答复审查意见通知书

Good morning, Dr. Lee. Thanks for coming in. We've received the Office Action for your 'Smart Home Energy Management System' patent application.

Good morning, Mr. Davis. Ah, the Office Action. What's the main issue this time? Are they rejecting the core claims?

Not entirely, but the examiner has cited prior art against claims 1-6, primarily concerning anticipation and obviousness. They're also requesting clarification on some of the technical specifications in the description.

I see. So, what's our best strategy here? Can we amend the claims to distinguish our invention from the cited prior art, or do we need to provide a compelling argument?

I think we can do both. For claims 1-3, I believe we can make some targeted amendments to narrow the scope slightly, while still capturing the essence of your invention. For claims 4-6, a robust argument explaining why our unique integration of components isn't obvious might be more effective.

That sounds like a solid plan. What about the technical specifications? Is it just a matter of rephrasing, or do we need to add more detail?

Mostly rephrasing and clarifying existing details. The examiner wants to ensure the enablement requirement is fully met. It's a standard request, nothing too alarming.

Okay, that's a relief. How long do we have to respond, and what's our next step?

We have three months from the issue date, which gives us ample time. I'll draft the proposed amendments and arguments, then we'll schedule another meeting to review them before filing the response. Does that work for you?

Perfect. Please send me the draft as soon as it's ready. Thank you for your guidance on this, Mr. Davis.