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 .
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 8 and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what is meant by “first detection zone and second detection zone respectively configured to detect…”. Per the Specification “The light sensors 13 and 33 have a first detection zone and a second detection zone for respectively detecting the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light. In one aspect, the first detection zone and the second detection zone are at the same pixel array but arranged with different optical filters in front to detect light of different wavelengths.” [0052]
If the pixel array is the same and there are different filters being used, it is unclear how these are different “detection zones” as this implies light of a specific wavelength is only detected by a specific region and it is unclear if it occurs simultaneously for the different wavelengths or not.
The Examiner is interpreting this limitation as the same pixel array, but with the use of a different filter for the respective wavelength of light.
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) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170162019A1 (Cruse) in light of US20230152204A1 (Chiatti).
As to claim 1, Cruse teaches a smoke detector (1, Fig. 1, [0054]), comprising:
a light guiding and blocking member (See surrounding walls, 36 carrier base, 34 prism carrier, Fig. 3, [0039-40]), comprising a first accommodation space (See Fig. 3, accommodation space in between walls where light source 26 is located)
a second accommodation space (“second accommodation space” as seen in Fig. 3 where sensor 30 is located),
a light trap region (11, Fig. 1-3, [0049]),
a first reflective tilted surface (prism 38, [0040]) and
wherein the first reflective tilted space is arranged above the first accommodation space (See Fig. 3),
and the second accommodation space is arranged between the first accommodation space and the light trap region in a first direction (See Fig. 3, as light trap is to the left and first accommodation space with light source 26 is to the right, second accommodation space with sensor 30 is between the two)
a light source (26), arranged inside the first accommodation space (See Fig. 3) and configured to project a shaped light beam to the first reflective tilted surface ([0042] teaches prism reflects the beam of light produced by the LED 26),
wherein the first reflective tilted surface is configured to reflect the shaped light beam toward the second reflective tilted surface (Fig. 3, [0036]), and
a light sensor (30), arranged inside the second accommodation space (See Fig. 3) and configured to receive scattered light generated by the reflected and shaped light beam upon illuminating smoke particles [0043].
Cruse is silent to: a second reflective tilted surface, and
the second reflective tilted surface is arranged above the light trap region, and
the second reflective tilted surface is configured to reflect a reflected and shaped light beam from the first reflective tilted surface to the light trap region.
However, Chiatti teaches an optical chamber for a smoke detector with a second reflective tilted surface [0043](receiver mirror 244, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Cruse to include the second reflective surface as suggested by Chiatti in order to ensure light is directed towards the trap to prevent any direct light reaching the detector. The positioning of the second reflective tilted surface appears to be a mere matter of design choice, and it would have been obvious to try different locations to ensure the most effective position for preventing any direct light to the detector (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 2, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 1. Cruse teaches: further comprising a substrate (circuit board 24, Fig. 3, [0039]), wherein the light source (26), the light sensor (30) and the light guiding and blocking member (34, 36) are arranged on the substrate (Fig. 3, [0039-40]).
As to claim 4, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 1.
Cruse teaches: wherein the light guiding and blocking member further comprises:
a first light blocking wall, arranged between the first accommodation space and the second accommodation space (See carrier base shown in Fig. 3); and
a second light blocking wall, arranged between the second accommodation space and the light trap region (arm 46, [0040]).
Cruse is silent to: wherein the second light blocking wall is higher than the first light blocking wall.
However, the claim limitation appears to be a mere matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different heights, sizes, and positions of the blocking/carrier walls in order to optimize the system and ensure only scattered light reaches the detector and not direct light (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 5, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 4. Cruse teaches: wherein an upper edge of the first reflective tilted surface extends to be above the first light blocking wall in the first direction (See Fig. 3, upper edge of reflective surface (prism 38) extends above first light blocking wall).
Additionally, the claim limitation appears to be a mere matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different heights and positions of the blocking/carrier walls in order to optimize the system and ensure only scattered light reaches the detector and not direct light (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 6, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 4.
The combination is silent to: wherein an upper edge of the second reflective tilted surface does not extend to be above the second light blocking wall in the first direction.
However, the claim limitation appears to be a mere matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different heights, sizes, and positions of the blocking/carrier walls in order to optimize the system and ensure only scattered light reaches the detector and not direct light (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 7, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 1.
Cruse teaches: wherein a bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb reflected light of the second reflective tilted surface ([0063] teaches dark plastic).
As to claim 9, Cruse teaches: a smoke detector, comprising:
a light guiding and blocking member, comprising a carrier wall (See Fig. 3, carrier base 36), an accommodation space (where light source 26 is), a light trap region (11, Fig. 1-3, [0039]), and a reflective tilted surface (prism 38),
and the accommodation space is arranged between the carrier wall and the light trap region in a first direction (See Fig. 3);
a light source (26), arranged on the carrier wall and configured to project a shaped light beam to the reflective tilted surface, and
a light sensor (30), arranged inside the accommodation space and configured to receive scattered light generated by the shaped light beam upon illuminating smoke particles (Fig. 3, [0043]).
Cruse is silent to: wherein the reflective tilted surface is arranged above the light trap region,
wherein the reflective tilted wall is configured to reflect the shaped light beam to the light trap region
However, Chiatti teaches an optical chamber for a smoke detector with a second reflective tilted surface [0043](receiver mirror 244, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Cruse to include the second reflective surface as suggested by Chiatti in order to ensure light is directed towards the trap to prevent any direct light reaching the detector. The positioning of the second reflective tilted surface appears to be a mere matter of design choice, and it would have been obvious to try different locations to ensure the most effective position for preventing any direct light to the detector (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 10, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 9.
Cruse teaches: further comprising a substrate (circuit board 34), wherein the light sensor and the light guiding and blocking member are arranged on the substrate (See Fig. 3, [0039-40]).
As to claim 8, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 1.
As to claim 16, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 9.
As to claims 8 and 16, the combination is silent to: wherein the light source is configured to emit a first wavelength light and a second wavelength light, and
the light sensor comprises a first detection zone and a second detection zone respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light.
However, Chiatti teaches dual wavelength optical detection [0027].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the dual wavelength optical detection of Chiatti in order to yield the predictable result of increasing cost-effectiveness while maintaining good optical sensitivity, and/or high immunity to nuisance sources [0027].
As to claim 12, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 9. wherein the light guiding and blocking member further comprises:
Cruse teaches: a first light blocking wall (154 see Fig. 3), arranged between the carrier wall (36)and the accommodation space (Fig. 3 space with light source 26); and
a second light blocking wall (upper wall in Fig. 3 with opening 164), arranged between the accommodation space and the light trap region (Fig. 3),
wherein the second light blocking wall is higher than the first light blocking wall (See Fig. 3).
As to claim 13, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 12.
Cruse teaches: wherein an upper edge of the reflective tilted surface does not extend to be above the second light blocking wall in the first direction (See Fig. 3 where “second light blocking wall” with opening 164 is not above 156).
As to claim 14, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 12.
The combination is silent to: wherein a height of the light source arranged on the carrier wall is higher than heights of the first light blocking wall and the second light blocking wall.
However, differences in the optical component arrangements will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such arrangement is critical. Rearrangement of parts which simply results in a rearrangement of the same parts performing the same function does not render the invention patentable (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different placements of the light source in order to minimize any direct light reaching the detector.
As to claim 19, the combination teaches the light guiding and blocking member as claimed in claim 17.
As to claim 15, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 9.
As to claims 15 and 19., Cruse teaches: wherein a bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb reflected light of the reflective tilted surface ([0063] teaches dark plastic).
As to claim 18, the combination teaches the light guiding and blocking member as claimed in claim 17.
Cruse teaches: further comprising:
another accommodation space, arranged at a side of the first light blocking wall farther away from the accommodation space and configured to accommodate a light source (See Fig. 3 and previous explanations); and
Cruse is silent to: another reflective tilted surface.
Cruse teaches: arranged above said another accommodation space and configured to reflect an emission light beam of the light source to the reflective tilted surface (See Fig. 3, prism 38, [0042]).
Additionally, as explained previously Chiatti teaches two reflective surfaces.
The differences in the optical component arrangements will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such arrangement is critical. Rearrangement and duplication of parts which simply results in a rearrangement and/or duplication of the same parts performing the same function does not render the invention patentable (MPEP 2144.04)..
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to have to separate reflective surfaces in the situation where a light trap is placed in a different location in order to ensure light is reflected into the trap and no direct light reaches the detector.
As to claim 20, the combination teaches the light guiding and blocking member as claimed in claim 17.
Cruse teaches wherein a bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb light beams reflected by the reflective tilted surface ([0063] teaches dark plastic).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Cruse).
As to claim 17, Cruse teaches a light guiding and blocking member of a smoke detector (See surrounding walls, 36 carrier base, 34 prism carrier, Fig. 3, [0039-40]), the light guiding and blocking member comprising:
a light trap region (11, Fig. 1-3, [0039]);
a reflective tilted surface (38, Fig. 3), and configured to reflect light beams to the light trap region (Fig. 3-4, [0050]);
an accommodation space, configured to accommodate a light sensor (See Fig. 3, “accommodation space in between walls where light source 26 is located);
a first light blocking wall, arranged at a side of the accommodation space farther away from the light trap region (See Fig. 3); and
a second light blocking wall, arranged at a side of the accommodation space closer to the light trap region, and between the light trap region and the accommodation space (Fig. 3),
wherein the second light blocking wall is higher than the first light blocking wall (See Fig. 3).
Cruse is silent to: arranged above the light trap region.
However, differences in the optical component arrangements will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such arrangement is critical. Rearrangement of parts which simply results in a rearrangement of the same parts performing the same function does not render the invention patentable (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different placements of the reflective surface in order to optimize directing light towards the trap and minimize any direct light reaching the detector.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Cruse) and (Chiatti) in light of US 20230314299 A1 (Arnold).
As to claim 3, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 1.
As to claim 11, the combination teaches the smoke detector as claimed in claim 9.
As to claims 3 and 11, the combination is silent to: further comprising a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam.
However, Arnold teaches an optical trap system and method comprising a diffractive optical lenses configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam ([0012] teaches beam shaping lenses).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source in order to yield the predictable result of preventing light from directly reaching the detector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Maya Hendija whose telephone number is (571)272-0269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-16:00 (PST).
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAYA HENDIJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights