DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7 and 17 have been amended. Claim 6 has been cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending.
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, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech et al. (Piech; US Pub No. 2021/0256826 A1) in view of Matsukuma et al. (Matsukuma; US Pub No. 2003/0132849 A1).
As per claim 1, Piech teaches a life safety detector comprising:
a housing defining a dark photo detection chamber for receiving ambient materials (paragraph [0030]: “The example device 20 includes a base or housing 22 that supports a detection chamber 24…”, Fig. 1);
at least one light source configured to emit light into the detection chamber (paragraph [0031]: “first source of radiation 30”, “second source of radiation 32”, Fig. 1);
at least one light sensing device configured to receive light reflected from the ambient materials in the detection chamber (paragraph [0032]: “The monitoring device 20 includes at least one detector 34 that is situated to detect radiation reflected from particles 26, 28 in the detection chamber 24.”, Fig. 1); …
a processing device coupled to the at least one light sensing device (paragraphs [0034], [0035]: “The example device 20 includes a controller 50 that controls operation of the radiation sources 30, 32 and the sensitivity of the detector 34. The controller 50 includes a processor 52”, Fig. 1);
wherein in a first mode of operation of the life safety detector, the light received by the at least one light sensing device within the dark photo detection chamber is indicative of smoke (paragraph [0037]: “using a relatively low sensitivity setting for smoke detection”, Table 1, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0054]), and in a second mode of operation of the life safety detector, the light received by the at least one light sensing device within the dark photo detection chamber is indicative of an indoor air quality (paragraph [0038]: “using a higher sensitivity suitable to detect environmental particles”, Table 2, paragraph [0039]: “a high sensitivity setting for discriminating between pathogens and other environmental particles.”, Table 3, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0054]).
Piech does not expressly teach a light trapping feature arranged within the detection chamber, the light trapping feature being configured to increase a number of reflections of the light emitted by the at least one light source, the light trapping feature being positioned within the detection chamber to block light emitted from the at least one light source from being directly received by the at least one light sensing device.
Matsukuma teaches a light trapping feature arranged within the detection chamber, the light trapping feature being configured to increase a number of reflections of the light emitted by the at least one light source (paragraphs [0019] & [0032]), the light trapping feature being positioned within the detection chamber to block light emitted from the at least one light source from being directly received by the at least one light sensing device (Fig. 1, Light Trap 11, Light Emitting Part 6, Light Detecting Part 7; paragraphs [0032] & [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the light trap as taught by Matsukuma, since Matsukuma states in paragraph [0032] that such a modification would result in controlling the flow of the light source through the smoke detection chamber in the most effective manner.
As per claim 17, Piech teaches a method of operating a life safety detector comprising:
switching from a first mode for detecting smoke to a second mode for monitoring an indoor air quality (paragraph [0037]: “using a relatively low sensitivity setting for smoke detection”, Table 1, paragraph [0038]: “using a higher sensitivity suitable to detect environmental particles”, Table 2, paragraph [0039]: “a high sensitivity setting for discriminating between pathogens and other environmental particles.”, Table 3, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0054]) It is observed that Piech discloses an example where the detector starts with a mode for monitoring an indoor air quality and then switches to a mode for detecting smoke. However, it has to be implicitly assumed that, after the mode for detecting smoke, the detector will switch again to the mode for monitoring an indoor air quality, in particular when no smoke is detected);
transmitting a light from at least one light source into a detection chamber positioned within an interior of a housing of the life safety detector (paragraph [0031]: “first source of radiation 30”, “second source of radiation 32”, Fig. 1)…
receiving a scattered light within the detection chamber at a light sensing device (paragraph [0032], “The monitoring device 20 includes at least at least one detector 34 that is situated to detect radiation reflected from particles 26, 28 in the detection chamber 24.” Fig. 1), wherein the scattered light is indicative of a presence of airborne particles having a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers and 10 micrometers (paragraph [0042], [0054]).
Piech does not expressly teach increasing a number of reflections of the light transmitted from the light source into the detection chamber via at least one light trapping feature arranged within the detection chamber;
blocking light emitted from the at least one light source from being directly received by the at least one light sensing device via the light trapping feature.
Matsukuma teaches increasing a number of reflections of the light transmitted from the light source into the detection chamber via at least one light trapping feature arranged within the detection chamber (paragraphs [0019] & [0032]);
blocking light emitted from the at least one light source from being directly received by the at least one light sensing device via the light trapping feature (Fig. 1, Light Trap 11, Light Emitting Part 6, Light Detecting Part 7; paragraphs [0032] & [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the light trap as taught by Matsukuma, since Matsukuma states in paragraph [0032] that such a modification would result in controlling the flow of the light source through the smoke detection chamber in the most effective manner.
As per claim 20, Piech in view of Matsukuma further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the light transmitted from the at least one light source during the second mode is infrared (Piech, paragraph [0031], [0054]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma as applied above, and further in view of SSI Staff article.
As per claim 2, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the life safety detector of claim 1.
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach wherein the housing defining the detection chamber further comprises:
a base; and
an optical cover mounted to the base, the detection chamber being formed between the base and an interior surface of the optical cover.
SSI Staff article wherein the housing defining the detection chamber further comprises:
a base; and
an optical cover mounted to the base, the detection chamber being formed between the base and an interior surface of the optical cover (see Figure pg. 2 of 9).
Piech discloses to expand the detection capabilities of a “conventional” scattering type photoelectric smoke detector in order to be able to monitor also air quality. Even though Piech does not provide details concerning the housing, it is observed that the additional features defined in claim 1 (base and optical cover) are well known in the art for photoelectric smoke detectors and regarded as a matter of normal design implementation (see SSI Staff article).
As per claim 3, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the life safety detector of claim 2.
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach wherein the optical cover has a wall, the wall being arranged at a non-perpendicular angle to the base.
SSI Staff article teaches wherein the optical cover has a wall, the wall being arranged at a non-perpendicular angle to the base (see Figure pg. 2 of 9).
The optional feature of the wall of the optical cover being non-perpendicular to the base is well known in the art for photoelectric smoke detectors and is regarded as a matter of normal design implementation.
As per claim 4, Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article teaches the life safety detector of claim 3.
Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article does not expressly teach wherein the wall is arranged between about 40° and about 75° relative to the base.
The optional feature of the wall being arranged between about 40° and about 75° relative to the base is regarded as a matter of normal design option: in this respect, it is observed that the light absorbing effects claimed by the applicant in the description are not obtained by the mere non-perpendicular angle between about 40 and 75 degrees of the wall of the optical cover but by the synergistic effects with additional light trapping features, as explained at page 12, from line 18 onwards, of the description.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma as applied above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (Schmidt; US Pub No. 2016/0335868 A1).
As per claim 7, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the life safety detector of claim 1, wherein the light trapping feature further comprises a tower extending from the base (Matsukuma, Fig. 1, Light Trap 11).
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach and at least a portion of the tower further comprises a plurality of ridges.
Schmidt teaches and at least a portion of the tower further comprises a plurality of ridges (paragraph [0050], [0066]; Fig. 4).
The optional feature of a plurality of ridges is regarded as a normal design option (thus not inventive), since this is a straightforward way to reduce internal reflections (see Schmidt Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt.
As per claim 8, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the life safety detector of claim
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach wherein the optical cover has a wall and the light trapping feature further comprises a plurality of linear terraces formed at the interior surface of the wall.
Schmidt teaches wherein the optical cover has a wall and the light trapping feature further comprises a plurality of linear terraces formed at the interior surface of the wall (paragraph [0050], [0066]; Fig. 4).
The optional feature of a plurality of linear terraces is regarded as a normal design option (thus not inventive), since this is a straightforward way to reduce internal reflections (see Schmidt Fig. 4).
As per claim 9, Piech in view of Matsukuma, and further in view of Schmidt, further teaches the life safety detector of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of linear terraces has a tooth, and adjacent teeth are arranged at a non-parallel angle relative to one another (Schmidt, Fig. 4).
As per claim 10, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the life safety detector of claim 1, wherein the base further comprises at least one mounting portion having a channel for supporting one or more of the at least one light source and the at least one light sensing device (Matsukuma, Fig. 1, Light Detecting Part 7, Light Emitting Part 6).
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach the light trapping feature further comprises a plurality of spiral ridges formed at the channel.
Schmidt teaches the light trapping feature further comprises a plurality of spiral ridges formed at the channel (paragraph [0050], [0066]; Fig. 4).
The optional feature of a plurality of linear terraces is regarded as a normal design option (thus not inventive), since this is a straightforward way to reduce internal reflections (see Schmidt Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article as applied above, and further in view of Gadonniex et al. (Gadonniex; US Pub No. 2021/0233373 A1).
As per claim 11, Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article teaches the life safety detector of claim 2.
Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article does not expressly teach wherein at least one of the base and the optical cover includes carbon black.
Gadonniex teaches wherein at least one of the base and the optical cover includes carbon black (paragraphs [0068], [0069]).
The additional features of claim 11 and the corresponding advantages are well known in the art and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see the prior art of Gadonniex).
As per claim 12, Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff, and further in view of Gadonniex, further teaches the life safety detector of claim 11, wherein at least one of the base and the optical cover has a surface resistivity between about 10 ohm-cm and about 1000ohm-cm (the claimed surface resistivity being between about the claimed range is regarded as a matter of normal design option).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma, SSI Staff article and Gadonniex as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schmidt.
As per claim 13, Piech in view of Matsukuma, SSI Staff article and Gadonniex teaches the life safety detector of claim 11.
Piech in view of Matsukuma, SSI Staff article and Gadonniex does not expressly teach wherein a surface of at least one of the base and the optical cover facing the detection chamber is roughened.
Schmidt teaches wherein a surface of at least one of the base and the optical cover facing the detection chamber is roughened (paragraph [0050], [0066]; Fig. 4).
The optional feature of a roughened surface is regarded as a normal design option (thus not inventive), since this is a straightforward way to reduce internal reflections (see Schmidt Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cole (US Pub No. 2010/0039274 A1).
As per claim 14, Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article teaches the life safety detector of claim 2.
Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff does not expressly teach wherein at least one of the light sensing devices features an optical filter.
Cole teaches wherein at least one of the light sensing devices features an optical filter (paragraph [0032]).
The use of optical filters is straightforward when using light of different wavelength. Moreover, even though not explicitly disclosed by the prior art of Piech, the uses of different polarization is also known for distinguishing among different types of particles.
As per claim 15, Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article, and further in view of Cole, further teaches the life safety detector of claim 14, wherein the optical filter selectively removes light of specified wavelengths (Cole, paragraph [0032]).
As per claim 16, Piech in view of Matsukuma and SSI Staff article, and further in view of Cole, further teaches the life safety detector of claim 14, wherein the optical filter selectively removes light of specified polarizations (Cole, paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma and applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Siemens (US Pub No. 2007/0139649 A1).
As per claim 18, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the method of claim 17.
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach wherein switching from the first mode for detecting smoke to the second mode for monitoring the indoor air quality further comprises at least one of increasing an intensity of the light transmitted from the at least one light source relative to the first mode and increasing a time that the at least one light source is energized relative to the first mode.
Siemens teaches wherein switching from the first mode for detecting smoke to the second mode for monitoring the indoor air quality further comprises at least one of increasing an intensity of the light transmitted from the at least one light source relative to the first mode and increasing a time that the at least one light source is energized relative to the first mode (paragraph [0024]).
As the prior art of Piech teaches associating the monitoring of air quality to a higher sensitivity with respect to the detection of smoke, the alternative implementations of varying the sensitivity by varying amplification of the light receiver as outlined in claim 18 above are regarded as obvious alternatives for the skilled person and are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech in view of Matsukuma and applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Cole.
As per claim 19, Piech in view of Matsukuma teaches the method of claim 17.
Piech in view of Matsukuma does not expressly teach wherein a wavelength of the light transmitted from the at least one light source during the second mode is different than the wavelength of the light transmitted from the at least one light source during the first mode.
Cole teaches wherein a wavelength of the light transmitted from the at least one light source during the second mode is different than the wavelength of the light transmitted from the at least one light source during the first mode (paragraph [0032], [0052]).
The optional feature as outlined above is obvious in the light of common general knowledge (see Cole paragraphs [0032], [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights