REMARKS
`
`This Amendment is fully responsive to the non-final Office Action dated October 16,
`
`2019, issued in connection with the above-identified application. With this Amendment, claims
`
`1, 2, 13 and 14 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-15 remain pending and under
`
`consideration in this application. The amendments made to the claims are fully supported by the
`
`Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, no new matter has been introduced by the amendments made
`
`to the claims. Favorable reconsideration is respectfully requested.
`
`A discussion of the features and advantages of the present application is provided below
`
`with reference to various portions of the present application. However, reference to any specific
`
`drawings or sections of the specification is provided only for illustrative purposes, and is not
`
`intended to otherwise limit the scope of the claims to any particular embodiments.
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`112
`
`Inter retation and 35 U.S.C.
`
`112 b Re'ection
`
`On pages 2-4 of the Office Action, the Examiner has indicated that the “output unit”
`
`feature of claim 13 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Applicant has amended
`
`claim 13 to avoid an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Specifically, the Applicant has
`
`amended claim 13 to identify the structural elements used to perform the “output unit” feature
`
`recited in the claim. The structural elements added to the claims are fully supported by the
`
`Applicant’s disclosure.
`
`Based on the amendments made to the claim, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`should be avoided.
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for
`
`being indefinite.
`
`First, the Examiner alleges that the “output unit” feature recited in claim 13 is being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the Examiner also alleges that the feature is not
`
`sufficiently described in the specification, thereby making claim 13 indef1nite.
`
`As discussed above, Applicant has amended claim 13 in order to avoid an interpretation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Based on the amendments made to claim 13, the interpretation under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) should be avoided and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be withdrawn.
`
`

`

`The Examiner is thanked for the indication at page 11 of the Office Action that claim 13
`
`would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. ll2(b) in
`
`the Office Action. As this rejection has been fully addressed by the foregoing amendments and
`
`remarks, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claim 13 is thus respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 5-8 and 14 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Toma et al. (US 2005/0169303) in view of Tanemura et al. (US 2010/0281498).
`
`Claim 12 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toma in
`
`view of Tanemura and in further view of Lim (US 2016/0241888).
`
`These rejections are traversed as being inapplicable to the claims as amended.
`
`The Examiner is thanked for the indication that claims 2-4 and 9-11, while objected to as
`
`being dependent upon a rejected base claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent
`
`form.
`
`Applicant has amended the previously-recited features of claim 1 and has also added
`
`some of the features of claim 2 to amended claim 1.
`
`In this regard, Applicant has deleted the previously-recited features related to
`
`broadcasting from claim 1. Also, the features from prior claim 2 relating to the multiplexer and
`
`the multiplexing processing have not been added to the amended claim 1. Also, the features of
`
`“a first converter” and “a second converter” from prior claim 2 have been amended to now be
`
`recited as one converter that performs a conversion process in amended claim 1. Further, the
`
`“second converter” features of prior claim 2 have been revised in amended claim 1 to now read
`
`as “(i) extracts a third packet including second data, (ii) performs a second conversion of
`
`converting the third packet extracted, into a fourth packet in the second multiplexing format, and
`
`(iii) outputs second converted data in the fourth packet obtained as a result of the second
`
`conversion, the second data being part of remaining data of the first multiplexed data.”
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that, while all of the features of prior claim 2, as indicated
`
`as allowable in the Office Action, have not been added to amended claim 1, amended claim 1
`
`should nevertheless still be determined to be allowable for similar reasons as set forth in the
`
`Office Action with regard to the allowability of prior claim 2. Also, Applicant respectfully
`
`

`

`submits that none of the cited references, whether taken separately or in combination, disclose
`
`the features added to amended claim 1.
`
`Independent claim 14 has been amended in a similar manner as independent claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, similar remarks, as set forth above with regard to amended independent claim 1,
`
`also apply to amended independent claim 14.
`
`Based on the distinctions discussed above, it is submitted that independent claims 1 and
`
`14 are now clearly allowable over Toma and Tanemura.
`
`Claims 2-12 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependencies from claim 1. The
`
`additionally-applied reference to Lim, with regard to dependent claim 12, does not cure the
`
`above-discussed deficiencies of Toma and Tanemura.
`
`Withdrawal of the objections to claims 2-4 and 9-11 is thus respectfully requested for the
`
`foregoing reasons.
`
`Withdrawal of the rejections is also respectfully requested for the foregoing reasons.
`
`The Examiner is thanked for the indication that remaining independent claim 15 is
`
`allowed.
`
`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,
`Digitally signed by /Paul
`535-..A- Fournier/
`/Pa U I A“
`."Date: 2020.02.14
`-
`
`F0 U rn le r/ i331?
`09:51:14 -05'00'
`Paul A. Fournier
`
`Registration No. 41,023
`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
`February 14, 2020
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment
`to Deposit Account No. 23-09 75.
`
`10
`
`