DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to claims filed on 11/17/2023. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “second position to panel” in line 12, which should recite “second position to the panel” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,335) in view of Edwards et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,395,099, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 02/22/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
A damper (200), comprising:
a sensor (feedback sensors, Col. 6, lines 41-42) configured to provide a damper blade position signal (communicated 830) indicative of a position (damper position) of one or more damper blades (202), and
a communication interface (communication interface of 100 used to communicate the damper position 830 to the remote inspection tool, Col. 6, lines 40-44; this communication interface is the smart actuator of actuator system 300 that is configured to receive and transmit wireless signals, Col. 4, lines 54-57) configured to provide a damper blade position information (information transmitted by wireless signals of 300) associated with the damper blade position signal (communicated 830) at periodic intervals (periodic operational testing, Col. 3, line 59) to fire safety equipment (the remote inspection tool may be a dedicated handheld device, Col. 4, lines 49-51; the remote inspection tool is considered fire safety equipment used for testing the fire safety system).
However, Jenks lacks showing the communication interface is configured to provide a damper identification.
In the same field of endeavor of wireless damper testing, Edwards teaches (Figures 1 and 4):
It is known in the wireless damper testing art for an communication interface (100) of a damper (D) to provide a damper identification (“each interface 100 is encoded with a unique address that identifies that particular damper. While surveying a building, controller 500 pings each interface 100. A list of dampers that replay identified by tag and location are displayed on the controller”, Col. 3, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the communication interface shown by Jenks to be configured to provide a damper identification, as taught by Edwards, to increase useability of the system by providing unique tags that allow a user to identify the location of the damper in the building.
Regarding Claim 2, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
The communication interface (communication interface of 100 used to communicate the damper position 830 to the remote inspection tool, Col. 6, lines 40-44; this communication interface is the smart actuator of actuator system 300 that is configured to receive and transmit wireless signals, Col. 4, lines 54-57) is configured to communicate wirelessly (actuator system 300 may include a smart actuator configured to receive and transmit wireless signals”, Col. 4, lines 54-56).
Regarding Claim 8, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
The periodic basis (periodic operational testing, Col. 3, line 59) is adjustable based upon a message received (message initiated by user to begin testing protocol) by the communication interface (communication interface of 100 used to communicate the damper position 830 to the remote inspection tool, Col. 6, lines 40-44; this communication interface is the smart actuator of actuator system 300 that is configured to receive and transmit wireless signals, Col. 4, lines 54-57).
Regarding Claim 10, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
The fire safety equipment (the remote inspection tool may be a dedicated handheld device or an integrated component of a fire alarm system control panel, Col. 4, lines 49-51; the remote inspection tool is considered fire safety equipment used for testing the system).
It is noted Claim 10 recites “the communication interface is configured to provide the damper identification and the damper blade position information to the safety panel for use in alarm generation”. Because the safety panel is part of an “or” limitation in Claim 1, a safety panel is not positively required to be taught by Jenks. Jenks teaches fire safety equipment, thus satisfying Claim 1.
Accordingly, the limitation of Claim 10 is not a positively recited limitation.
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,335) and Edwards et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,395,099, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 02/22/2024), as recited in Claim 2 above, further in view of Schmuttor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,965,178).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Jenks and Edwards teaches the claimed combination except the communication interface is configured to communicate via a mesh network.
In the same field of endeavor of fire system management, Schmuttor teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the fire system (100) art for the system to comprise a communication mesh network, in which “one controller/sensor node is able to communicate with any other controller/sensor node (point to point) or to communicate with multiple controller/sensor nodes (broadcast)”, Col. 14,lines 48-53.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the communication interface shown by Jenks to be configured to communicate via a mesh network, as taught by Schmuttor, to increase controllability of the system by allowing point to point or broadcast communication via all system components.
Regarding Claim 4, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
The fire safety equipment (the remote inspection tool may be a dedicated handheld device or an integrated component of a fire alarm system control panel, Col. 4, lines 49-51; the remote inspection tool is considered fire safety equipment used for testing the system).
It is noted Claim 4 recites “the mesh network is coupled to the safety panel by a wired connection”. Because the safety panel is part of an “or” limitation in Claim 1, a safety panel is not positively required to be taught by Jenks. Jenks teaches fire safety equipment, thus satisfying Claim 1.
Accordingly, the limitation of Claim 4 is not a positively recited limitation.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from Claim 4 and are thus not positively recited for the reasons recited in Claim 4 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,335) and Edwards et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,395,099, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 02/22/2024), as recited in Claim 1 above, further in view of Allen (U.S. Patent No. 5,979,607).
Regarding Claim 7, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
The communication interface (communication interface of 100 used to communicate the damper position 830 to the remote inspection tool, Col. 6, lines 40-44; this communication interface is the smart actuator of actuator system 300 that is configured to receive and transmit wireless signals, Col. 4, lines 54-57).
However, Jenks lacks showing the damper further comprises a relay circuit, wherein the communication interface is integrated with the relay circuit.
In the same field of endeavor of fire safety systems, Allen teaches:
It is known in the art for a communication interface (34) to include a relay circuit (interconnected relay network, Col. 8, lines 57-58).
Further, “an auxiliary relay contact as a backup system”, Col. 3, lines 39-40.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the communication interface shown by Jenks to include an integrated relay circuit, as taught by Allen, to provide the benefit of a backup system.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Becelaere et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,241,218) in view of Jenks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,335) and Brenner (U.S. Patent No. 9,257032).
Regarding Claim 11, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
A safety system (10), comprising:
a remote panel (40/50); and
a smoke or fire damper (20) comprising:
one or more blades (22) configured to regulate (via the position controlled by 24) airflow (airflow through 20);
an actuator (24) configured to move (moved by actuator 24, Col. 3, lines 43-45) the one or more blades (20) between a first position (fully open, Col. 3, line 44) and a second position (fully closed, Col. 3, line 44);
a switch (30, 32) configured to indicate the first position (fully open, Col. 3, line 44) or the second position (fully open, Col. 3, line 44) of the one or more blades (20); and
a communication interface (36) configured to provide a damper identification (the local controller 36 may include a manually adjustable numeric indicator which can be set to identify the adjacent fire/smoke damper 20… the indicator enables the router 40 and the building management system 44 to identify a specific controller 36 and its associated damper 20”, Col. 4, lines 35-42) and damper blade information (local controller 36 also controls the damper 20 by collecting data relating to louver position, open/closed/neither, Col. 4, lines 31-34) in response to a change (this causes the damper 20 to close. A signal is sent to the local damper controller 36 and the router 40 to indicate that the damper 20 is closed, Col. 4, lines 2-5) of the one or more blades (22) from the first position (fully open, Col. 3, line 44) or the second position (fully closed, Col. 3, line 44) to the panel (40/50).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing a sensor configured to provide a damper blade position signal and the remote panel is a fire panel.
In the same field of endeavor of fire dampers, Jenks shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
A fire damper (200), comprising:
a sensor (feedback sensors, Col. 6, lines 41-42) configured to provide a damper blade position signal (communicated 830) indicative of a position (damper position) of one or more damper blades (202).
Further, “the fire damper actuator system 100 includes feedback sensors to measure and communicate the actuator position 820 and the damper position 830”, Col. 6, lines 41-44.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the fire damper shown by Van Becelaere to include a sensor configured to provide a damper blade position signal, as taught by Jenks, to measure and communicate both the actuator position and the louver position for more accurate data for system tracking.
In the same field of endeavor of fire alarm communications, Brenner teaches (Figure 2):
It is known in the fire alarm communication art for a system (20) to include a remote fire panel (14) comprising a router (“router in every fire panel”, Col. 2, line 1).
Further, “a typical fire alarm system 10 may include a plurality of devices 12 that are connected to one or more fire panels 14”, Col. 1, lines 18-21.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the remote panel shown by Van Becelaere to be a remote fire panel, as taught by Brenner, since it is known in the art for a typical fire alarm system comprising multiple fire devices to be connected to one or more fire panels that each include a router.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Van Becelaere (Figure 1), Jenks (Figures 1, 2, and 8) and Brenner (Figure 2) teaches:
The sensor (Jenks: feedback sensors, Col. 6, lines 41-42) comprises a switch (Van Becelaere: 30, 32) configured to indicate the first position (Van Becelaere: fully open, Col. 3, line 44) or the second position (Van Becelaere: fully closed, Col. 3, line 44) of the one or more blades (Van Becelaere: 22).
Regarding Claim 13, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
The communication interface (36) communicates through a wire (42).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing the communication is wireless.
In the same field of endeavor of fire alarm communications, Brenner further teaches (Figure 2):
It is known for a system (20) to communicate through cables, wires, and wireless links using any of a variety of wireless communications protocols (see Col. 4, lines 25-38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the wired communications shown by Van Becelaere to be wireless, as taught by Brenner, in order to reduce installation costs, by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Van Becelaere (Figure 1), Jenks (Figures 1, 2, and 8) and Brenner (Figure 2) teaches:
The fire panel (Van Becelaere: 40/50, as modified to be a fire panel in view of Brenner in Claim 11) uses the damper blade information (Van Becelaere: local controller 36 also controls the damper 20 by collecting data relating to louver position, open/closed/neither, Col. 4, lines 31-34) to provide an alarm (Van Becelaere: “a red color may indicate an alarm status such as a damper malfunction, Col. 4, lines 59-60; further, alarm signals are created upon malfunctions based on position information, such as “damper does not exist in either a fully open or closed position”, Col. 6, lines 24-35).
Regarding Claim 15, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
The fire or smoke damper (20) is a fire damper comprising a high temperature cut-out switch (26).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing the fire damper (20) comprises a fusible link.
In the same field of endeavor of fire dampers, Jenks further shows (Figures 1, 2, and 8):
It is known in the fire damper (200) art for the damper to comprise a fusible link (208).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the fusible link taught by Jenks for the temperature cut-out switch shown by Van Becelaere because it does no more than yield the predictable results of causing the fire damper to close when a measured temperature is exceeded since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for other is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Becelaere et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,241,218), Jenks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,335), and Brenner (U.S. Patent No. 9,257032), as recited in Claim 11 above, further in view of Schmuttor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,965,178).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Van Becelaere (Figure 1), Jenks (Figures 1, 2, and 8) and Brenner (Figure 2) teaches:
The first or smoke damper (Van Becelaere: 20) is a first damper of a plurality of dampers, and the communication interface (Van Becelaere: 36) communicates wirelessly (as modified in view of Jenks in Claim 11 above).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing the communications interface is a component of a mesh network wirelessly connecting the plurality of dampers.
In the same field of endeavor of fire system management, Schmuttor teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the fire system (100) art for the system to comprise a communication mesh network, in which “one controller/sensor node is able to communicate with any other controller/sensor node (point to point) or to communicate with multiple controller/sensor nodes (broadcast)”, Col. 14, lines 48-53.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the communication interface shown by Van Becelaere to be configured to communicate via a mesh network, as taught by Schmuttor, to increase controllability of the system by allowing point to point or broadcast communication via all system components.
It is noted in combination, the communications interface is a component of a mesh network wirelessly connecting the plurality of dampers.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Becelaere et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,241,218) in view of Brenner (U.S. Patent No. 9,257032).
Regarding Claim 17, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
A method (method of operating 10 described in Detailed Description section) of operating a safety system (10), the method comprising:
providing (via the local damper, “the local damper controller sends a signal to the remote router indicative of the position of the damper”, Col. 2, lines 20-22) a damper state (position of the damper) of a fire or smoke damper (20) via electronic communication (a signal is a form of electronic communication) to a remote panel (40/50); and
using (“the router 40 supports software for use with the local panel 50 and/or within the building management system”, Col. 5, lines 43-44) by the remote panel (40/50), the damper state (position of the damper) to provide an alarm (“a red color may indicate an alarm status such as a damper malfunction, Col. 4, lines 59-60; further, alarm signals are created upon malfunctions based on position information, such as “damper does not exist in either a fully open or closed position”, Col. 6, lines 24-35).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing the remote panel is a fire panel.
In the same field of endeavor of fire alarm communications, Brenner teaches (Figure 2):
It is known in the fire alarm communication art for a system (20) to include a remote fire panel (14) comprising a router (“router in every fire panel”, Col. 2, line 1).
Further, “a typical fire alarm system 10 may include a plurality of devices 12 that are connected to one or more fire panels 14”, Col. 1, lines 18-21.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the remote panel shown by Van Becelaere to be a remote fire panel, as taught by Brenner, since it is known in the art for a typical fire alarm system comprising multiple fire devices to be connected to one or more fire panels that each include a router.
Regarding Claim 18, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
The fire or smoke damper (20) comprises:
one or more blades (22) configured to regulate (via the position controlled by 24) airflow (airflow through 20);
a switch contact (30, 32) configured to indicate the damper state (position of the damper) based upon a position (fully open or fully closed, Col. 3, line 44) of the one or more blades (20); and
an actuator (24) configured to move (moved by actuator 24, Col. 3, lines 43-45) the one or more blades (20).
Regarding Claim 20, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
The electronic communication (a signal is a form of electronic communication) is a wired communication (42).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing the communication is wireless.
In the same field of endeavor of fire alarm communications, Brenner further teaches (Figure 2):
It is known for a system (20) to communicate through cables, wires, and wireless links using any of a variety of wireless communications protocols (see Col. 4, lines 25-38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the wired communications shown by Van Becelaere to be wireless, as taught by Brenner, in order to reduce installation costs, by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Becelaere et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,241,218) and Brenner (U.S. Patent No. 9,257032), as recited in Claim 17 above, further in view of Schmuttor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,965,178).
Regarding Claim 19, Van Becelaere shows (Figure 1):
Providing the damper state (position of the damper), wherein the damper state (position of the damper) is provided in a message (signal) comprising an identification (the local controller 36 may include a manually adjustable numeric indicator which can be set to identify the adjacent fire/smoke damper 20… the indicator enables the router 40 and the building management system 44 to identify a specific controller 36 and its associated damper 20”, Col. 4, lines 35-42) of the fire or smoke damper (20), wherein
the system (10) includes a first damper (left 20, as illustrated in Figure 1) and a second damper (middle 20, as illustrated in Figure 1).
However, Van Becelaere lacks showing the first damper sends the damper state to the second damper.
In the same field of endeavor of fire system management, Schmuttor teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the fire system (100) art for the system to comprise a communication mesh network, in which “one controller/sensor node is able to communicate with any other controller/sensor node (point to point) or to communicate with multiple controller/sensor nodes (broadcast)”, Col. 14, lines 48-53.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system with the first damper and the second damper shown by Van Becelaere to be configured to communicate via a mesh network, as taught by Schmuttor, to increase controllability of the system by allowing point to point or broadcast communication via all system components.
It is noted in combination, the first damper sends the damper state to the second damper, since all components of the system can communicate point to point via the mesh network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jenks and Edwards teaches the claimed invention except the periodic basis is every 10 seconds or less.
Modifying Jenks accordingly teaches away from the principle operation of Jenks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related systems:
Maune et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0397300): see Figures 2 and 3
Caliendo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,067,091): see Figure 3
Boddey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,805,519): see Figure 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Steve McAllister, can be reached on 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762