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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference numeral not mentioned in the description: “112” shown in figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not contain reference numeral “112” shown in figure 4; and “1” should be changed to --100-- in line 6 of paragraph 22. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “parallel” should be changed to --perpendicular-- in line 4 (see figure 4, which shows that the detection element (14) extends in a direction perpendicular to the attachment surface of the attachment object (900)) [for examination purposes, parallel has been changed to perpendicular]; “the plurality” should be changed to --a plurality-- in line 7; “;” should be changed to --,-- in line 8; “:” should be deleted from line 9; “,” should be changed to --and-- in line 10; --the-- should be added before “support” in line 11; “is” should be changed to --being-- in line 13; “,” should be changed to --; and-- in line 13; line 14 should be deleted; and --and-- should be added after “cover,” in line 19.
In claim 5, “the one” should be changed to --one-- in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0270759 to Brigham et al [hereinafter Brigham] in view of U.S. Patent Application 2013/0201024 to Greenwood et al [hereinafter Greenwood].
Referring to claim 1, Brigham discloses a disaster prevention apparatus (10) (abstract, paragraph 34) comprising:
an outer cover (16) (figure 1; paragraph 35);
a detection element (12) (figure 3; paragraph 34) that detects a physical quality of a detection target (air, not shown) (paragraph 37) and that is provided at a center of the outer cover (16) in a direction perpendicular to an attachment surface of an attachment object (ceiling) (paragraph 57) to which the disaster prevention apparatus (10) is to be attached (figure 3);
a detection element protector (24) (figure 2; paragraphs 12, 38) that accommodates the detection element (12) (figure 4; paragraph 47) that is provided on the outer cover (16) (figure 3; paragraph 36) and that has an opening portion between a plurality of support members (28) (figure 4; paragraph 36, 37) through which the detection target flows in and out with respect to the detection element (12) (figure 4; paragraph 37);
wherein the detection element protector (24) comprises a circular member (26) (figure 4; paragraph 36) and the support members (28) located between the circular member (26) and the outer cover (16) and supporting the circular member (26) (figures 2, 4; paragraph 36), the opening portion being partitioned off by the support members (28) (figures 2, 4).
Brigham does not disclose a preventor that allows inflow of the detection target to a detection element side through the opening portion and prevents a contact object from entering and coming into contact with the detection element through the opening portion, and that is provided in the opening portion; wherein the preventor is a projection that protrudes from the outer cover, and wherein the outer surfaces of the preventor are curved so that a height of the outer surfaces of the preventor increases from an outer side toward an inner side of the disaster prevention apparatus in the direction parallel to the attachment surface of the attachment
object.
However, Greenwood discloses a disaster prevention apparatus (100) (figure 1; paragraphs 11, 14, 18) with preventors (the ribs around the screen (42) of (40)) that allow inflow of a detection target (gas) to a detection element side of a detection element (30) through an opening portion of a detection element protector (50) (paragraph 14) and prevent a contact object (insects) from entering and coming into contact with a detection element (30) through the opening portion (by supporting a screen (42)) (paragraph 14) and that are provided in the opening portion; wherein the preventors are projections that protrude from an outer cover (of 40), wherein outer surfaces of the preventors are curved so that a height of the outer surfaces of the preventors increase from an outer side toward an inner side of the disaster prevention apparatus in a direction parallel to an attachment surface of an attachment object (ceiling or wall) (paragraph 11) in order to support a screen to protect the detection element (30) from insects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Brigham with preventors protruding from the outer cover and supporting a screen, wherein the protectors allow inflow of the detection target to a detection element side through the opening portion and prevent a contact object from entering and coming into contact with the detection element through the opening portion, and that are provided in the opening portion, wherein the preventors are projections that protrude from the outer cover, and wherein the outer surfaces of the preventors are curved so that a height of the outer surfaces of the preventors increases from an outer side toward an inner side of the disaster prevention apparatus in the direction parallel to the attachment surface of the attachment object, as suggested by Greenwood, in order to protect the detection element from insects.
Referring to claim 3, Brigham in view of Greenwood disclose an apparatus having all of the limitations of claim 3, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein in Brigham in view of Greenwood, the preventors are provided at an edge portion of the opening portion and within the opening portion.
Referring to claim 5, Brigham in view of Greenwood disclose an apparatus having all of the limitations of claim 5, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein Brigham discloses that a plurality of opening portions is provided (between protection means 24), but does not disclose at least one preventor being provided for each of the opening portions.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to provide Brigham in view of Greenwood with at least one preventor for each of the opening portions in order to reduce the size of the openings from insects, which Greenwood suggests is desirable.
Referring to claim 6, Brigham in view of Greenwood disclose an apparatus having all of the limitations of claim 6, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein Brigham discloses that the disaster prevention apparatus is at least a heat detector (uses a heat sensor (12)) (paragraph 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection stated above.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon by the examiner are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure by disclosing a disaster prevention apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
2/5/26