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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawing filed 4/23/26 is approved and has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 4/23/26 is approved and has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, --and-- should be added after “members;” in line 13.
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 filed 4/23/26 (pages 7-10 of the response) with respect to the claims have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (pages 8-10 of the response) that Greenwood does not disclose a preventor “that prevents a contact object from coming into contact with the detection element” and that is “provided in the opening portion” of claim 1 because the “ribs surrounding the screen (42)” cannot prevent a finger from entering because, in Greenwood, when a user's finger enters the space between the “ribs of the cover (50),” the “insect screen (42)” can prevent the finger from penetrating further into the interior regardless of the presence or position of the “ribs surrounding the screen (42),” the “ribs surrounding the screen (42)” could be positioned to completely overlap with the “ribs of the cover (50),” the “ribs surrounding the screen (42)” are not positioned between the “ribs of the cover (50),” and the spaces between the “ribs of the cover (50)” are not blocked by the “ribs surrounding the screen (42).” However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the preventors (ribs) of Greenwood support the screen (42) inside the detection element protector (50) to prevent a contact object (insect) from entering and coming into contact with the detection element through the opening portion of the detection element protector (50) (figures 1, 2; paragraph 14). Therefore, in Brigham in view of Greenwood, as stated above with respect to claim 1, the preventors protruding from the outer cover and supporting the screen are within the opening portion of Brigham (top part of figure 2), wherein the protectors allow inflow of the detection target to a detection element side through the opening portion and prevent a contact object (insect) 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 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. Furthermore, it is noted that the features on which the applicant relies upon (e.g., the contact object being fingers, and the “ribs surrounding the screen (42)” being positioned between the “ribs of the cover (50)” are not recited in claim 1.
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 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 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
6/4/26
Prosecution Insights