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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Bullmore does not disclose “the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bullmore discloses in Fig. 4 a diagrammatic representation of the comparisons made by microprocessor 43 for a field circuit. The converter produces a count ranging from 0 to 32,767, wherein the count represents the measured end-of-line resistance of the field circuit. The count is then compared to various thresholds to determine a status condition for the field circuit. If the count is between 15,000 and 16,000, it is considered to be within the normal operational range for the circuit, and a Normal condition is assigned (paragraph [0052]). It is known that a normal range typically includes both an upper bracket normal region and a lower bracket normal region. These brackets would represent the upper and lower limits of the reference range. While the upper and lower bracket normal regions are still considered normal, it lets the user know if the circuit is tending towards one end of normal or the other, which could mean a problem is developing. Monitoring the values in the scale disclosed by Bullmore would help Barson predict the sensor will malfunction. Therefore, Bullmore discloses the claim limitations discussed above and the rejection is maintained.
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, 3-6, 17, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0110003) in view of Bullmore (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0091733).
Regarding claim 1, Barson discloses a method for predicting a sensor malfunction of a sensor in a building control system (Fig. 1; paragraph [0001] – monitoring systems and more particular to loop parameter monitoring and calibration in analogue addressable fire systems), the method comprising predicting the sensor will malfunction by: monitoring a resistance value associated with the sensor of the building control system for fluctuations in the resistance value over time, the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region (paragraph [0021] – two different techniques may be used to measure small changes in the loop resistance – the first obtains an accurate overall resistance on each conductor leg and the total loop resistance – the resistance measurements are then used as calibrated values saved in memory, to monitor for small changes and hence to detect faults – the second technique measures the resistance between outstations – as this is typically a faction of an Ohm on a normal loop, a small change in any resistance value between points compared to the overall loop resistance value, can easily be detected as a fault and used to locate the fault position); determining when the resistance value associated with the sensor begins to deviate into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region by more than a threshold amount, and when so, predicting that the sensor will malfunction and sending an alert that the sensor is predicted to malfunction (paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory. While Barson discloses a “correct” operating range, which would be identified by higher and lower acceptable values, Barson does not explicitly show this feature.
Referring to the Bullmore, Bullmore discloses a method for predicting a sensor malfunction of a sensor in a building control system, the method comprising: monitoring a resistance value associated with the sensor of the building control system for fluctuations in the resistance value over time, the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region (Fig. 4; paragraph [0052] – Fig. 4 shows a diagrammatic representation of the comparisons made by the microprocessor 43 for a field circuit – the converter produces a count ranging from 0 to 32,767 – this count represents the measured end-of-line resistance of the field circuit - the count is compared to various thresholds, as shown, to determine a status condition for the field circuit - if the count is below 8,000, an Open Circuit condition is assigned - if the count is above 30,000, a Short Circuit condition is assigned - a value between 15,000 and 16,000 is considered to be the normal operational range for the circuit, and a Normal condition is assigned - values between 8,000 and 15,000 are assigned an Alarm 1 condition whilst values between 16,000 and 30,000 are assigned an Alarm 2 condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region as disclosed by Bullmore in the method disclosed by Barson in order to properly determine the functionality of the monitoring system.
Regarding claim 3, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 including that wherein the resistance value associated with the sensor comprises a resistance of a cable to the sensor and/or a resistance of a connector to the sensor (Barson: paragraph [0042] - the resistance value between any two outstations 3 in location order includes the cable resistance between the particular two outstations in the positive leg, an outstation isolator resistance 12 and the cable resistance between the particular two outstations in the negative leg 13; Bullmore: paragraph [0054] - the EOL module 10 can also detect the presence of a fault condition, such as an open circuit or a short circuit - in the case of a short circuit, the end-of-line resistance drops to a very low value, depending upon the resistance of the cable and the location along the cable of the short circuit - in the case of an open circuit, the resistance increases to a very high value, dependent upon the resistance of the insulation of the cable. A range of values is thus used to allow for such variations).
Regarding claim 4, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 including that wherein the resistance value associated with the sensor comprises an input resistance of the sensor (Barson: paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory; since the resistance of the sensing loop is taken into account, this comprises the input resistance of the sensor).
Regarding claim 5, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 including that wherein determining when the resistance value associated with the sensor begins to deviate into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region by more than a threshold amount comprises one or more of: determining when the resistance value crosses into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region more than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined test period of time; and determining when the resistance value remains in the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region more than a predetermined amount of time of a predetermined test period of time (Barson: paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory; in order to avoid false positives, the measurement needs to be carried out over a time interval of a certain length (the longer the length, the more precise results the skilled person would obtain); the memory disclosed in Barson will hold at least one other reading in order to do the comparison).
Regarding claim 6, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 including that the method further comprises: in response to receiving the alert, automatically scheduling and sending a maintenance message to inspect and/or replace the sensor (Bullmore: paragraph [0057] - after comparing the measured resistance to each of the threshold values the microprocessor 41 (Fig. 3) produces, as an output, an indication of the status of the field circuit, e.g. circuit A, B or C in Fig. 2 - this output may be in the form of individual flags or bits which are set when a particular status condition is assigned and thus has only two possible values from each comparison - for example, five output bits may represent five possible status conditions, namely Short Circuit, Alarm 2, Normal, Alarm 1 and Open Circuit; paragraph [0058] - this status is then presented as an output in the form of five digital bits which then can be read by or transmitted to a centralized monitoring system - this centralized system does not need to concern itself with the actual value of the end-of-line resistance for the circuit but merely with the determined status of the circuit; this output will alert the owner of the malfunction for prompt correction).
Regarding claim 17, Barson discloses a building control system (Fig. 1; paragraph [0001] – monitoring systems and more particular to loop parameter monitoring and calibration in analogue addressable fire systems) comprising: one or more sensors (Fig. 1); a controller operatively coupled to the one or more sensors (Fig. 1), the controller configured to predict a sensor malfunction of a sensor of the one or more sensors by monitoring a resistance value associated with the sensor of the building control system for fluctuations in a resistance value over time, the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region (paragraph [0021] – two different techniques may be used to measure small changes in the loop resistance – the first obtains an accurate overall resistance on each conductor leg and the total loop resistance – the resistance measurements are then used as calibrated values saved in memory, to monitor for small changes and hence to detect faults – the second technique measures the resistance between outstations – as this is typically a faction of an Ohm on a normal loop, a small change in any resistance value between points compared to the overall loop resistance value, can easily be detected as a fault and used to locate the fault position); determining when the resistance value associated with the sensor begins to deviate into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region by more than a threshold amount, and when so, predicting that the sensor will malfunction and send an alert that the sensor is predicted to malfunction (paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory). While Barson discloses a “correct” operating range, which would be identified by higher and lower acceptable values, Barson does not explicitly show this feature.
Referring to the Bullmore, Bullmore discloses a system for predicting a sensor malfunction of a sensor in a building control system, the system comprising: monitoring a resistance value associated with the sensor of the building control system for fluctuations in the resistance value over time, the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region (Fig. 4; paragraph [0052] – Fig. 4 shows a diagrammatic representation of the comparisons made by the microprocessor 43 for a field circuit – the converter produces a count ranging from 0 to 32,767 – this count represents the measured end-of-line resistance of the field circuit - the count is compared to various thresholds, as shown, to determine a status condition for the field circuit - if the count is below 8,000, an Open Circuit condition is assigned - if the count is above 30,000, a Short Circuit condition is assigned - a value between 15,000 and 16,000 is considered to be the normal operational range for the circuit, and a Normal condition is assigned - values between 8,000 and 15,000 are assigned an Alarm 1 condition whilst values between 16,000 and 30,000 are assigned an Alarm 2 condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region as disclosed by Bullmore in the system disclosed by Barson in order to properly determine the functionality of the monitoring system.
Regarding claim 20, Barson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed cause one or more processors to predict a sensor malfunction of a sensor of a building control system comprising predicting the sensor will malfunction by: monitoring a resistance value associated with the sensor of the building control system for fluctuations in a resistance value over time, the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region (paragraph [0021] – two different techniques may be used to measure small changes in the loop resistance – the first obtains an accurate overall resistance on each conductor leg and the total loop resistance – the resistance measurements are then used as calibrated values saved in memory, to monitor for small changes and hence to detect faults – the second technique measures the resistance between outstations – as this is typically a faction of an Ohm on a normal loop, a small change in any resistance value between points compared to the overall loop resistance value, can easily be detected as a fault and used to locate the fault position); determining when the resistance value associated with the sensor begins to deviate into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region by more than a threshold amount, and when so, predicting that the sensor will malfunction and send an alert that the sensor is predicted to malfunction (paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory). While Barson discloses a “correct” operating range, which would be identified by higher and lower acceptable values, Barson does not explicitly show this feature.
Referring to the Bullmore, Bullmore discloses a method for predicting a sensor malfunction of a sensor in a building control system, the method comprising: monitoring a resistance value associated with the sensor of the building control system for fluctuations in the resistance value over time, the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region (Fig. 4; paragraph [0052] – Fig. 4 shows a diagrammatic representation of the comparisons made by the microprocessor 43 for a field circuit – the converter produces a count ranging from 0 to 32,767 – this count represents the measured end-of-line resistance of the field circuit - the count is compared to various thresholds, as shown, to determine a status condition for the field circuit - if the count is below 8,000, an Open Circuit condition is assigned - if the count is above 30,000, a Short Circuit condition is assigned - a value between 15,000 and 16,000 is considered to be the normal operational range for the circuit, and a Normal condition is assigned - values between 8,000 and 15,000 are assigned an Alarm 1 condition whilst values between 16,000 and 30,000 are assigned an Alarm 2 condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the resistance value associated with the sensor having a normal resistance range, wherein the normal resistance range has a central resistance normal region bracketed by an upper resistance normal region and a lower resistance normal region as disclosed by Bullmore in the method disclosed by Barson in order to properly determine the functionality of the monitoring system.
Regarding claim 21, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 20 including that wherein the resistance value associated with the sensor comprises a resistance of a cable to the sensor and/or a resistance of a connector to the sensor (Barson: paragraph [0042] - the resistance value between any two outstations 3 in location order includes the cable resistance between the particular two outstations in the positive leg, an outstation isolator resistance 12 and the cable resistance between the particular two outstations in the negative leg 13; Bullmore: paragraph [0054] - the EOL module 10 can also detect the presence of a fault condition, such as an open circuit or a short circuit - in the case of a short circuit, the end-of-line resistance drops to a very low value, depending upon the resistance of the cable and the location along the cable of the short circuit - in the case of an open circuit, the resistance increases to a very high value, dependent upon the resistance of the insulation of the cable. A range of values is thus used to allow for such variations).
Regarding claim 22, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 20 including that wherein the resistance value associated with the sensor comprises an input resistance of the sensor (Barson: paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory; since the resistance of the sensing loop is taken into account, this comprises the input resistance of the sensor).
Regarding claim 23, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 20 including that wherein determining when the resistance value associated with the sensor begins to deviate into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region by more than a threshold amount comprises one or more of: determining when the resistance value crosses into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region more than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined test period of time; and determining when the resistance value remains in the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region more than a predetermined amount of time of a predetermined test period of time (Barson: paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory; in order to avoid false positives, the measurement needs to be carried out over a time interval of a certain length (the longer the length, the more precise results the skilled person would obtain); the memory disclosed in Barson will hold at least one other reading in order to do the comparison).
Regarding claim 24, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 17 including that wherein the resistance value associated with the sensor comprises a resistance of a cable to the sensor and/or a resistance of a connector to the sensor (Barson: paragraph [0042] - the resistance value between any two outstations 3 in location order includes the cable resistance between the particular two outstations in the positive leg, an outstation isolator resistance 12 and the cable resistance between the particular two outstations in the negative leg 13; Bullmore: paragraph [0054] - the EOL module 10 can also detect the presence of a fault condition, such as an open circuit or a short circuit - in the case of a short circuit, the end-of-line resistance drops to a very low value, depending upon the resistance of the cable and the location along the cable of the short circuit - in the case of an open circuit, the resistance increases to a very high value, dependent upon the resistance of the insulation of the cable. A range of values is thus used to allow for such variations).
Regarding claim 25, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 17 including that wherein the resistance value associated with the sensor comprises an input resistance of the sensor (Barson: paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory; since the resistance of the sensing loop is taken into account, this comprises the input resistance of the sensor).
Regarding claim 26, Barson in view of Bullmore discloses all of the limitations as previously discussed with respect to claim 17 including that wherein determining when the resistance value associated with the sensor begins to deviate into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region by more than a threshold amount comprises one or more of: determining when the resistance value crosses into the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region more than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined test period of time; and determining when the resistance value remains in the upper resistance normal region and/or the lower resistance normal region more than a predetermined amount of time of a predetermined test period of time (Barson: paragraphs [0053]-[0055] - the system includes a 2-wire loop having first and second conductors that connect a monitoring system with a plurality of sensors of the monitoring system, the 2-wire loop having first and second ends connected to the monitoring system, a memory that contains respective resistance values of the first and second conductors and respective resistance values between the first and second ends and each of the plurality of sensors and a processor that detects a fault in the 2-wire loop by measuring resistance values from opposing ends of the 2-wire loop during a sensor addressing cycle and compares the measured resistance values with the corresponding resistance values in memory; in order to avoid false positives, the measurement needs to be carried out over a time interval of a certain length (the longer the length, the more precise results the skilled person would obtain); the memory disclosed in Barson will hold at least one other reading in order to do the comparison).
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 HEATHER R JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri.: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/HEATHER R JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights