答复审查意见通知书

Good morning, Ms. Chen. I'm afraid we've received an Office Action for your patent application regarding the drone stabilization system. It landed in my inbox just yesterday.

Oh, right. I was expecting that. What's the gist of it? Is it a rejection or just some objections we need to address?

It's primarily objections based on prior art. The examiner cited two previous patents that they believe anticipate some of your claims, particularly those related to the sensor fusion aspect. They also raised a formality issue with the abstract.

Sensor fusion, really? I thought our approach was distinct enough. Can we argue against that? And the abstract is usually an easy fix.

Yes, we certainly can. I've already drafted some preliminary arguments for the sensor fusion claims, highlighting the unique algorithmic implementation. We'll need to submit a robust response within three months, which gives us some breathing room.

Three months sounds manageable. What about amending the claims? Do you think we'll need to narrow them down, or can we push back more aggressively?

We'll definitely consider amendments, especially for the broader claims. My preference is to try arguing first, but we should prepare alternative claim language as a backup. It's often a back-and-forth process with the examiner.

Okay, that makes sense. So, what are the next steps? Do you need any more technical details from my end, or are you working on the response independently for now?

For now, I'll refine the arguments and proposed claim amendments. I'll send you a draft for your review next week. Please be ready to provide further technical details or clarifications if needed, especially regarding how your system differs from the cited prior art.

Understood. I'll make sure to prioritize that. Thanks for staying on top of this, I appreciate your proactive approach.

My pleasure. We'll get this addressed. I'll be in touch next week. Have a good one.