DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-12 and 15-19 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Specification and provided arguments, the objections of the Drawings is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
The claims now include steps that cannot be performed mentally, making the claim as a whole not directed to an abstract process.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
See updated 103 rejection below.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: The autoconfiguration step is not taught by the references.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees and points to the cited combination below. The Subramanian reference teaches making a combination of specific alert and detection devices in at least the cited sections of Figures 1 and 2, [0035]-[0043]. Then the Segev reference teaches the testing of the created system in at least the cited section of [0606]. These are the requirements of the claim without an explicit recitation of what the autoconfiguration is in the claims or the specification. If applicant wants the claim to have the interpretation presented in [0065]-[0066], it is suggested that further definition of auto correction is amended into the claim. This is in line with the suggested amendments conveyed to Applicant’s representative over the phone.
Applicant’s Argument: Subramanian does not disclose initiating a detector for the purpose of confirming that a particular notification appliance-pre-associated through an autoconfiguration-activates, nor making a pass/fail determination of the autoconfiguration based on that outcome.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the cited sections do teach activating devices for the purposes of seeing if they detect a fire or not. While it is not stated that the autoconfiguration activates as argued, this is not required by the claim in the following limitation, “activating the specific fire detection device.” If applicant wants the claim to be interpreted as argued, it is suggested that the claim is amended to explicitly state the autoconfiguration does all of these steps.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. WO 2020/123417 in view of Segev et al. USPPN 2021/0073448.
Regarding claim 1, Subramanian anticipates determining a fire detection device placement scheme for one or more fire detection devices within a building based on inputs received from a user and a fire detection device database; (Figure 1, [0030], a fire alarm system is designed; [0033] smoke and heat detectors are used; [0039] all are installed in a building; [0037], [0044], the system is designed based on user input and pulled from a remote database; [0038],[0065], the system is run on a computer using software)
determining an alert device placement scheme for one or more alert devices within the building based on the inputs received from the user and an alert device database; (Figure 1, [0030], a fire alarm system with alert devices is designed; [0033] alert devices are used; [0039] all are installed in a building; [0037], [0044], the system is designed based on user input and pulled from a remote database)
determining one or more fire detector loop wires to connect the one or more fire detection devices to a fire panel in a fire detection loop; (Figure 1, [0031]-[0034], SLC connects all devices with wires to the fire panel)
determining one or more alert loop wires to connect the one or more alert devices to the fire panel in an alert loop; and(Figure 1, [0031]-[0034], SLC connects all devices with wires to the fire panel)
generating a map that displays a location of each of the one or more fire detection devices, the one or more alert devices, the one or more fire detector loop wires, and the one or more alert loop wires within the building. (Figures 1 and 2, [0043]-[0044], [0060], device mapping is performed of all devices and wires in the system, in the building)
activating the specific fire detection device; (Figures 1 and 2, [0035]-[0043], By testing activation the system generates a fault report using the commissioning engine)
detecting whether the specific alert device activates in response to the specific fire detection device being activated; and (Figures 1 and 2, [0038]-[0043], the device activates when no fault is detected)
determine whether the … configuration was successful based on detecting whether the specific alert device activates in response to the specific fire detection device being activated. and (Figures 1 and 2, [0038]-[0043], the configuration is successful when no faults are detected)
Subramanian does not explicitly recite determining an autoconfiguration of the fire panel to associate a specific alert device of the one or more alert devices with a specific fire detection device of the one or more fire detection devices.
Segev teaches determining an autoconfiguration of the fire panel to associate a specific alert device of the one or more alert devices with a specific fire detection device of the one or more fire detection devices. ([0606], the system triggers the sounder to emit an auditory sound when a fire is detected is detected by the smoke detector)
autoconfiguration ([0606], the system triggers the sounder to emit an auditory sound when a fire is detected is detected by the smoke detector)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Subramanian with Segev as the references deal with fire detection systems, in order to implement a system that sounds a specific alert when a fire is detected by a detector, tests whether components of the fire alarm system are functioning properly, and determines a length of wire in the fire detection system. Segev would modify Subramanian by sounding a specific alert when a fire is detected by a detector, testing whether components of the fire alarm system are functioning properly, and determining a length of wire in the fire detection system. The benefit of doing so is a fire safety system, used to detect and warn building occupants when smoke, fire or other emergencies are present and to contain such emergencies, can be created. (Segev [0606])
Regarding claim 2, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian also anticipates displaying the map on a computing device. (Figure 1, [0044], everything is configured using a display, which also displays the map)
Regarding claim 5, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian also anticipates wherein the fire detection device placement scheme includes a number of the one or more fire detection devices. ([0033] smoke and heat detectors are used)
Regarding claim 6, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian also anticipates wherein the alert device placement scheme includes a number of the one or more alert devices. ([0033] sirens, bells, horns, strobe lights and emergency lights are used)
Regarding claim 7, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian also anticipates wherein the fire detection device placement scheme includes a type of the one or more fire detection devices. ([0033] smoke and heat detectors are used, which are each a type of fire detection device)
Regarding claim 8, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian also anticipates wherein the alert device placement scheme includes a type of the one or more alert devices. ([0033] visual and audible alerts are used)
Regarding claim 9, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian does not explicitly recite determining a length of the fire detection loop and a length of the one or more detector loop wires within the fire detection loop.
Segev teaches determining a length of the fire detection loop and a length of the one or more detector loop wires within the fire detection loop. ([0606], the equipment is the detector; [0625], the wire length is determined for the equipment; [0632] the length is for each piece of equipment in the loop)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 10, Subramanian anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Subramanian does not explicitly recite determining a length of the alert loop and a length of the one or more alert wires within the alert loop.
Segev teaches determining a length of the alert loop and a length of the one or more alert wires within the alert loop. ([0606], the equipment is the alert device; [0625], the wire length is determined for the equipment; [0632] the length is for each piece of equipment in the loop)
See motivation of claim 1
In regards to claim 11, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 12, it is the system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 16, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 9 with similar limitations to claim 9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Milovanov et al. “Case Study - IPv6 based building automation solution integration into an IPv4 Network Service Provider infrastructure”: Also teaches the automation and testing of a fire detection system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights