Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/218,773

TRANSMISSION OF DATA TO FIRE DEVICES OF A FIRE SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 06, 2023
Examiner
YANG, JAMES J
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
409 granted / 720 resolved
-5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
767
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.7%
+16.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 720 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed 01/05/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 9-20 have been previously withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. 2017/0061756 A1) in view of Egawa (U.S. 2011/0018706 A1) in view of Karschnia (U.S. 2008/0084852 A1). Claim 1, Kim teaches; A gateway device (Kim, Fig. 2: 300) for transmission of data to fire devices (Kim, Fig. 2: 100) of a fire system (Kim, Fig. 2), to: receive an activation signal from a fire control panel (Kim, Paragraph [0032], The terminal board 300 applies a first voltage which may be loaded with predetermined information, e.g. call information, all of which is under control of the CPU 400. The controlling of the CPU 400 is functionally equivalent to receiving an activation signal from the fire control panel, i.e. CPU 400.); and transmit the activation signal from the gateway device to a plurality of fire devices included in a cluster (Kim, Paragraph [0032], The sensors 100 of Fig. 2 represent a cluster and the terminal board 300 transmits the predetermined information provided by the CPU to the sensors 100.) to activate each of the plurality of fire devices (Kim, Paragraph [0032], In response to the supplied operating power and loaded predetermined information, the sensors 100 transmit information to the CPU, wherein the response from the sensors 100 is indicative of an activation of the sensors 100.), including continually performing the monitoring operation of each of the plurality of fire devices, in response to receiving the activation signal (Kim, Paragraph [0034], While power is being supplied to the sensor 100, the sensor 100 continually performs the monitoring operation.); wherein: the plurality of fire devices are arranged in a bi-directional loop (Kim, Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0024-0025]) such that the activation signal is sent in a first direction around the bi-directional loop and in a second direction around the bi-directional loop simultaneously (Kim, Paragraph [0034], The sensors 100 are supplied with the first voltage from the first loop line 11 and the second voltage from the second loop line 12.); and the first direction is opposite the second direction (Kim, Paragraphs [0032] and [0034], Signals including voltage may be transmitted on loop lines 11 and 12 via connection lines 21 and 22, respectively. A signal originating from first connection line 21 may be sensed for changes in voltage/current on second connection line 22 (see Kim, Paragraph [0032]), thereby indicating that signals originating via connection lines 21 and 22 are functionally equivalent to being in opposite directions.). Kim does not specifically teach: The gateway device comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory; and transmit according to predetermined time slots over a plurality of channels, activating a visual alarm and an audible alarm of each of the plurality of fire devices; wherein: the gateway device is allocated a first time slot of the predetermined time slots. However, as per the limitations of a memory and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory, Kim teaches an MCU 38 in Fig. 1, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the terminal board 300 to include a combination of an MCU 38 and corresponding memory for storing instructions for performing the functions of the terminal board 300, under the control of the CPU 400. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the terminal board 300 for its intended purpose and would yield predictable results. Egawa teaches: Activating a visual alarm and an audible alarm of each of the plurality of fire devices (Egawa, Fig. 3: 46, Paragraphs [0109] and [0113] and [0119], The alert section 46 includes a speaker 68 and an LED 22 for outputting an audible alarm and a visual indicator, respectively, in response to a detected abnormal condition, e.g. a fire.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Kim by integrating the teaching of an alarm device, as taught by Egawa. The motivation would be to ensure all persons who are present are able to receive an alarm regarding a detected fire (see Egawa, Paragraph [0004]). Kim in view of Egawa does not specifically teach: The gateway device comprising: transmit according to predetermined time slots over a plurality of channels; wherein: the gateway device is allocated a first time slot of the predetermined time slots. Karschnia teaches: Transmit according to predetermined time slots (Karschnia, Figs. 3A-3D, Paragraph [0008]) over a plurality of channels (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009], The different frequency channels are equivalent to a plurality of channels.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Kim in view of Egawa by integrating the teaching of timeslots and frequency channels, as taught by Karschnia. Therefore, a first time slot, as taught by Karschnia, would be assigned to the terminal board 300 of Kim (see Kim, Paragraph [0032]). The motivation would be to enable the passing of messages without collisions (see Karschnia, Paragraph [0009]). Claim 2, Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia further teaches: The gateway device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to stagger transmission of the activation signal over the plurality of channels by: transmitting the activation signal in the first direction over a first channel at the first time slot (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other.); transmitting the activation signal in the second direction over a third channel at a second time slot (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other.); transmitting the activation signal in the first direction over a second channel at a third time slot (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other.); and transmitting the activation signal in the second direction over a fourth channel at a fourth time slot (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other.). Claim 3, Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia further teaches: The gateway device of claim 2, wherein: the first channel is at a first frequency and the third channel is at a third frequency that is proximate to the first frequency (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other. The term “proximate” is interpreted as to be within a frequency spectrum usable by the system.); and the second channel is at a second frequency and the fourth channel is at a fourth frequency that is proximate to the second frequency (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other. The term “proximate” is interpreted as to be within a frequency spectrum usable by the system.). Claim 4, Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia further teaches: The gateway device of claim 3, wherein the first frequency and the third frequency are spaced apart from the second frequency and the fourth frequency in a frequency band (Karschnia, Paragraphs [0008-0009] and [0028], In the combination of Kim in view of Karschnia, the transmitted signals would be done over a plurality of assigned timeslots and transmission frequencies. Each of the plurality of timeslots representing a respective first, second, third, etc. time slot and each transmission frequency representing a respective first, second, third, etc. channel, wherein each time slot and each channel are different from each other. The term “spaced apart” is interpreted as being different enough so as to not interfere with each other, e.g. collision.). Claim 5, Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia further teaches: The gateway device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: receive fire device activation data from a fire device of the plurality of fire devices (Kim, Paragraph [0032], The terminal board 300 receives transmitted information from the sensor, e.g. sensed information.); transmit the fire device activation data to the fire control panel (Kim, Paragraph [0036], The CPU 400 confirms the current environment state around the sensor, by analyzing the received sensed information.); and receive the activation signal from the fire control panel in response to the fire control panel determining a fire event is occurring from the fire device activation data (Kim, Paragraphs [0032], [0034], and [0036], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the CPU 400 to continue to control the terminal board 300 to send and receive signals to and from sensors 100, even in the event of a sensed disaster. The Examiner notes that the system continues to operate unless barrier 250 prevents a connection with lines 21 and/or 22 due to open/short circuits experienced in a dangerous region (see Kim, Paragraphs [0040-0042]).). Claim 7, Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia further teaches: The gateway device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the activation signal to the plurality of fire devices by transmitting the activation signal to a first fire device of the plurality of fire devices in the first direction and a third fire device of the plurality of fire devices in the second direction (Kim, Paragraphs [0032] and [0034], In the example of Fig. 2, Sensor “1” would be functionally equivalent to a first fire device and Sensor “8” would be functionally equivalent to a third fire device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the opposite situation to be true.). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. 2017/0061756 A1) in view of Egawa (U.S. 2011/0018706 A1) in view of Karschnia (U.S. 2008/0084852 A1), in view of Barson et al. (U.S. 2020/0402380 A1). Claim 8, Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia further teaches: The gateway device of claim 7. Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia does not specifically teach: Wherein: transmitting the activation signal to the first fire device in the first direction causes the first fire device to transmit the activation signal to a second fire device of the plurality of fire devices and the second fire device to transmit the activation signal to the third fire device in the first direction around the bi-directional loop; and transmitting the activation signal to the third fire device in the second direction causes the third fire device to transmit the activation signal to the second fire device and the second fire device to transmit the activation signal to the first fire device in the second direction around the bi-directional loop. Barson teaches: An addressable loop of alarm devices that enable communication between a control panel and each of the plurality of alarm devices (see Barson, Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0024-0025], The wiring 112 can carry combined power transmission and digital communications between alarm devices 110-1, 110-2, …, 110-N. The system provides bi-directional communication between the control panel and the alarm devices (see Barson, Paragraph [0003]).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Kim in view of Egawa in view of Karschnia by integrating the teaching of an addressable loop, as taught by Barson. The motivation would be to provide devices that are capable of continuing to provide alarms even if a short circuit fault occurs in the loop(s) (see Barson, Paragraph [0005]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F. 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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. /JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602812
MITIGATING EFFECTS CAUSED BY REPEATED AND/OR SPORADIC MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS IN A FIELD OF VIEW
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604164
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR HYDROGEN PLANT CONDITION MONITORING USING A WIRELESS MODULAR SENSOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12579886
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING V2X AND SENSOR DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570210
CONTROL APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564526
BED HAVING SENSOR FUSING FEATURES USEFUL FOR DETERMINING SNORE AND BREATHING PARAMETERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+21.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 720 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month