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
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 Piccolo (US Pat. # 9659485) in view of Rossiter (US Pub. # 8689602).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Piccolo teaches, “A trim element (claims 10 and 19: fire detection system, and method) for covering a base portion of a smoke detector, the trim element comprising: a hollow housing (Fig. 1A, ref. # 108), the hollow housing defining at least one aerosolizing chamber and at least one outlet (207-1 to 207-n) in fluid communication with the at least one aerosolizing chamber (Fig. 1A, 1B; ref. # 108 w/ 112 and 206, 209; col. 4, ln. 33–67), wherein the at least one aerosolizing chamber comprises: at least one aerosol generator (206; col. 2, ln. 22–54; col. 4, ln. 45–61) to generate an aerosol; and at least one processor (204) electrically coupled to the at least one aerosol generator (204 w/ 206), the at least one processor configured to: receive an input signal indicative of an inspection mode of the smoke detector (col. 4, ln. 45–61); and transmit an activation signal to the at least one aerosol generator in response to receiving the input signal (col. 4, ln. 45–61; col. 7, ln. 15–21); (claim 10) a photo detection chamber for receiving ambient particulate materials (col. 5, ln. 11–13, 39–55); (claim 19) determining, using a smoke detector controller, if an amount of ambient particulate matter within the photo detection chamber is above a threshold level; generating a notification, using a notification unit, if the determined amount of ambient particulate matter is above the threshold level; and verifying, via the control circuitry during the inspection mode, operational integrity of the fire detection system based on the notification unit generating at least one of an audio notification, a visual notification, an audio-visual notification, and a haptic notification (col. 5, ln. 66–col. 6, ln. 5; col. 7, ln. 22–col. 8, ln. 37).” Piccolo doesn’t necessarily teach, “a hollow housing comprising an inner wall adapted to removably attach the hollow housing to the base portion of the smoke detector; at least one airflow generating element to direct airflow in combination with the generated aerosol towards the at least one outlet; transmit an activation signal to the at least one airflow generating element in response to receiving the input signal.” However, Rossiter teaches, “a hollow housing comprising an inner wall adapted to removably attach the hollow housing to the base portion of the smoke detector (Fig. 1–4; ref. # 12 w/ 11; col. 3, ln. 5–38); at least one airflow generating element (col. 3, ln. 39–41) to direct airflow in combination with the generated aerosol towards the at least one outlet; transmit an activation signal (col. 3, ln. 56–col. 6, ln. 13, which discusses control of the test, in combination with col. 3, ln. 39–41) to the at least one airflow generating element in response to receiving the input signal.” It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Piccolo’s invention to include a hollow housing comprising an inner wall adapted to removably attach the hollow housing to the base portion of the smoke detector; at least one airflow generating element to direct airflow in combination with the generated aerosol towards the at least one outlet; transmit an activation signal to the at least one airflow generating element in response to receiving the input signal.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Piccolo’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the smoke/aerosol/stimulus is directed to the detection area in the most direct manner, simulating real environments (walls/ceilings) as taught by Rossiter, while also allowing portability of the testing device, by allowing attachment to plural other detection devices.
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 6, Piccolo doesn’t necessarily teach, “wherein the hollow housing is a frustoconical-shaped ring comprising the at least one outlet proximal the inner wall, wherein the at least one outlet is directed towards the smoke detector; a plurality of flow directing elements spaced apart relative to each other along a peripheral surface of the hollow housing, wherein each of the plurality of flow directing elements is adapted to define at least one outlet; wherein the at least one processor is configured to regulate a speed of the airflow generating element to selectively direct the airflow in combination with the generated aerosol through the at least one outlet of a flow directing element from among the plurality of flow directing elements.” However, Rossiter teaches the deficiencies of Piccolo (see shape of 12 in figures, and 14’s facing detector 10; col. 3, ln. 12–19, 48–52; col. 3, ln. 39–41). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Piccolo’s invention to include the claim language of claims 2, 5, and 6 as shown above.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Piccolo’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the smoke/aerosol/stimulus is directed to the detection area in the most direct manner, simulating real environments (walls/ceilings) as taught by Rossiter.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Piccolo teaches, “at least one flow directing element adapted to define the at least one outlet at a first end, wherein the at least one flow directing element is in fluid communication with the at least one aerosolizing chamber at a second end; wherein the at least one flow directing element is an airflow scoop (Fig. 1A, ref. # 113 at 209, 207n).”
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Piccolo teaches smoke equivalent stimulus/actuation devices (Abstract; col. 2, ln. 22–54; col. 4, ln. 45–61; ref. # 204, 206), but doesn’t necessarily teach, “wherein the at least one aerosol generator comprises: a liquid storage chamber for storing a liquid; and an actuator operably engaged with the liquid storage chamber and adapted to aerosolize the liquid to form an aerosol; wherein the liquid is one of an aerosol forming liquid and a liquid containing dissolved salts.” However, this arrangement for producing smoke equivalents (including non-flammable materials such as aqueous/liquid salts or salines) for testing fire alarm systems is well-known in the art of smoke detection and here the examiner takes Official notice.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Piccolo’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring safe testing of the detection apparatus with non-flammable/non-harmful materials.
Regarding claim 9, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the smoke detector further comprises at least one of a heat sensor (col. 6, ln. 39–46), a Carbon monoxide sensor, and a gas sensor for detecting at least one of an ambient temperature, a presence of a carbon monoxide gas, and a presence of a hazardous gas respectively, wherein the hazardous gas is at least one of an oxide of Carbon, an oxide of Sulphur, an oxide of Nitrogen, a Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon, and an aldehyde.”
Regarding claim 11, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the at least one outlet is directed towards the photo detection chamber and wherein the at least one outlet is adapted to transfer the generated aerosol into the photo detection chamber (209 & 207n’s towards 212, 214).”
Regarding claim 12, Piccolo teaches, “a control circuitry configured to transmit the input signal, during the inspection mode, to the at least one processor (202, 204; Col. 4, ln. 45–61; col. 7, ln. 15–21).”
Regarding claim 13, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the at least one smoke detector further comprises: a notification unit; and a smoke detector controller configured to: determine if an amount of ambient particulate materials within the photo detection chamber is above a threshold level; and generate a notification using the notification unit if the determined amount of ambient particulate materials is above the threshold level (col. 5, ln. 11–13, 39–55, 66–col. 6, ln. 5; col. 7, ln. 22–col. 8, ln. 37).”
Regarding claim 14, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the inspection mode is triggered based on a control circuitry receiving an input (col. 4, ln. 45–61; col. 7, ln. 15–21).”
Regarding claim 15, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the inspection mode is triggered periodically at predefined intervals (col. 2, ln. 5–12; col. 7, ln. 8–21).”
Regarding claim 16, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the notification is one of an audio notification, a visual notification, an audio-visual notification, and a haptic notification (col. 5, ln. 66–col. 6, ln. 5; col. 7, ln. 22–col. 8, ln. 37).”
Regarding claim 17, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the control circuitry is further configured to verify operational integrity of the at least one smoke detector based on a notification unit generating the notification when the aerosol enters the photo detection chamber during the inspection mode (col. 5, ln. 11–13, 39–55; col. 5, ln. 66–col. 6, ln. 5; col. 7, ln. 22–col. 8, ln. 37).”
Regarding claim 18, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate a secondary notification on at least one computing device based on the control circuitry verifying operational integrity of the at least one smoke detector (via 202; col. 5, ln. 11–13, 39–55; col. 5, ln. 66–col. 6, ln. 5; col. 7, ln. 22–col. 8, ln. 37).”
Regarding claim 20, Piccolo teaches, “wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate a secondary notification on at least one computing device based on the control circuitry verifying operational integrity of the at least one smoke detector, wherein the secondary notification is one of an audio notification, a visual notification, an audio-visual notification, and a haptic notification (col. 5, ln. 11–13, 39–55; col. 5, ln. 66–col. 6, ln. 5; col. 7, ln. 22–col. 8, ln. 37).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach smoke detection devices with testing configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights