`added).
`
`

`

`The features emphasized above in independent claim 1 are similarly recited in
`
`independent claims 7, l3, and 14. That is, independent claim 7 and 14 are directed respectively
`
`to a reception method and a reception apparatus that receive the first reference clock information
`
`and second reference clock information emphasized above in independent claim 1. Additionally,
`
`independent claim 13 is directed to a transmission apparatus reciting the same features noted
`
`above in independent claim 1.
`
`The features recited in independent claims 1, 7, l3, and 14 are believed to be
`
`distinguished from the cited prior art at least with regard to respectively reciting the transmitting
`
`and receiving of the one or more first IP packets storing content, wherein each of the one or more
`
`second IP packets includes first reference clock information which indicates a time for playing
`
`back the content, and respectively reciting the transmitting and receiving of second reference
`
`clock information stored in control information in a physical layer.
`
`More specifically, as recited in independent claims 1, 7, l3, and 14, the first reference
`
`clock information is transmitted and received in an IP layer and the second reference clock
`
`information is transmitted and received in a physical layer different from the 1P layer.
`
`In the Office Action, although the Examiner relies on the combination of K1 and ARIB
`
`for disclosing or suggesting all the features recited in independent claims 1, 7, l3, and 14, the
`
`Examiner appears to rely specifically on Kl for disclosing or suggesting the use of reference
`
`clock information. In particular, the Examiner relies on paragraphs [0302] and [0308] of K1.
`
`K1 in paragraph [0302] discloses that a “Clock Relation Information (CRI)” message
`
`including an CR1 table, which contains clock related information for the mapping between the
`
`NTP timestamp and the MPEG-2 STC. As described in K1, the CRI message may not be
`
`delivered through the MIVITP session.
`
`K1 in paragraph [0308] discloses the use of a physical layer pipe identifier descriptor that
`
`can be used as one of descriptors of an MP table and provides information about the PLP
`
`carrying an asset. As described in Kl. if an asset is delivered by a PLP different from the current
`
`PLP delivering the MP table, the physical layer pipe identifier descriptor can be used as an asset
`
`descriptor in the associated MP table to identify the PLP carrying the asset. The physical layer
`
`pipe identifier descriptor may also include BSID information, which can be an ID of a broadcast
`
`stream that delivers an MMTP packet for an asset described by the descriptor.
`
`

`

`K1 also clearly refers to the use of the ATSC3.0 broadcast standard (e.g., paragraph
`
`[0299]).
`
`Based on a review of K1, nothing in the reference discloses or suggests first reference
`
`clock information transmitted and received in an IP layer and second reference clock information
`
`transmitted and received in a physical layer different from the 1P layer, as recited in independent
`
`claims 1, 7, 13, and 14.
`
`As noted above, although the Examiner relies on the combination of K1 and ARIB for
`
`disclosing or suggesting all the features recited in independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 14, the
`
`Examiner appears to rely specifically on K1 for disclosing or suggesting the use of reference
`
`clock information.
`
`Thus, based on the deficiencies noted above in K1, no combination of K1 and ARIB
`
`would result in, or otherwise render obvious, all the features now recited in independent claims
`
`1, 7, 13, and 14. Additionally, no combination of K1 and ARIB would result in, or otherwise
`
`render obvious, all the features of claims 2-4 and 8-10 at least by their virtue of their respective
`
`dependencies from independent claims 1 and 7.
`
`In the Office Action, claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over K1 in view of ARIB, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, in further view of
`
`Vare et al. (US 2007/0268874, hereafter “Vare”).
`
`Claims 5 and 6 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 11 and 12 depend from
`
`independent claim 7.
`
`As noted above, K1 and ARIB fail to disclose or suggest all the features recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 11 (as amended). Additionally, Vare fails to overcome the deficiencies
`
`noted above in the combination of K1 and ARIB. Accordingly, no combination of K1 and ARIB
`
`would result in, or otherwise render obvious, all the features of claims 5, 6, 11 and 12 at least by
`
`virtue of their respective dependencies from independent claims 1 and 11.
`
`In light of the above, the Applicant submits that all the pending claims are patentable
`
`over the prior art of record. The Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the
`
`rejections presented in the outstanding Office Action and pass the present application to issue.
`
`

`

`The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned attorney by telephone in order to resolve any
`
`issues remaining in the application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Mark D. Pratt/
`
`
`2019.11.1411259216 -05'OO'
`
`Mark D. Pratt
`
`Registration No. 45,794
`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 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.
`
`