`
`Atty Dkt No. 060562—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Remarks
`
`The Examiner’s Office action mailed May 23, 2014, which rejected claims 6—35 and
`
`41—78 has been reviewed. In view of the following remarks, Applicant respectfully submits
`
`that the application is in condition for allowance.
`
`Amendments have been made to the claims. Section 112 support can be found
`
`throughout the application as filed, including paragraphs 35, 75, 76, 84—86, 90, 112, 118, 120,
`
`137, 138, 169-172, and 190.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Claims 41-70, 74-76 and 78
`
`Claims 41—70, 74—76 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non—statutory subject matter. Applicant has amended claim 41 and
`
`believes it has overcome the rejection.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 6-35 and 41-78
`
`Claims 6—35 and 41—78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre—
`
`AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the applicant
`
`regards as the invention. The Examiner found claims 6, 19, 20, and 41 recite the limitation
`
`"the at least one media of the presentation" in fourth limitation of claim 6, and there is
`
`insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That phrase has been deleted.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
`
`Claims 6, 17-23, 35, 41, 52-58, and 70-78 and Claims 7-16, 24-34, 42-51, and 59-69
`
`Claims 6, 17—23, 35, 41, 52—58, and 70—78 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 6,385,596 to Wiser et al. Claims 7—16, 24—
`
`34, 42—51, and 59—69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Patent Number 6,385 ,596 to Wiser et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`Number 2002/0078444 by Krewin et al.
`
`487386861
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty Dkt No. 060562—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Applicant has amended the claims to simplify and focus them.
`
`Amended claims 6 and 41 and new claims 79 and 93 distinguish from Wiser, for
`
`example, by reciting determining a plurality of resources, other than the management system,
`
`available to facilitate streaming of the plurality of portions of the media and transmitting to
`
`the communication device an identification of a plurality of portions of the media and
`
`information for use by the communication device identifying how to communicate with each
`
`of the plurality of resources to cause the plurality of portions of the media to be streamed to
`
`the communication device.
`
`Wiser discloses a single delivery server 118 streams a preview of audio data for an
`
`audio file that is requested by a media player 116. See, for example, Figure 3 and col. 8, lines
`
`27—41 identifying a single delivery server address in a media voucher sent to the media player.
`
`While other delivery servers may exist, they do not stream the preview of the audio file for
`
`the particular request. Moreover, when an audio file is purchased, the purchased audio file is
`
`downloaded, not streamed. Wiser also does not disclose transmitting an identification of a
`
`plurality of portions of the media as claimed. Again, as depicted in Figure 3 and col. 8, lines
`
`27—41, a single media ID is transmitted in the media voucher.
`
`Krewin does not supply the deficiencies of Wiser. Neither Wiser nor Krewin, alone or
`
`in combination, teach these limitations.
`
`Claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 are patentable for the reasons discussed above. Withdrawal
`
`of the rejection of claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 respectfully is requested.
`
`The dependent claims (including claims 17—23, 35, 52—58, and 70—78 and claims 7—16,
`
`24—34, 42—5 1, and 59—69 and the new dependent claims) include all of the limitations of their
`
`respective base claim and are patentable for the reasons explained with respect to their base
`
`claim. Withdrawal of the rejection of the dependent claims respectfully is requested.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective base claim and,
`
`therefore, are patentable for at least the reasons the respective base claim is patentable.
`
`All reasons for patentability of the independent and dependent claims have not
`
`necessarily been discussed herein. No implication or construction should be made therefore.
`
`487386861
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty Dkt No. 060562—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Applicant has no further remarks with regard to any references cited by the Examiner
`
`and made of record, whether or not acted upon by the Examiner in the action’s rejections,
`
`even if specifically identified in the action or any other paper or written or verbal
`
`communication. No implication or construction should be drawn about any review of the
`
`same by Applicant or Applicant’s attorney.
`
`Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that the Applicant’s invention as defined by the
`
`claims is patentable over the references of record. Issuance of a Notice of Allowance is
`
`solicited.
`
`Applicant’s attorney welcomes the opportunity to discuss the case with the Examiner
`
`in the event that there are any questions or comments regarding the response or the
`
`application.
`
`This is intended to be a complete response to the Examiner’s Office action mailed on
`
`May 23, 2014.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees that may be required or
`
`credit any overpayment to Deposit Account 50—1662, referencing the docket number above.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POLS INELLI PC
`
`
`/James M. Stipek
`James M. Stipek, Reg. No. 39,388
`900 W. 48‘h Place, Suite 900
`
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Tel: (816) 360—4191
`
`Fax: (816) 753—1536
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`487386861
`
`21
`
`