Application No. 15/871,047
`Attorney Docket No. WAC-10APP2 (309-011)
`Reply Dated November 11, 2020
`
`Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
`
`REMARKS
`
`I.
`
`Summaryof the Office Action
`
`The Examinerrejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as allegedly being indefinite.
`
`The Examinerrejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as allegedly being anticipated
`
`by Steiner (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0110192, hereinafter, “Steiner’).
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Applicant’s Reply
`
`Applicant has amendedclaims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11.
`
`Il.
`
`Applicant’s Reply to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`The Examinerrejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §112 as allegedly being indefinite.
`
`Office Action, pg. 2.
`
`The Examinerstated that “[w]hen there is [sic] control signal sending from the wireless
`
`RF control, it cannot be wired. It is one or the other.” /d.
`
`Claim 10, at least as amended, recites a) wireless control signals; and b) a hardwired RF
`
`receiver. Applicant submits that even when control signals are wireless, an RF receiver may
`
`indeed be hardwired.
`
`Forat least the foregoing reason, applicant submits that claim 10 satisfies the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, and respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the
`
`rejection.
`
`IV.
`
`Applicant’s Reply to the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`The Examinerrejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as allegedly being anticipated
`
`by Steiner. Office action, pg. 4. Claim 1 is independent and claims 2-11 depend therefrom.
`
`Claim 1 as amendedrecites an RF signal transmitter configured to transmit commands
`
`to afan.
`
`The Examineralleged that a Steiner RF lighting control system (Steiner paras. 97-100)
`
`includes the claimed RF signal transmitter. Office action, pg. 4.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/871,047
`Attorney Docket No. WAC-10APP2 (309-011)
`Reply Dated November 11, 2020
`
`Applicant submits that Steiner RF lighting control system 400 controls electrical lighting
`
`load 404 via remote control 420. See, e.g., Steiner para. 97-98 and accompanying FIG.11.
`
`Remote control 420 transmits RF messagesfor lighting load 404. Steiner electrical lighting load
`
`404 is a light, not a fan. Steiner remote control 420, therefore, does not transmit commandsfor a
`
`fan or toa fan. Steiner remote control 420, therefore, is not an RF signal transmitter configured
`
`to transmit commandsto afan. This is true even if, as the Examiner stated (OA, pgs. 4-5),
`
`certain fans and lights are generally controlled together from a switch. Independent claim 1 is
`
`therefore not anticipated by Steiner.
`
`Moreover, Steiner remote control 420 transmits RF signals to dimmer switch 410, so
`
`Steiner does not even disclose a light that is capable of receiving RF signals. Therefore, for this
`
`reason alone, Steiner does not disclose an RF signal transmitter configured to transmit
`
`commandsto afan.
`
`Forat least these reasons, applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1, and
`
`claims 2-11 that depend therefrom, are patentable over Steiner. Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 be withdrawn.
`
`Absenceofa reply to a specific rejection, issue or comment does not signify applicant’s
`
`agreement. Absence of an argumentdoes not signify waiver of the argument. Further,
`
`amendmentof any claim is not a concession of unpatentability of the claim prior to the
`
`amendment.
`
`Vv.
`
`Other Amendments
`
`Applicant has amended claims 2, 8, and 11 to more particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim subject matter that the inventors regard as inventive.
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant respectfully awaits a prompt and favorable response to this Reply. The
`
`Director is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees that may be due in connection with
`
`this paper, or to refund any overpayments, to Deposit Account No. 50-4650.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/871,047
`Attorney Docket No. WAC-10APP2 (309-011)
`Reply Dated November 11, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Edward M. Arons/
`Edward M. Arons
`Reg. No. 44,511
`Attorney for Applicant
`WEISS & ARONS LLP
`Customer No. 72,822
`63 South Main Street
`Spring Valley, New York 10977
`Tel.: (845) 362-6100
`
`Date: November 11, 2020
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket