DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 09/05/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 15-17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN ET AL. (US 20220398913 A1) (hereinafter “BROWN”) in view of NORTON ET AL. (US 20180240326 A1) (hereinafter “NORTON”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, BROWN teaches “A system and method for facilitating inspection of fire alarm systems includes a graphical user interface rendered on a touchscreen display of a mobile computing device receiving selections of inspection results. The graphical user interface includes a testing pane, which indicates devices that are currently being tested, and a selection pane, which indicates devices yet to be tested. The devices indicated by the selection pane are filtered according to the inferred location of the inspector or the inferred order of test. Selection of devices indicated by the selection pane results in those devices being indicated by the testing pane. Results of inspections of the devices indicated by the testing pane are then selected by the touchscreen display detecting gestures (e.g. swipes toward the left or right) corresponding to different results. The results are sent to a connected services system and stored in a connected services database.” and the BRI of:
A mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B)
for
self-testing hazard sensing device diagnostics (See, e.g., ¶ 0061, 0079),
comprising:
a user interface; a memory; and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B)
to:
receive, in a wireless signal transmitted from a self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0053-0058; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A, 1B), information for the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
receive, via the user interface, a selection of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
send the information for the self-testing hazard sensing device received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device responsive to receiving the selection (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
receive, from the gateway device, data for the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
display, on the user interface, the received data for the self- testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device; diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
NORTON teaches “The near-universal connection between control panels and monitoring stations is used to transmit status information for non-compatible control panels to connected services systems. In this way, connected services systems can incorporate monitoring and tracking of non-compatible control panels as well as compatible control panels” and the BRI of:
identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices (See, e.g., ¶ 0014-0020, 0035, 0046-0050, 0061, 0069, 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to monitor sensing/detection systems/devices. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 8, BROWN teaches “A system and method for facilitating inspection of fire alarm systems includes a graphical user interface rendered on a touchscreen display of a mobile computing device receiving selections of inspection results. The graphical user interface includes a testing pane, which indicates devices that are currently being tested, and a selection pane, which indicates devices yet to be tested. The devices indicated by the selection pane are filtered according to the inferred location of the inspector or the inferred order of test. Selection of devices indicated by the selection pane results in those devices being indicated by the testing pane. Results of inspections of the devices indicated by the testing pane are then selected by the touchscreen display detecting gestures (e.g. swipes toward the left or right) corresponding to different results. The results are sent to a connected services system and stored in a connected services database.” and the BRI of:
A method
for
self-testing hazard sensing device diagnostics (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C),
comprising:
receiving, by a mobile device in a wireless signal transmitted from a self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0053-0058; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A, 1B), information for the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
sending, by the mobile device, the information for the self-testing hazard sensing device received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
receiving, from the gateway device, data for the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
displaying, by the mobile device, the received data for the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device; diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
NORTON teaches “The near-universal connection between control panels and monitoring stations is used to transmit status information for non-compatible control panels to connected services systems. In this way, connected services systems can incorporate monitoring and tracking of non-compatible control panels as well as compatible control panels” and the BRI of:
identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices (See, e.g., ¶ 0014-0020, 0035, 0046-0050, 0061, 0069, 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to monitor sensing/detection systems/devices. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 15, BROWN teaches “A system and method for facilitating inspection of fire alarm systems includes a graphical user interface rendered on a touchscreen display of a mobile computing device receiving selections of inspection results. The graphical user interface includes a testing pane, which indicates devices that are currently being tested, and a selection pane, which indicates devices yet to be tested. The devices indicated by the selection pane are filtered according to the inferred location of the inspector or the inferred order of test. Selection of devices indicated by the selection pane results in those devices being indicated by the testing pane. Results of inspections of the devices indicated by the testing pane are then selected by the touchscreen display detecting gestures (e.g. swipes toward the left or right) corresponding to different results. The results are sent to a connected services system and stored in a connected services database.” and the BRI of:
A system
for
self-testing hazard sensing device diagnostics (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C),
comprising:
a mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
a gateway device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
a control panel (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C),
wherein:
the mobile device is configured to:
receive, in a wireless signal transmitted from a self-testing hazard sensing device, information for the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
receive a selection of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
send the information for the self-testing hazard sensing device received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to the gateway device responsive to receiving the selection (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C)
the gateway device is configured to:
send a query to the control panel for diagnostic data for the self- testing hazard sensing device responsive to receiving the information for the self-testing hazard sensing device from the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
receive the data for the self-testing hazard sensing device from the control panel (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
send the data for the self-testing hazard sensing device to the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
the mobile device is further configured to
display the data for the self-testing hazard sensing device responsive to receiving the data (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device; diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
NORTON teaches “The near-universal connection between control panels and monitoring stations is used to transmit status information for non-compatible control panels to connected services systems. In this way, connected services systems can incorporate monitoring and tracking of non-compatible control panels as well as compatible control panels” and the BRI of:
identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices (See, e.g., ¶ 0014-0020, 0035, 0046-0050, 0061, 0069, 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to monitor sensing/detection systems/devices. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
identify self-testing hazard sensing devices located within a particular proximity of the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
display, on the user interface, the self-testing hazard sensing devices located within the particular proximity of the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
receive the selection of the self-testing hazard sensing device from the displayed self-testing hazard sensing devices located within the particular proximity of the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
receive, in wireless signals transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing devices located within the particular proximity of the mobile device, identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing devices located within the particular proximity of the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON further teaches the BRI of:
the identification information comprises
a serial number of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0047).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include a serial number of the self-testing hazard sensing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to monitor sensing/detection systems/devices. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 9, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
receiving, by the mobile device, a selection of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
sending, by the mobile device, the information for the self-testing hazard sensing device to the gateway device responsive to receiving the selection (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
With respect to Claim(s) 16, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
the control panel is configured to:
retrieve the data from the self-testing hazard sensing device responsive to receiving the query from the gateway device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C);
and
send the data to the gateway device responsive to retrieving the data from the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
With respect to Claim(s) 17, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
the control panel is configured to
send the data to the gateway device responsive to receiving the query from the gateway device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C).
With respect to Claim(s) 19, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
the data for the self-testing hazard sensing device includes
a last inspection date of the self-testing hazard sensing device(See, e.g., ¶ 0073).
With respect to Claim(s) 20, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
the data for the self-testing hazard sensing device includes
a zone address of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0071, 0075).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of LIESE ET AL. (US 20230351883 A1) (hereinafter “LIESE”).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
determine whether a maintenance action needs to be performed on the self- testing hazard sensing device based on the received diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device; and display, on the user interface, an indication of whether the maintenance action needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device.
LIESE teaches “A fire protection system, which is configured to communicate with a central device of the fire protection system and with at least one user terminal in order to grant the user terminal access to at least part of the system information of the fire protection system, wherein the service device processes the system information for transmission to the at least one user terminal, transmits it to the user terminal and adjusts it in response to user input. A fire protection system configured to communicate with such a service device, a system for operating a fire protection system with such a service device, and a corresponding method for operating the fire protection system is provided” and the BRI of:
determine whether a maintenance action needs to be performed on the self- testing hazard sensing device based on the received diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device; and display, on the user interface, an indication of whether the maintenance action needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0101).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include determine whether a maintenance action needs to be performed on the self- testing hazard sensing device based on the received diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device; and display, on the user interface, an indication of whether the maintenance action needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to providing a visual indication to an inspector which devices require maintenance. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 7, BROWN, NORTON, LIESE teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
LIESE teaches the BRI of:
displaying the indication of whether the maintenance action needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device
BROWN further teaches the BRI of:
comprises:
displaying a first color on the user interface as a graphical indication; and displaying a second color as a graphical indication (See, e.g., ¶ 0082, 0091, 0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2A-3G).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
determining, by the mobile device, a maintenance action that needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device based on the received data for the self-testing hazard sensing device; and displaying, by the mobile device, the maintenance action that needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device.
LIESE teaches “A fire protection system, which is configured to communicate with a central device of the fire protection system and with at least one user terminal in order to grant the user terminal access to at least part of the system information of the fire protection system, wherein the service device processes the system information for transmission to the at least one user terminal, transmits it to the user terminal and adjusts it in response to user input. A fire protection system configured to communicate with such a service device, a system for operating a fire protection system with such a service device, and a corresponding method for operating the fire protection system is provided” and the BRI of:
determining, by the mobile device, a maintenance action that needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device based on the received data for the self-testing hazard sensing device; and displaying, by the mobile device, the maintenance action that needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0226).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include determining, by the mobile device, a maintenance action that needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device based on the received data for the self-testing hazard sensing device; and displaying, by the mobile device, the maintenance action that needs to be performed on the self-testing hazard sensing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to providing a visual indication to an inspector which devices require maintenance. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 12, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
a temperature of the self-testing hazard sensing device.
LIESE teaches “A fire protection system, which is configured to communicate with a central device of the fire protection system and with at least one user terminal in order to grant the user terminal access to at least part of the system information of the fire protection system, wherein the service device processes the system information for transmission to the at least one user terminal, transmits it to the user terminal and adjusts it in response to user input. A fire protection system configured to communicate with such a service device, a system for operating a fire protection system with such a service device, and a corresponding method for operating the fire protection system is provided” and the BRI of:
a temperature of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0023, 0065).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include a temperature of the self-testing hazard sensing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to providing a visual indication to an inspector which devices require maintenance. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 13, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
a drift compensation level of the self-testing hazard sensing device.
LIESE teaches “A fire protection system, which is configured to communicate with a central device of the fire protection system and with at least one user terminal in order to grant the user terminal access to at least part of the system information of the fire protection system, wherein the service device processes the system information for transmission to the at least one user terminal, transmits it to the user terminal and adjusts it in response to user input. A fire protection system configured to communicate with such a service device, a system for operating a fire protection system with such a service device, and a corresponding method for operating the fire protection system is provided” and the BRI of:
a drift compensation level of the self-testing hazard sensing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0023, 0065).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include a drift compensation level of the self-testing hazard sensing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to providing a visual indication to an inspector which devices require maintenance. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of NIXON ET AL. (US 20160043866 A1) (hereinafter “NIXON”).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
the self-testing hazard sensing device is a self-testing hazard sensing device that is closest to the mobile device.
NIXON teaches “Techniques for securing a device for use in or with a process plant include provisioning the device with a key generated at least in part from data indicative of necessary conditions and/or attributes that must be met before the device is allowed access to a network of the process plant. Upon initialization, the device determines, based on the key, whether or not the necessary conditions are met, and the device isolates itself or accesses the process control network accordingly. Keys and the necessary conditions/attributes indicated therein may be based on, for example, location, time, context, customer, supplier, particular plant, manufacturer, user, data type, device type, and/or other criteria. Additionally, sub-keys associated with a key may be generated from another set of necessary conditions/attributes. Sub-keys may be provided by a different entity than the key provider entity” and the BRI of:
the device is a device that is closest to the mobile device (See, e.g., ¶ 0119).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include the self-testing hazard sensing device is a self-testing hazard sensing device that is closest to the mobile device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to allowing an operator to use a mobile device to diagnose a self-testing hazard sensing device that is physically closest to the mobile device. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of WHITE (US 20220398913 A1).
With respect to Claim(s) 14, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
an alarm and/or pre-alarm sensitivity level of the self- testing hazard sensing device.
WHITE teaches “A wireless sensor alert system capable of detecting an abnormal condition, such as one of smoke, fire, carbon monoxide, temperature deviation, humidity, air quality, and radon levels. The system provides remote notifications and status information regarding the monitored information in the environment of a detector. The alert system additionally communicates over communications networks to provide user and authorized third party interactivity, as well as real-time sensor network data based upon customizable triggering events and conditions” and the BRI of:
an alarm and/or pre-alarm sensitivity level (See, e.g., ¶ 0142)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include an alarm and/or pre-alarm sensitivity level.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to providing an inspector with and additional data point in diagnosing a potential fault in the system. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of TICE (US 5969604 A).
With respect to Claim(s) 18, BROWN, NORTON teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NORTON teaches the BRI of:
the diagnostic data for the self-testing hazard sensing device.
However, BROWN is lacking the explicit language of:
a smoothing value of the self-testing hazard sensing device.
TICE teaches “An ambient condition detector includes a sensor for a first ambient condition and a second, sensor which is responsive to a second ambient condition not necessarily correlated to the first condition. Control circuitry, coupled to both sensors, processes an output from the first sensor to reduce transients and/or noise therein which are not correlated to the first ambient condition. Processing characteristics are altered in response to an output from the second sensor. The processing can take place at the detector or, in part, at the detector and, in part, at a displaced, common control element” and the BRI of:
a smoothing value (See, e.g., Col 7 Line(s) 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BROWN to include a smoothing value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify BROWN because it would be beneficial to providing the inspector an indication of how much the self-testing hazard sensing device is compensating for sensor fouling. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 12/04/2025, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 8-12, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
Ҥ103 Rejection of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 15-17, and 19 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10831167 B2) in view of Norton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10970994 B2). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
Independent claims 1 and 15, as amended, each recite a mobile device configured to:
receive, in a wireless signal transmitted from a self-testing hazard sensing device, identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device;
receive... a selection of the self-testing hazard sensing device; [and]
send the identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to [a] gateway device responsive to receiving the selection;
Further, independent claim 8, as amended, recites:
receiving, by a mobile device in a wireless signal transmitted from a self- testing hazard sensing device, identification information for the self-testing hazard sensing device; [and]
sending, by the mobile device, the identification information for the self- testing hazard sensing device received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device;
Support for the amendments can be found in Applicant's specification as originally filed at, for example, paragraphs 0030 and 0032.”.
-Applicant states
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended. For example, the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a mobile device that receives identification information for a self-testing hazard device in a wireless signal transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing device, and sends that identification information received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device, as presently recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
For example, the Brown reference appears to teach a fire alarm system that includes fire alarm devices, a control panel, a connected services server, and a mobile computing device. (Column 6, lines 62 64; column 7, lines 65-67; Figure 1A). The Brown reference appears to teach that during an inspection of a fire alarm device of the system, a device signal and event data are sent from the fire alarm device to the control panel, then sent from the control panel to the connected services server, and then sent from the connected services server to the mobile computing device. (Column 14, lines 9-12 and 26-32; Figure 4A). Hence, the Brown reference appears to teach that the mobile device receives a device signal and event data for the fire alarm device. However, the Brown reference does not teach that the mobile device receives the device signal and event data in a wireless signal transmitted from the fire alarm device. Rather, the Brown reference appears to teach that the mobile device receives the device signal and event data from the connected services server.
Further, the Norton reference appears to teach a connected services system that includes a connected services server, a control panel, fire detection devices, and a mobile computing device. (Column 4, line 64 through column 5, line 21; column 6, lines 55-56; Figure 1). The Norton reference appears to teach that during a walk-through test of the system, one of the fire detection devices is activated, and sends a signal indicating an alarm state and/or an analog value to the control panel. (Column 9, lines 1-8; Figure 3A). The Norton reference appears to teach that the control panel then generates and sends event data, including the address of the activated fire detection device, to the connected services server, which then sends the event data to the mobile computing device. (Column 9, lines 9-15 and column 10, lines 3 1-34; Figure 3A).
Hence, the Norton reference appears to teach that the mobile computing device receives event data for the activated fire detection device, including the address of the activated fire detection device. However, the Norton reference does not teach that the mobile computing device receives the event data in a wireless signal transmitted from the activated fire detection device. Rather, the Norton reference appears to teach that the mobile computing device receives the event data from the connected services server.
Hence, the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a mobile device that receives identification information for a self-testing hazard device in a wireless signal transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing device, and sends that identification information received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device, as presently recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as those claims that depend therefrom.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner’s BRI of the structure capable of performing the functions of the claimed invention is hazard sensing structure(s) with a self-testing feature communicatively coupled to a control panel communicatively coupled to gateway that connects to a wireless/cloud network that can be accessed from generic mobile computing structure.
Examiner’s BRI of the function(s) be performed by said structure is to transceive particular types of data between the generic mobile computing structure and the hazard sensing structure(s) wirelessly, and utilize a user interface on the generic mobile computing structure for further data access, processing, and analysis.
BROWN teaches the necessary structure and function of wirelessly transceiving data between a generic mobile computing structure and hazard sensing structure(s) with a self-testing feature. BROWN further teaches necessary a user interface further data access, processing, and analysis. (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-4C)
In combination with BROWN, NORTON teaches the explicit data types of identification information for sensing/detection systems/devices; diagnostic data for sensing/detection systems/devices that can be transceived and accessed by the structure and user interface of BROWN. (See, e.g., ¶ 0014-0020, 0035, 0046-0050, 0061, 0069, 0071; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine BROWN, NORTON to teach the claimed invention.
See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment.
-Applicant states
“Claims 6-7 and 11-13 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Norton and Liese et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20230351883 Al). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
Claims 6-7 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 11-13 depend from independent claim 8. For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of independent claims 1 and 8, as amended.
From Applicant's review, the Liese reference does not cure the deficiencies of the Brown and Norton references. That is, the Liese reference, alone or in combination with the Brown and Norton references, does not teach or suggest a mobile device that receives identification information for a self-testing hazard device in a wireless signal transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing device, and sends that identification information received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device, as presently recited in independent claims 1 and 8.
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown, Norton, and Liese references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of dependent claims 6-7 and 11-13. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 6-7 and 11-13.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See above response.
-Applicant states
“Claim 10 was rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Norton and Nixon et al. (DE 102015113054 Al). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
Claim 10 depends from independent claim 8. For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of independent claim 8, as amended.
From Applicant's review, the Nixon reference does not cure the deficiencies of the Brown and Norton references. That is, the Nixon reference, alone or in combination with the Brown and Norton references, does not teach or suggest a mobile device that receives identification information for a self-testing hazard device in a wireless signal transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing device, and sends that identification information received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device, as presently recited in independent claim 8.
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown, Norton, and Nixon references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of dependent claim 10. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of dependent claim 10.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See above response.
-Applicant states
“Claim 14 was rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Norton and White (U.S. Publication No. 20220398913 Al). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 8. For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of independent claim 8, as amended.
From Applicant's review, the White reference does not cure the deficiencies of the Brown and Norton references. That is, the White reference, alone or in combination with the Brown and Norton references, does not teach or suggest a mobile device that receives identification information for a self-testing hazard device in a wireless signal transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing device, and sends that identification information received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device, as presently recited in independent claim 8.
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown, Norton, and White references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of dependent claim 14. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of dependent claim 14.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See above response.
-Applicant states
“Claim 18 was rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Norton and Tice (U.S. Patent No. 5969604 A). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
Claim 18 depends from independent claim 15. For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown and Norton references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of independent claim 15, as amended.
From Applicant's review, the Tice reference does not cure the deficiencies of the Brown and Norton references. That is, the Tice reference, alone or in combination with the Brown and Norton references, does not teach or suggest a mobile device that receives identification information for a self-testing hazard device in a wireless signal transmitted from the self-testing hazard sensing device, and sends that identification information received from the self-testing hazard sensing device to a gateway device, as presently recited in independent claim 15.
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Brown, Norton, and Tice references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element and limitation of dependent claim 18. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of dependent claim 18.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See above response.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights