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 with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the existing rejection does not address the limitations of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Chu (US 20220268682) in view of Powell (US 20050173638) in view of Vannacci (IT 201800003972) in view of Gass (US 3857641).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20220268682) in view of Powell (United States Patent Application Publication 20050173638) in view of Vannacci et al (IT 201800003972, text citations refer to the attached Google Translation with paragraph numbers, and reference to Figures can be found in the original) in view of Gass (United States Patent 3857641), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “CPVG”.
As to claim 1, Chu teaches a particle detection system (Abstract “a smoke detector”) comprising:
a chamber (Figure 4, the space within element 421) comprising an inner surface (Figure 4, paragraph 0055 “side wall 421”), a portion of the inner surface scattering or reflective to light (Figure 4, paragraph 0055 “reflective surface 422”);
an LED arranged to emit light toward the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface (Figure 4, paragraph 0055 “light source 411” and paragraph 0040 “The light source … is preferably a non-coherent light source, e.g., a light emitting diode.”) and
[a detector] to detect a portion of the emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the [detector] by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface (Figure 4, paragraph 0055 “light sensor 413”);
a processor configured to determine properties of light scattering particles in a fluid in the chamber (Figures 1B-C, 3, 5, etc, paragraph 0039 “processor 13 electrically coupled to the light source 111 and the light sensor 113”, paragraph 0010 “The present disclosure further provides a smoke detector that automatically adjusts or alters multiple condition thresholds according to the detection result of a light sensor so as to reduce the false alarm rate.”).
While Chu Figure 4 teaches the chamber has a reflective surface compared to the side walls implying less reflectivity, Chu does not explicitly teach all other portions of the inner surface are black and light absorbing. However, it is known in the art as taught by Powell. Powell teaches a smoke detector with a chamber (Abstract “A smoke detector has a spherical chamber”) comprising reflective portions and all other portions of the inner surface are black and light absorbing (Abstract “The majority of the internal surface (3) of the chamber (2) is covered with a high reflectivity Lambertian surface, that is a material that scatters incident light equally in all directions and at all wavelengths. The remaining portion of the internal surface (3) is coated with a light absorbing material (13) such as a matt black coating.”, see Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have all other portions of the inner surface be black and light absorbing, in order to reduce the background signal.
Chu as modified by Powell above does not teach the same LED is used as both a light source and a detector. However, it is known in the art as taught by Vannacci. Vannacci teaches using a single LED as both a light source and a light detector (paragraph 94 “Fig. 2 schematically shows a device 1 comprising a LED 3 which, when polarized directly, emits a light beam F1 towards a target T. The target diffuses and / or reflects (arrow F2) at least part of the light F1 emitted by the LED 3, which is collected by LED 3 causing a deviation of the characteristic curve giving rise to the I-V characteristic called I '(V) of Fig.1. This deviation of the I-V characteristic curve in the first quadrant can be detected simultaneously with the emission, thus making the LED operate at the same time as an emitter and receiver, in direct polarization.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the same LED be used as both a light source and a detector, in order to reduce the number of components needed, lowering the cost and complexity of the sensor.
While Chu teaches a processor (Figures 1B-C, 3, 5, element 13), Chu as modified by Powell does not teach a processor configured to determine a change in voltage-current characteristics of the LED resulting from a change in an amount of the scattered or reflected light detected by the LED, and to determine properties from the change in voltage-current characteristics of the LED. However, it is known in the art as taught by Vannacci. Vannacci teaches a processor (Figure 26, paragraph 205 “control unit 210, which can comprise a PLC, a microprocessor or any other programmable control device”) configured to determine a change in voltage-current characteristics of the LED (paragraph 87 “I-V (current-voltage) characteristic curve”) resulting from a change in an amount of the scattered or reflected light detected by the LED (paragraph 102 “Any light radiation received by the LED 3 causes a shift in the I-V curve and therefore a variation in the voltage across the LED 3, measurable by means of a detection circuit 9.”), and to determine properties from the change in voltage-current characteristics of the LED (paragraph 195 “The back-scattered or reflected radiation is conveyed by the same optical fiber to the LED, whose detection circuit provides information on the basis of the radiation collected by the same LED that emitted it.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a processor configured to determine a change in voltage-current characteristics of the LED resulting from a change in an amount of the scattered or reflected light detected by the LED, and to determine properties from the change in voltage-current characteristics of the LED, in order to more easily detect scattered light using a single LED.
Chu as modified by Powell and Vannacci above does not teach an optical element arranged to collimate the light emitted by the LED toward the scattering or reflective surface and to focus onto the LED the portion of the emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the LED by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Gass. Gass teaches a light meter (column 1:5-6 “This invention relates to optical measuring apparatus, such as smoke meters”) with a light source reflecting light from a surface (Figure 3, light source 40 and surface 56), in which an optical element arranged to collimate the light emitted by the LED toward the scattering or reflective surface and to focus onto the LED the portion of the emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the LED by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface (Figure 3, column 4:27 “a front lens 52 produces a collimated light beam 54”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have an optical element arranged to collimate the light emitted by the LED toward the scattering or reflective surface and to focus onto the LED the portion of the emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the LED by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface, in order to increase the range at which viable reflected signals may be detected (i.e. you’ve got a beam instead of a cone, causing brighter reflections at a greater range).
As to claim 2, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Chu teaches the processor is configured to determine properties of light scattering particles in a fluid in the chamber (Figures 1B-C, 3, 5, etc, paragraph 0039 “processor 13 electrically coupled to the light source 111 and the light sensor 113”, paragraph 0010 “The present disclosure further provides a smoke detector that automatically adjusts or alters multiple condition thresholds according to the detection result of a light sensor so as to reduce the false alarm rate.”).
Chu as modified by Powell and Gass above does not teach the LED is one of two or more LEDs in an LED array, each of the two or more LEDs arranged to emit light and to detect a portion of the light it emitted that is scattered or reflected back to it by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Vannacci. Vannacci teaches the LED is one of two or more LEDs in an LED array, each of the two or more LEDs arranged to emit light and to detect a portion of the light it emitted that is scattered or reflected back to it by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface (paragraph 158 “two emitter / detector devices are used, each comprising an LED in direct polarization to emit a light signal, and a LED in reverse polarization, acting as a photodetector. In this way, each device can emit its own modulated light signal containing information” see also paragraphs 187-200 many of which discuss the use of single and multiple LEDs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the LED is one of two or more LEDs in an LED array, each of the two or more LEDs arranged to emit light and to detect a portion of the light it emitted that is scattered or reflected back to it by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface, in order to generate more data and better analyze what scattered the light.
Chu as modified by Powell and Gass above does not teach a processor configured to accept data from multiple sensors, wherein the processor is configured to determine a change in voltage-current characteristics for each of the LEDs resulting from a change in an amount of the scattered or reflected light detected by the LED, and to determine the properties from the change in voltage-current characteristics. However, it is known in the art as taught by Vannacci. Vannacci teaches a processor (Figure 26, paragraph 205 “control unit 210, which can comprise a PLC, a microprocessor or any other programmable control device”) configured to accept data from multiple sensors (paragraph 185 “A first group of opto-electronic devices comprises LED scanners, comprising a matrix of LEDs, for example a linear matrix of LEDs.”), wherein the processor is configured to determine a change in voltage-current characteristics (paragraph 87 “I-V (current-voltage) characteristic curve”) for each of the LEDs (paragraph 185 teaches multiple LEDs, and many of paragraphs 187-200 discuss the use of multiple LEDs) resulting from a change in an amount of the scattered or reflected light detected by the LED (paragraph 102 “Any light radiation received by the LED 3 causes a shift in the I-V curve and therefore a variation in the voltage across the LED 3, measurable by means of a detection circuit 9.”), and to determine the properties from the change in voltage-current characteristics (paragraph 195 “The back-scattered or reflected radiation is conveyed by the same optical fiber to the LED, whose detection circuit provides information on the basis of the radiation collected by the same LED that emitted it.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a processor configured to accept data from multiple sensors, wherein the processor is configured to determine a change in voltage-current characteristics for each of the LEDs resulting from a change in an amount of the scattered or reflected light detected by the LED, and to determine the properties from the change in voltage-current characteristics, in order to better analyze scattered light and determine properties.
As to claim 13, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Powell teaches the chamber is spherical (Figure 1, paragraph 0010 “spherical cavity”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the chamber be spherical, in order to better ensure the scattered light gets to the light source/detector.
As to claim 15, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Chu teaches the chamber is open to a surrounding environment (the inner chamber of Chu is open to and and smoke entering it, see Figure 1C with smoke 80 in the chamber).
As to claim 16, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Chu teaches the chamber is closed with respect to a surrounding environment (the inner chamber of Chu is closed from outside light (paragraph 0037 “To prevent external light from entering the inner space of the smoke detector” and talks about the shape of the side walls, see Figure 1).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CPVG, and further in view of Ahl et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20240005758).
As to claim 3, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the LED is configured to emit amplitude modulated light; and the processor is configured to detect an amplitude modulated signal resulting from the portion of the amplitude modulated emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the LED by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Ahl.
Ahl teaches a smoke detector (Abstract “smoke detection based on a depth image”) with an LED light source (Figure 1, element 10 is the symbol for an LED), where the LED is configured to emit amplitude modulated light (Figure 1, paragraph 0052 “The scene 7 is actively illuminated with amplitude-modulated infrared light 8”); and the processor (Figure 1, paragraph 0052 “a processor (CPU) 5”) is configured to detect an amplitude modulated signal resulting from the portion of the amplitude modulated emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the LED by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface (Figure 1, paragraph 0052 “The amplitude-modulated infrared light 8 is reflected from objects within the scene 7.” and “Distance between reflecting objects and the camera may be determined as function of the time delay observed and the speed of light constant value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the LED is configured to emit amplitude modulated light; and the processor is configured to detect an amplitude modulated signal resulting from the portion of the amplitude modulated emitted light that is scattered or reflected back to the LED by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface, in order to improve the confidence value of the measurement.
As to claim 4, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 2, with the exception of the LEDs are configured to emit amplitude modulated light; and the processor is configured to detect amplitude modulated signals resulting from the portions of the amplitude modulated emitted light that are scattered or reflected back to the LEDs by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Ahl in view of Vannacci.
Ahl teaches an LED is configured to emit amplitude modulated light (Figure 1, paragraph 0052 “The scene 7 is actively illuminated with amplitude-modulated infrared light 8”); and the processor (Figure 1, paragraph 0052 “a processor (CPU) 5”) is configured to detect amplitude modulated signals resulting from the portions of the amplitude modulated emitted light that are scattered or reflected back to the LEDs by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface (Figure 1, paragraph 0052 “The amplitude-modulated infrared light 8 is reflected from objects within the scene 7.” and “Distance between reflecting objects and the camera may be determined as function of the time delay observed and the speed of light constant value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to the LEDs are configured to emit amplitude modulated light; and the processor is configured to detect amplitude modulated signals resulting from the portions of the amplitude modulated emitted light that are scattered or reflected back to the LEDs by the scattering or reflective portion of the chamber inner surface, in order to improve the confidence value of the measurement.
Ahl teaches only a single LED. However, Vannacci teaches multiple LEDs (paragraph 158 “two emitter / detector devices are used, each comprising an LED in direct polarization to emit a light signal, and a LED in reverse polarization, acting as a photodetector. In this way, each device can emit its own modulated light signal containing information”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date for each of the LEDs in the invention of Chu as modified by Vannacci to be amplitude modulated as taught by Ahl, in order to better improve the confidence value of the measurement.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CPVG, and further in view of Schulze (United States Patent 4221485).
As to claim 12, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the chamber is hemispherical. However, it is known in the art as taught by Schulze. Schulze teaches the chamber is hemispherical (Figure 2, element 17 is labeled as a “spherical reflector” but as it only covers a half circle it reads on the claimed “hemisphere”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the chamber be hemispherical, in order to reflect light from a central point source back to that point, which is appropriate as the light source of CPVG is also the detector.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CPVG, and further in view of Jiang (CN 103492585).
As to claim 14, CPVG teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the chamber is parabolic and is at least partially mirrored. However, it is known in the art as taught by Jiang. Jiang teaches a particle detection system (Figure 1, Abstract “A microbial detection apparatus is provided.”) including a chamber to direct scattered light to a detector (Figure 1) where the chamber is parabolic and is at least partially mirrored (Figure 5, paragraph 0071 “parabolic reflector 510”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the chamber be parabolic and is at least partially mirrored, in order to more easily focus scattered light towards a detector.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877