A Patent Application Is Filed Disclosing and Claiming a System

A patent application is filed disclosing and claiming a system for detecting expired parking meters. The specification fully supports the original, sole claim. The application discloses that the "electronics control unit" contains a comparator and an alarm. The application includes several drawings. One of the drawings shows a block diagram of the system, illustrating the electronics control unit as a box, labeled "electronics control unit." The sole claim of the application is as follows: The claim. A system for detecting expired parking meters, comprising: a timer mechanism; an infrared sensor for detecting the presence of a parked vehicle; and an electronics control unit, including a comparator and an alarm, coupled to the infrared sensor and the timer mechanism. A final Office action, dated February 3, 2004, indicates that the sole claim contains allowable subject matter, but includes an objection to the specification, on the grounds that the subject matter of the electronics control unit, though described in a sufficiently specific and detailed manner in the original specification, was required to be shown in the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83. The Office action did not set a period for reply. Determine which of the following actions, if any, comports with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for overcoming the objection.

A) On April 1, 2004, a Notice of Appeal is filed together with appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that a patent should issue since the subject matter of the electronics control unit was adequately described in the original specification.
B) On April 1, 2004, a drawing is filed in the USPTO illustrating only the comparator and alarm of the electronics control unit that was described in the original specification.
C) On April 1, 2004, a Notice of Appeal of appeal is filed together with appropriate fees, and a brief pointing out that the addition of a drawing showing the electronics control unit would not constitute addition of new matter since the electronics control
D) On September 1, 2004, a petition is filed urging that no further drawing should be required because the subject matter of the electronics control unit, for purposes of the application, was adequately disclosed in the block diagram drawing.
E) None of the above.