Application No. 15/818,642
`Reply to Office Action dated October 3, 2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 13-17 are pending, of which claims 1 and 10 are
`
`independent in form. Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, and 18 were canceled previously. Claims 1 and 10
`
`are amended herein. Support for the amendments can be found throughout the specification as
`
`filed, for example, in paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0069], [0077], [0143], [0146]-[0150], and
`
`[0156]-[0165], and in FIGS. 6, 7A-7C, and 12. Thus, the amendments do not add new matter to
`
`the present application. In view of the foregoing amendments and the following remarks,
`
`reconsideration and allowance of the present application are respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US. C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0102987 by Souisse et al.
`
`(hereinafter “Souisse”) in view US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0246538 by Wu
`
`(hereinafter “Wu”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 20170163373 by Hwang et al.
`
`(hereinafter “Hwang”). For at least the following reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 13-17, as amended herein, are patentable over Souisse, Wu, and Hwang.
`
`Independent claim 1, as amended herein, recites as follows (with emphasis
`
`added):
`
`A terminal apparatus comprising:
`
`a transmitter which, in operation, transmits to a proxy server link information
`related to M individual networks via one of the M individual networks and
`
`transmits a transmission request for content via one of the M individual
`networks, M being an integer that is 2 or more, each of the M individual
`networks including corresponding one of M communication stations with
`which the terminal apparatus has established links, wherein the M
`communication stations employ different communication schemes from
`each other,
`
`a receiver which, in operation, receives an information packet for body data of
`the content via a first network and receives a parity packet added for error
`correction of the body data of the content via a second network different
`from the first network, wherein the information packet and the parity
`packet are distributed by the proxy server on a packet-by-packet basis
`to one of the first network and the second network among L individual
`networks selected by the proxy server based on the transmitted link
`information, L being an integer from 2 to M inclusive, and performs
`reception processing on the information packet and the parity packet, and
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/818,642
`Reply to Office Action dated October 3, 2019
`
`a received data analyzer which, in operation, combines data after the reception
`processing to obtain the content.
`
`For at least the following reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Souz'sse,
`
`Wu, and chmg fail to teach a terminal apparatus “wherein the information packet and the parity
`
`packet are distributed by the proxy server on a packet-by-packet basis to one of the first network
`
`and the second network among L individual networks selected by the proxy server based on the
`
`transmitted link information”, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 1, as
`
`amended herein.
`
`Soul'sse teaches a message fragmentation method in which a proxy server splits
`
`message data into fragments, and transmits the fragments through a GSM network and a CDMA
`
`network. Souisse, FIG.7 and 1] [0044]. Also, Souz'sse teaches that a receiver unit monitors RF
`
`activity of a plurality of channels and reports to a proxy server a list of RF channels detected.
`
`Souz'sse, 1] [0049]. As acknowledged in the Office Action, Soul'sse fails to teach data including
`
`information bits for body data of content and parity bits added for error correction of the body
`
`data of the content, where a receiver receives the information bits and the parity bits separately
`
`via different individual networks among the L individual networks. Office Action, p. 4.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Soul'sse fails to teach “wherein the information
`
`packet and the parity packet are distributed by the proxy server on a packet-by-packet basis to
`
`one of the first network and the second network among L individual networks selected by the
`
`proxy server based on the transmitted link information”, as recited in claim 1, as amended herein.
`
`Wu relates to the use of fountain (rateless) forward error correction (FEC) codes
`
`in multi-link multi-path mobile networks. Souz'sse, 1] [0001]. As acknowledged in the Office
`
`Action, Wu fails to teach that body data information and error correction information are
`
`transmitted via two different networks. Office Action, p. 5. Nothing has been found, or pointed
`
`to, in Wu that teaches “wherein the information packet and the parity packet are distributed by
`
`the proxy server on a packet-by-packet basis to one of the first network and the second network
`
`among L individual networks selected by the proxy server based on the transmitted link
`
`information”, as recited in claim 1, as amended herein.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/818,642
`Reply to Office Action dated October 3, 2019
`
`chmg teaches generating repair packets by encoding source packets with error
`
`correction codes, transmitting the source packets over a first network, and transmitting the repair
`
`packets over a second network. chmg, 11 [0010]. Nothing has been found, or pointed to, in
`
`chmg that teaches “wherein the information packet and the parity packet are distributed by the
`
`proxy server on a packet-by-packet basis to one of the first network and the second network
`
`among L individual networks selected by the proxy server based on the transmitted link
`
`information”, as recited in claim 1, as amended herein.
`
`For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that Souisse,
`
`Wu, and chmg fail to teach a terminal apparatus “wherein the information packet and the parity
`
`packet are distributed by the proxy server on a packet-by-packet basis to one of the first network
`
`and the second network among L individual networks selected by the proxy server based on the
`
`transmitted link information”, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 1, as
`
`amended herein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
`
`Claims 4-8 depend from claim 1 and are believed to be allowable for the same
`
`reasons as discussed above for claim 1, as well as for the specific limitations recited in those
`
`claims. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 4-8 is respectfully requested.
`
`While the language and scope of independent claim 10 are not identical to the
`
`language and scope of claim 1, the allowability of claim 10 will be apparent in view of the above
`
`discussion of claim 1 and the cited references. Claims 13-17 depend from claim 10 and are
`
`allowable at least by virtue of their dependencies, as well as for the specific limitations recited in
`
`those claims. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 13-17 is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`The present application is now believed to be in condition for allowance.
`
`Favorable consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/818,642
`Reply to Office Action dated October 3, 2019
`
`If the Examiner notes any inforrnalities in the claims, the Examiner is encouraged
`
`to contact the undersigned by telephone to expediently correct such informalities.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/John Wakeley/
`John Wakeley
`Registration No. 60,418
`
`JJW:dmk
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`701996371
`
`