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 § 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, 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2014/0379305) in view of Holland et al. (US 2014/0375206).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 16-18, Kumar discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, data from one or more occupancy detection sensors that are mounted on or integrated within a sensor base (page 3, [0104], page 4, [0113]), wherein the sensor base of a sensor is mounted to a ceiling in an area of a building (page 3, [0104], wherein a sensor is mounted on or integrated within the sensor base (page 3, [0104]; page 4, [0113]); determining, by the computing device, whether the data is indicative of a change in an occupancy status of the area of the building (page 4, [0114-0117]) and adjusting, the computing device, a sensitivity of the sensor responsive to the data from the one or more occupancy detection sensors mounted on or integrated within the sensor base of the sensor being indicative of the change in the occupancy status of the area of the building (page 1, [0005]; page 3, [0104]; page 4, [0114-0117]). Claims 16-18, a processor (fig. 5); a memory communicatively coupled with the processor and storing instructions that are executable by the processor (fig. 5; page 4, [0110-0111]).
Kumar discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly fire detection.
However, Holland discloses fire detection (smoke detection in page 2, [0010], line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Holland within the system of Kumar in order to encourage a user to obtain sensitivity of the smoke detector in an enclosure thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 15, Kumar discloses wherein the one or more occupancy detection sensors comprise at least one passive infrared sensor (PIR) (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses wherein the at least one passive infrared sensor has a field of view that is defined at least partially by a height of the ceiling and a distance on the sensor base between the at least one passive infrared sensor and a housing of the primary sensor (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar discloses wherein the distance on the sensor base between the at least one passive infrared sensor and the housing of the fire detection sensor is configured to cause the field of view of the at least one passive infrared sensor to cover at least a boundary area within the area of the building (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Although, Kumar and Holland disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 but fail to specify that wherein the boundary area has a radius of at least 10 feet on a floor of the area of the building. Since Kumar discloses floor of the area of the building (page 1, [0005-0006]) but fails to specify a radius of at least 10 feet; therefore it would have been obvious to any skill artisan at the time of the invention to specify a radius of at least 10 feet in order to encourage a user to obtain sensitivity of the smoke detector in an enclosure thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claim 6, Kumar discloses wherein the fire detection sensor is configured to communicate with a control panel according to a first protocol, wherein the one or more occupancy detection sensors are
configured to communicate with the fire detection sensor according to a second protocol different than the first protocol (fig. 1, fig. 5; page 4, [0113-0114]).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar discloses wherein the first protocol has a higher voltage than the second protocol (page 6, [0133]).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses wherein the first protocol defines a larger packet size than the second protocol (fig. 1, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar discloses receiving the data by the fire detection sensor from the one or more occupancy detection sensors according to the second protocol (fig. 1; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar discloses wherein the adjusting comprises adjusting the sensitivity of the primary sensor by a microcontroller in the primary sensor (fig. 1, fig. 5; page 4, [0113-0114]).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar discloses sending the data by the fire detection sensor to the control panel according to the first protocol (fig. 1; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar discloses receiving a message from the control panel according to the first protocol and responsive to the data; and adjusting the sensitivity of the fire detection sensor according to the message from the control panel (fig. 1, fig. 5; page 4, [0113-0114)]).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar discloses wherein the primary sensor comprises at least one of a heat detector, a smoke detector, a carbon monoxide detector, or a combination detector (HVAC in page 3, [0105]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 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.
For at least the above reason, the rejection of the claims is sustained.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fadell et al. (US 9,600,989) discloses detector....housing.
Kalagani et al. (US 2019/0355241) discloses calibration.....control zone.
Richmond (US 2008/0291036) discloses multifunction smoke alarm unit.
Dixon et al. (US 2016/0116343) discloses adaptive......sensors.
Barnard et al. (US 2015/0373482) discloses application.......networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
November 4, 2025
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights