U.S. Application Serial No. 13/662,663
`Attorney Docket: 39285-118
`Reply to Office Action of April 12, 2013
`
`REMARKS
`
`In affirmance of the election made on February 25, 2013 during the telephone
`
`conversation with the Examiner, claims 1-11 and 24 are hereby withdrawn from the subject
`
`application. Claims 12-23 are elected, without traverse, and are pending in the application with
`
`claim 12 being independent. Claim 12 has been amended. Reconsideration of the application as
`
`amendedis requested.
`
`Objections to the Drawings/Specification:
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). However, for at least the
`
`following reasons,
`
`the Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner’s objections to the
`
`drawings.
`
`Page 4 of the Office Action mailed April 12, 2013 (hereinafter “Office Action’) submits
`
`that the drawings fail to disclose the following features of the invention specified in the claims:
`
`“a thermostat
`
`including a communication module”; “said thermostat having a proximity
`
`detection module’; “home mode”, “away mode”, and “LCD display’. With respect to the
`
`features of “a thermostat including a communication module” and “said thermostat having a
`
`proximity detection module’,
`
`the Applicant respectfully points to Figure 4 of the original
`
`specification which illustrates a block diagram of a controller which includes a communication
`
`interface 430 and a proximity detection module 438. Asfurther illustrated in Figure 12, and
`
`correspondingly disclosed in Paragraph [0238] of the original specification, a thermostat 1200
`
`can include the controller 1210 or processor. With respect to the features of “home mode” and
`
`“away mode’, the Applicant respectfully points to both Figures 7 and 10 whicheachillustrate a
`
`proximity detection selector 728, 1036 of the thermostat having an “ON” and “OFF” mode. The
`
`Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`U.S. Application Serial No. 13/662,663
`Attorney Docket: 39285-118
`Reply to Office Action of April 12, 2013
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that, as evidenced by the Examiner’s interpretation of the keys
`
`110, 111 disclosed in Paragraph [0143] of Pouchak (See Page 7 of the Office Action), one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a “home mode” and an “away mode” can
`
`be illustrated by “ON” and “OFF” modes. With respect to the feature of an “LCD display’, the
`
`Applicant respectfully points to Figures 7-11 of the original specification which each illustrate
`
`various displays of the thermostat. As correspondingly disclosed in at least Paragraph [0233] of
`
`the original specification, an illustrated display in any of the Figures can include “Various
`
`type[s] of display technology having single color, multicolor, or any combination thereof can be
`
`used with wireless thermostat 1100, including, but not limited to ... LCD displays”.
`
`Forat least
`
`these reasons,
`
`the Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features of “a thermostat
`
`29,
`including a communication module”;
`
`66
`
`“said thermostat having a proximity detection module”;
`
`“home mode”, “away mode’, and “LCD display” are expressly shownin the Figures.
`
`Page 4 of the Office Action also submits that the drawings fail to disclose the following
`
`features of the invention specified in the claims:
`
`“the thermostat includes a generally round
`
`housing” and “the housing includes a control mechanism configured to rotate clockwise and
`
`counterclockwise”. With respect to the feature of a housing, the Applicant respectfully points to
`
`at least Figure 11 of the original specification which, as correspondingly disclosed in Paragraph
`
`[0236], illustrates a “thermostat 1100 [that] can include a housing 1130”. Further, the Applicant
`
`respectfully cites 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) which notes, in pertinentpart, that:
`
`features disclosed in the description and claims, where their
`conventional
`detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the
`invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing
`symbolor a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).
`
`Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`U.S. Application Serial No. 13/662,663
`Attorney Docket: 39285-118
`Reply to Office Action of April 12, 2013
`
`(Emphasis added).
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a), the Applicant respectfully submits
`
`that the illustration of the more specific feature of a “generally round” housingis not essential for
`
`a proper understanding of the invention, and can merely be represented by the rectangular box of
`
`the housing 1130 currently illustrated in Figure 11. With respect to the feature of “the housing
`
`includes a control mechanism configured to rotate clockwise and counterclockwise’, Figure 11
`
`has been amended in the Replacement Drawings to now expressly illustrate a mechanism 1113
`
`as originally described in Paragraph [0237] of the subject application. A corresponding
`
`amendment has been made to Paragraph [0237] to now reference the mechanism 1113 added to
`
`Figure 11.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a), the Applicant respectfully submits that the
`
`illustration of
`
`the more
`
`specific
`
`feature of
`
`“configured to
`
`rotate
`
`clockwise
`
`and
`
`counterclockwise” is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, and can be
`
`represented by the rectangular box of the mechanism 1113 added to Figure 11.
`
`Forat least the
`
`above reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that the drawings comply with 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.83(a) with respect to the claimed features of “the thermostat includes a generally round
`
`housing” and “the housing includes a control mechanism configured to rotate clockwise and
`
`counterclockwise”.
`
`For the above reasons,
`
`the Applicant respectfully submits that the objections to the
`
`drawings have been overcome, and thus respectfully requests withdraw of said objections.
`
`The Section 112(2) Claim Rejections:
`
`Claims 12-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite.
`
`As suggested by Page 6 of the Office Action, the recitation of “said proximity
`
`Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`U.S. Application Serial No. 13/662,663
`Attorney Docket: 39285-118
`Reply to Office Action of April 12, 2013
`
`detection having ...” in lines 4-5 has been amended to now recite “said proximity detection
`
`module”. Accordingly, the Section 112(2) claim rejections are believed to be overcome.
`
`The Applicant also submits
`
`that
`
`the subject application has been examined for
`
`compliance with Section 112, and thatall of the Section 112 issues raised by the Examinerin the
`
`Office Action have been addressed by the subject Amendment. Thus, the Applicant respectfully
`
`submits that the subject application is now in full compliance with Section 112.
`
`The Section 102(b) Claim Rejections:
`
`Claims 12-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pouchak
`
`(U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0040247).
`
`Independent claim 12 has been amendedto include limitations recited in dependent claim
`
`19 to clarify that the thermostat implements the away mode of the proximity detection module
`
`and that the proximity detection module detects a presence of a user at the site. Put another way,
`
`independent claim 12 as amended nowclarifies that a detected presence of a user at a site (or
`
`lack thereof) is a separate and distinct limitation from an enabled away modeof the proximity
`
`detection module. As also required by amendedclaim 12, the proximity detection module alters
`
`an operating condition of the thermostat during the enabled away modein response to, or based
`
`on, the detected presence of the user,
`
`Although Pouchak discloses a thermostat capable of communicating with a PDA, and
`
`Paragraph [0143] of Pouchak in its most favorable interpretation discloses an away modeofa
`
`thermostat (albeit not an away modeofa proximity detection module), the Applicant respectfully
`
`submits that the entirety of Pouchak still fails to make a single mention of determining or
`
`detecting a physical presence of a user at a site. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`U.S. Application Serial No. 13/662,663
`Attorney Docket: 39285-118
`Reply to Office Action of April 12, 2013
`
`Pouchak simply fails to disclose a proximity detection module configured to detect_a presence of
`
`a user at the site as the Office Action suggests. For these same reasons, it necessarily follows
`
`that Pouchak also fails to disclose a proximity detection module configured to alter an operating
`
`condition of the thermostat during the away mode in response to, or based on the detected
`
`presence of the user. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 12
`
`distinguishes over Pouchak, and thusis believed to be allowable.
`
`Claims 13-23 depend, ultimately, on claim 12 and are believed to be allowable for at least
`
`these samereasons.
`
`Conclusion:
`
`It is submitted that the amendments have antecedent basis in the application as filed and
`
`that the amendments do not add new matter to the application.
`
`It is further submitted that the
`
`amendments place the claims of the application in suitable condition for allowance; notice of
`
`whichis respectfully requested. If the Examiner believes that prosecution of the application can
`
`be expedited by way of an Examiner’s amendment,
`
`the Examiner is invited to contact the
`
`Applicant(s) attorney at the telephone numberor email address listed below.
`
`Date:_
`
`July 12, 2013
`
`Dickinson Wright, PLLC.
`2600 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 300
`Troy, Michigan 48084-3312
`(248) 433-7529
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dickinson Wright PLLC
`Attorneys for Applicants
`
`By:___/Bryan J. Schomer/
`Bryan J. Schomer
`Reg. No. 67,752
`
`Page 16 of 16
`
`