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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masone et al. (Masone; US Patent No. 6,121,885) in view of Stagg (Stagg; US Patent No. 9,799,175, and further in view of Smith (Smith; US 2015/0021993).
As per claim 1, Masone teaches a smoke detector having connectivity for dual primary power sources, the smoke detector comprising:
mains power connectivity adapted to couple to a mains power supply (power supply 16 receiving power from mains; see e.g. FIG. 1);
a long-life battery located in a sealed compartment (enclosed housing which includes a backup battery 20; see e.g. FIG. 1);
a smoke detector to generate a trigger when said smoke detector detects smoke (smoke detector 12, see e.g. FIG. 1, which can generate a trigger when smoke is detected);
a power source selector for selecting between mains power supply and said long-life battery to power, based on the presence of said mains power supply (the system automatically switches from external power source to backup battery in an event of external power interruption, see e.g. col. 5, lines 12-16, which means the system comprises one or more selectors for carrying out the selection); and
a buzzer for issuing an audible alert when triggered by said smoke detector detecting the presence of smoke (an audible alarm is outputted when smoke is detected; see e.g. col. 4, lines 62-67—col. 5, lines 1-4).
Masone does not explicitly teach that the smoke detector is coupled to a microcontroller to generate the trigger and the power is selectively provided to the microcontroller and the smoke detector triggers the microcontroller.
Stagg, however, teaches that a smoke detector is coupled to a microcontroller to generate a trigger and the smoke detector triggers the microcontroller (a detection of smoke or carbon monoxide creates a triggering event, see e.g. col. 7, lines 55-57, a signal is transmitted to at least one LED 44, through a controller [wherein it would have been obvious to use a microcontroller for the purpose of smaller size] thereby triggering the controller; see e.g. FIG. 6). Masone and Stagg are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of faster switching or reduced size of circuitry.
Masone and Stagg do not teach that the power is selectively provided to the microcontroller.
Smith, however, teaches the system can be selectively powered, including one or more processors 210, 230 etc. [see e.g. FIG. 2], by power provided by an AC-to DC convertor or backup battery power source (see e.g. para. [0005]). Furthermore, Smith teaches that batteries can be non-user replaceable and non-rechargeable (see e.g. para. [0053] and para. [0082]).
Masone, Stagg and Smith are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of keeping the system operational using the disclosed backup power even during a power outage.
As per claim 2, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, wherein Smith teaches that said smoke detector can be at least one of an ionization smoke detector (see e.g. para. [0049]) and a photoelectric smoke detector (see e.g. para. [0049] of Smith and col. 3, lines 31-35 of Stagg).
As per claim 8, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, wherein the claimed wherein said long-life battery is a lithium battery (see e.g. para. [0053] and [0059] of Smith).
As per claim 15, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, wherein to output a predefined buzzer frequency to said buzzer, when said smoke detector detects smoke (Masone teaches an audible alarm is outputted when smoke is detected, see e.g. col. 4, lines 62-67—col. 5, lines 1-4, wherein the discloses audible alarm has a predefined frequency and a signal is generated for the audible alarm to generate the audible alarm at the predefined frequency when smoke is detected), wherein the outputting and the triggering can be carried out by a microcontroller as suggested by Stagg and discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1.
As per claim 16, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, further comprising: a third light that illuminates when said microcontroller is triggered by said smoke detector detecting the presence of smoke (Masone teaches a light which can be trigged by a smoke or fire detector, see e.g. col. 4, lines 53-67—col. 5, lines 1-4, wherein the triggering can be carried out by a microcontroller as suggested by Stagg and discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1).
As per claim 17, the smoke detector of claim 16 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, wherein said third light is a red LED that illuminates by flashing periodically in accordance with a predefined frequency (Stagg teaches turning on red LED when smoke/fire is detected, see e.g. col. 8, lines 35-38, wherein Lamb teaches flashing light, see e.g. col. 4, lines 34-36, wherein the flashing would be with a predetermined frequency).
Claims 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masone in view of Stagg, Smith and further in view of Harvey et al. (Harvey; US 2020/0208831).
As per claim 3, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, except the claim further comprising: a first light associated with said mains power connectivity; and a second light associated with said long-life battery; wherein said first light illuminates when said smoke detector is coupled to mains power, and wherein said second light illuminates when said smoke detector is powered by said long-life battery and is not coupled to mains power.
Harvey, however, teaches a plurality of LEDs, wherein the LEDs light up in a certain configuration when they are connected to an AC power source and light up in a different configuration when they are connected to a battery pack (see e.g. claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that turning ON less than all (turning off half of the LEDs, for example) of the LEDs when the battery pack is connected to the LEDs is one of the configurations in order to extend life of the battery pack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Masone, Stagg and Smith along with those of Harvey to indicate which of the power source is being used based on whether all or half of the LEDs are currently operational.
As per claim 4, the smoke detector of claim 3 as taught by Masone, Stagg, Smith, and Harvey, wherein said first and second lights are light emitting diodes (LEDs) (the disclosed lights are LEDs as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 3).
As per claim 5, the smoke detector of claim 3 as taught by Masone, Stagg, Smith, and Harvey, wherein said first light and said second light are different colours (Harvey teaches that the lights can use different colors when an AC power and the battery pack is being used; see e.g. para. [0033]).
Claims 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masone in view of Stagg, Smith and further in view of Harvey and Lamb (Lamb; US Patent No. 7,339,467).
As per claim 6, the smoke detector of claim 3 as taught by Masone, Stagg, Smith, and Harvey, except the claimed wherein said first light illuminates in accordance with a predefined flash sequence.
Lamb, however, teaches that a hazard light can flash to indicate a hazard (see e.g. col. 3, lines 63-65), wherein the flashing would be with a predefined sequence as known in the art. Similarly, the pattern or configuration of one or more of the disclosed LEDs of Harvey can be set to flash based on which power source is currently being used. Masone, Stagg, Smith, Harvey and Lamb are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved awareness without the need of manual inspection.
As per claim 7, the smoke detector of claim 3 as taught by Masone, Stagg, Smith, and Harvey, except the claimed wherein said second light illuminates in accordance with a predefined flash sequence.
Lamb, however, teaches that a hazard light can flash to indicate a hazard (see e.g. col. 3, lines 63-65), wherein the flashing would be with a predefined sequence as known in the art. Similarly, the pattern or configuration of one or more of the disclosed LEDs of Harvey can be set to flash based on which power source is currently being used. Masone, Stagg, Smith, Harvey and Lamb are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved awareness without the need of manual inspection.
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masone in view of Stagg, Lamb and further in view of Kramer (Kramer; US 2019/0297740).
As per claim 9, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Lamb, except the said smoke detector further comprising: a housing that defines a compartment within which said long-life battery is positioned, wherein said compartment is covered by a cover to form said sealed compartment.
Kramer, however, teaches a smoke detector comprising a housing that defines a compartment within which a long-life battery is positioned, wherein said compartment is covered by a cover to form said sealed compartment (see e.g. para. [0032] and [0043]). Masone, Stagg, Lamb and Kramer are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of an enclosed system which can prevent contaminants from getting inside the enclosure and generate erroneous alarms.
As per claim 10, the smoke detector of claim 9 Masone, Stagg, Lamb and Kramer, wherein said cover is secured to said housing using at least one of: engaging clips, lugs, threads, fasteners, and adhesive (Kramer teaches a mechanical fastener; see e.g. [0031]).
As per claim 13, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Lamb, except the claimed detector further comprising: a radio frequency (RF) module, wherein said RF module is configured to transmit a wireless radiofrequency signal when said microcontroller is triggered by said smoke detector.
Kramer, however, teaches a radio frequency (RF) module coupled to said microcontroller, wherein said RF module is configured to transmit a wireless radiofrequency signal (a wireless or hardwired connection to communicate with alarm system 300 for notification to building occupants; see e.g. [0081-83]) when a microcontroller is triggered by said smoke detector (Kramer teaches generating a notification to an alarm system 300, wherein the notification can be a plurality of different situations including but not limited to low battery [as discussed earlier], presence of smoke, radon, carbon monoxide; see e.g. para. [0087]), wherein one or more modules are coupled to microprocessor (see e.g. para. [0083-84]). Masone, Stagg, Lamb and Kramer are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of remote notification of an alarm condition which can save time for a person who needs to manually check for alarm conditions.
As per claim 14, the smoke detector of claim 1, further comprising: connection circuitry for coupling said smoke detector to a remote smoke alarm, wherein said smoke detector sends an activation signal through said connection circuitry to said remote smoke alarm when said smoke detector generates a trigger upon detecting smoke (see the analysis of merits of claim 13, Kramer disclosed sending an alarm condition notification to a remote system, see e.g. see e.g. FIG. 19, wherein alarm condition can be low battery, smoke, carbon monoxide and so forth).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masone in view of Stagg, Smith and further in view of Hirata et al. (Hirata; US 2012/0209441).
As per claim 11, the smoke detector of claim 1 as taught by Masone, Stagg and Smith, wherein said power source selector includes a fixed voltage regulator that outputs: zero voltage when mains power is not coupled to said mains power connectivity (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, Masone teaches switching between an external power source to a backup battery, which means zero voltage is applied from the mains when the switching happens due to power outage). Masone, however, does not teach that a higher voltage than said long-life battery when mains power is coupled to said mains power connectivity.
Hirata, however, teaches that a control circuit 30 changes the power supplied to a load circuit during the power failure to a relatively lower power by changing a resistance of the variable resistor to a relatively higher resistance (see e.g. para. [0078]), wherein higher resistance translates to reduced voltage as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the resistance is reduced or reverted back to normal, after power resumption, which in turn increased voltage. Masone, Stagg, Smith and Hirata are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of longer operation during power failure as suggested by Hirata.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masone in view of Stagg, Smith, Hirata and further in view of Sisselman et al. (Sisselman; US Patent No. 5,574,436).
As per claim 12, the smoke detector of claim 11 Masone, Stagg, Smith and Hirata, wherein said power source selector further includes a reverse biased diode to prevent current flow from said long-life battery when mains power is coupled to said smoke detector.
Sisselman, however, teaches that diode 64 will be reverse biased when AC power is present, and as such, the battery 66 will be effectively switched out of the circuit while the AC power is present (see e.g. col. 10, lines 41-52). Similarly, it would have been obvious in the disclosed combination of Masone, Stagg, Smith and Hirata to have a reverse biased diode for the switching in order to prevent battery drain when AC power is available and keep smoke alarm operational even during power failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights