`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested. Upon entry of the
`
`foregoing reply, claims 6—35 and 41—132 are pending in the application, with claims 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 being the independent claims. Support for the above amendments to independent
`
`claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 can be found, for example, at paragraphs [0074], [0088] and [0120]
`
`of the specification as originally filed.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S. C. § 103
`
`
`Claims 6 17-19 22 24-27 41 52-55 59-62 79-88 93-102 107-116 122-124 and
`
`
`129-132.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 6, 17—19, 22, 24—27, 41, 52—55, 59-62, 79—88, 93—102,
`
`107—116, 122—124, and 129—132 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467 (Eyal) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,621 (Duso et al.) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,938,021 (Shear et al.). Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner’s rejection
`
`as follows.
`
`As indicated above, Applicant has amended claim 6 to recite, “limiting an amount of
`
`time for the requested media content to be completely viewed at the communication device
`
`and preventing the streaming of one or more of the media content segments to the
`
`communication device after the amount of time has passed.” Independent claims 41, 79, and
`
`93 have been similarly amended. Support for these amendments may be found throughout the
`
`application as originally filed, including paragraphs [0088] and [0120].
`
`Applicant submits that none of Eyal, Duso et al., or Shear et al., taken alone or in
`
`together, teaches or suggests the combinations recited in claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 as amended.
`
`For at least this reason, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 6, 17—19, 22, 24—27, 41,
`
`52—55, 59—62, 79—88, 93—102, 107-116, 122-124, and 129-132 be withdrawn.
`
`
`Claims 7-14 16 42-49 51 118-121 and 125-128.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, 51, 118—121, and 125—128 under pre—
`
`AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Duso et al. and Shear et al.
`
`717165652
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`in further view of US. Patent No. 5,758,257 (Herz et al.). Applicant submits that Herz et al.
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Shear et al. as set forth above in regards
`
`to claims 6, 41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 7—14,
`
`16,42-49, 51, 118-121, and 125-128 be Withdrawn.
`
`Claims 15 and 50.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 50 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Eyal in view of Duso et al. and Shear et al. in further view of US. Patent
`
`No. 5,933,811 (Angles et al.). Applicant submits that Angles et al. fails to cure the
`
`deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Shear et al. as set forth above in regards to claims 6, 41,
`
`79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 15 and 50 be
`
`Withdrawn.
`
`
`Claims 20 21 55 and 56.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Duso et al. and Shear et al. in further view of US.
`
`Patent No. 6,654,807 (Farber et al.). Applicant submits that Farber et al. fails to cure the
`
`deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Shear et al. as set forth above in regards to claims 6, 41,
`
`79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 be
`
`Withdrawn.
`
`
`Claims 23 28—35 58 63—78 89—92 and 103—106.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103—106 under pre—
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Duso et al. and Shear et al.
`
`in further view of US. Patent No. 6,385,596 (Wiser et al.). Applicant submits that Wiser et
`
`al. fails to cure the deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Shear et al. as set forth above in
`
`regards to claims 6, 41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of
`
`claims 23, 28-35, 58, 63-78, 89-92, and 103-106 be Withdrawn.
`
`717165652
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Conclusion
`
`All reasons for patentability of the independent and dependent claims have not
`
`necessarily been discussed herein. No implication or construction should be made therefore.
`
`This is intended to be a complete response to the Office action dated June 20, 2019.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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,
`
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`/James M. Sti ek/
`
`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 Applicant(s)
`
`717165652
`
`24
`
`