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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak (2020/0054905) in view of Wade (11,951,340) and in view of Lewis (2013/0264074).
Regarding claim 1, Livchak discloses a fire protection system comprising:
an image capture device (par. 53) to detect one or more images of a premise (area to be surveilled in kitchen), the image capture device comprising an image sensor (cameras are image sensors)
an extinguisher (par. 30); and
one or more processors (par. 41) to receive, from a fire control panel, an indication of the fire in the premise (figures 3A-G show different ways the processor receives a signal that a fire can occur and how it is processed), the one or more images to determine that the fire meets at least one criteria of being hazardous (classifier determination); and activate the extinguisher responsive to the determination that the fire meets the at least one criteria (par. 46, 64).
Livchak fails to explicitly teach a machine learning model trained with images of hazardous fires with images of non-hazardous fires. Livchak uses an algorithm to determine this (figures 3A-3G) but does not mention MLM, NN, etc.
However, Wade teaches a fire extinguishing system with one or more processors (item 220) responsive to the indication of the fire, the one or more images with a machine learning model (col. 14, lines 25-37) to determine that the fire meets at least one criteria of being hazardous (col. 11, lines 25-27, col. 13, lines 7-13), the machine learning model trained with images of hazardous fires and with images of non-hazardous fires (from previous citations “uses ML techniques to learn how to interpret image data”, “images related to controlled, uncontrolled, and partially controlled combustion reactions”); and activate the extinguisher responsive to the determination that the fire meets the at least one criteria (col. 14, lines 25-40, 47-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the machine learning models taught by Wade to the system of Livchak, the motivation being this would allow for a more advanced determination algorithm as well as allowing for flexible adaptation to different scenarios.
Livchak fails to teach in response to receipt of the indication of the fire, to activate the image capture device to capture the one or more images.
However, Lewis teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor that teaches activating an alarm and subsequently the processor activating an image capture device (par. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize image capture devices subsequent an initial as taught by Lewis to the system of Livchak, the motivation being that image capturing would be power intensive and only utilized during optimal lighting situations. Livchak contemplates multiple different options of fire detection and utilizing particular detection methods in specific times would be optimal for power usage. For example, a room may get noticeably hotter before a fire is visible and an image capture device would be more definitive in identifying a fire after hitting a particular threshold in particularly a hot environment like a kitchen.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, the claims are rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 18, Livchak further discloses wherein the at least one criteria is at least one of an area of a flame, a length of the flame, and a duration of the flame (par 41).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 18, and 19, a modified Livchak in view of Wade further discloses the use of machine learning comprising at least one neutral networks to define the fire as being hazardous or not hazardous (col. 11, lines 25-27, col. 14, lines 25-40; e.g. a growing fire means hazardous).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 20, Livchak further discloses a system comprising the one or more processors are to periodically process the one or more images to determine an occupancy count of the premise (par. 44, 114) cause an alarm to be activated at least while the occupancy count is greater than zero and the fire is determined to be hazardous (par. 44, 114, “the controller may activate an alarm in response to the hazard signal”).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 10, 11, a modified Livchak in view of Wade further discloses wherein the processor periodically evaluates the one or more images to determine whether the fire meets the at least one criteria of being hazardous while in a period of indication of the fire being received, corresponding to a threshold size of the fire (col. 13, lines 7-15), and further activating an alarm responsive to determining the fire meets the at least one criteria (sound generator equates to an alarm) and further the extinguisher comprising a sound generator to output a sound having at least one frequency to suppress or extinguish a fire (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Livchak further discloses a system comprising a fire control panel (item 660, any controller of the system) to provide indication of the fire to one or more processors responsive to receiving a sensor signal corresponding to the fire from at least one of a smoke detector, a heat detector, a CO or CO2 detector (various fire alarms are taught by Livchak, par. 55-56 for example).
Regarding claim 8, Livchak teaches the processors periodically evaluating the criteria of a fire being hazardous (par. 41, 44) while in a period of the indication of a fire being received (further determination is noted during discovery of a person).
Regarding claim 9, Livchak further discloses the at least one criteria corresponding to a threshold size of the fire, the threshold size representing a size of a cooking flame (abstract, par. 41, 44)
Regarding claim 12, Livchak further discloses wherein the premise comprises a kitchen (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights