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 .
Respond to the argument
Respond to the argument on 35 USC112b
As to the argument on the limitation of “a plurality of optical blocking members having a first refractive index corresponding to a second refractive index of a dust particle” has been withdrawn based upon the amendment.
However, rejection regarding “substantially proximal” amended to “proximal” has been maintained, since “proximal” is not still clear enough.
Respond to the argument on 35 USC103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) “a plurality of optical blocking members having a refractive index matched to a refractive index of common dust and configured to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength, wherein the refractive index of common dust is between 1.35 and 1.55” 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.
Newly found prior art of Stibish et al. (US 20190005793) teaches the optical blocking members material having refractive index in the claimed range.
Therefore, the arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, claim recites “proximal to the first light source”.
However, it is not clear how far distance is considered as “proximal” and what is not.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret it as ‘within a space where the first light source located’.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 11 are also rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
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 of this title, 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, and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US 20040188598 hereinafter Kawai) in view of Bressanutti et al. (US 20170169682 hereinafter Bressanutti) and in further view of Le et al. (20080258903 hereinafter Le) and Stibish et al. (US 20190005793 A1 hereinafter Stibish).
As to claim 1, Kawai teaches a system for detecting smoke, comprising:
a circuit (FIG. 1(a)) including:
a first light source (15 in Fig. 1(a)) configured to produce light;
a first photodetector (16 in FIG. 1 (a)) disposed substantially proximal to the first light source (FIG.1(a)); and
a processing circuitry (microcomputer 21 and A/D converter 25) configured to:
receive a first signal from the first photodetector ([0032]); and
determine a presence of smoke at least based on the first signal ([0032]); and
a plurality of optical blocking members ((plurality of 17 in FIG. 1 (a) and [0026])
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose the first light source configured to produce light centered about a first wavelength, an analog front end and optical blocking members to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength and optical blocking member having a refractive index matched to a refractive index of common dust and configured to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength, wherein the refractive index of common dust is between 1.35 and 1.55.
Bressanutti the first light source configured to produce light centered about a first wavelength ([0003]), and the optical bocking members (113 in FIG. 3 and [0017]) to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength ([0017] preventing multiple back reflection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Kawai by having the first light source configured to produce light centered about a first wavelength, and to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength for the benefit including high SNR by preventing multiple back reflecting as taught by Bressanutti and using one of the most common, widely used and easy to mold material for any shapes, a plastic cost/effort effective construction of the system.
Le teaches an analog front-end ([0015] and FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having an analog front-end for the benefit including optimized advantage of smart partitioning by amplifiers, filters, ADC, DACs by having AFE and constructing compact design.
Stibish teaches optical blocking member having a refractive index matched to a refractive index of common dust and configured to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength, wherein the refractive index of common dust is between 1.35 and 1.55 ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having optical blocking member having a refractive index matched to a refractive index of common dust and configured to dissipate electrical or electromagnetic energy centered about the first wavelength, wherein the refractive index of common dust is between 1.35 and 1.55 for the benefit/expected success by using reasonable material to avoid false alarm.
As to claim 2, Kawai when modified by Bressanutti, Le and Stibish teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose the first light source comprises a first light emitting diode (LED) having a spectral intensity centered about the first wavelength.
Bressanutti teaches the first light source comprises a first light emitting diode (LED) having a spectral intensity centered about the first wavelength ([0003], LED inherently has center spectral wavelength).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Kawai by having the first light source comprises a first light emitting diode (LED) having a spectral intensity centered about the first wavelength for the benefit including well known benefit of LED with high efficiency reliable stability of intense which ultimately result in high accuracy measurements.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish and in further view of Allemann et al. (US 20170046935 hereinafter Allemann).
As to claim 3, Kawai when modified by Bressanutti and Le teaches the system of claim 2.
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose a second light emitting diode have a spectral intensity centered about a second wavelength.
Allemann teaches a second light emitting diode have a spectral intensity centered about a second wavelength, lambda 2 ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having a second light emitting diode have a spectral intensity centered about a second wavelength, lambda 2 for the benefit including improving accuracy of detection by having spectral responsive detector for each purposed wavelength of interest (reference wave, special target scattering wavelength etc.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish in further view of Allemann and in further view of Bajaj et al. (US 20180365955 hereinafter Bajaj).
As to claim 4, Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le, Stibish and Allemann teaches the system of claim 3.
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose a second photodetector having a spectral intensity centered about the second wavelength.
Bajaj teaches a second photodetector having a spectral intensity centered about the second wavelength([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having and in further view of for the benefit including improving accuracy of detection by having spectral responsive detector for each purposed wavelength of interest (reference wave, special target scattering wavelength etc.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Bressanutti , Le and Stibish in further view of Debreczeny (US 20150300938 hereinafter Debreczeny).
As to claim 5, Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose the received first signal is based on scattering and is correlated to the amount of particulate matter present in the system.
Debreczeny teaches the received first signal is based on scattering and is correlated to the amount of particulate matter present in the system ([0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having the received first signal is based on scattering and is correlated to the amount of particulate matter present in the system for the benefit including known in the art an accurate responsiveness of scattering photoelectric detector to the smoldering type fire.
As to claim 7, Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish teaches the system of claim 1.
Kawai further teaches at least some of the plurality of optical blocking members have a column shape (17 in FIG. 1(a)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish in further view of Nagashima (US 5670947 A hereinafter Nagashima).
As to claim 11, Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish teaches the system of claim 1.
Kawai further teaches a cover having an upper surface opposing the first light source (FIG. 1(a)).
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose the upper surface has an anti-reflective feature configured to reduce reflection of incident light toward the first photodetector.
Nagashima teaches the upper surface has an anti-reflective feature configured to reduce reflection of incident light toward the first photodetector (col. 3 lines 29-33 and FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having the upper surface has an anti-reflective feature configured to reduce reflection of incident light toward the first photodetector for the benefit of high SNR by using antireflective surfaces where the direct light illumination from the source to the detector could happen.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le, Stibish and Nagashima and in further view of In (KR 1753873 B1 hereinafter In).
As to claim 6, Kawai in view of Bressanutti, Le and Stibish teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Kawai does not explicitly disclose the plurality of optical blocking members comprises an anti-reflective coating.
Nagashima teaches the plurality of optical blocking members comprises an anti-reflective surface (col. 3 lines 29-33 and FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by having the plurality of optical blocking members comprises an anti-reflective surface for the benefit of high SNR by using antireflective surfaces where the direct light illumination from the source to the detector could happen.
Still lacking the antireflective surface being achieved by antireflective coating.
In teaches anti-reflected coating (“anti-reflective paint of black is coated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the modified system of Kawai by using antireflective coating where antireflective surface is preferred for the well known benefit of simple and versatile applicability of a coating procedures to form the antireflective surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8:00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886