Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 12/17/2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-20 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goriparti (Pub. No.: 2022/0392447 A1) in view of Penney (Pub. No.: 2018/0293878 A1), Barson (Pub. No.: 2012/0235822 A1), Rodriguez (Pub. No.: 2020/0250963 A1), Bentley (Pat. No.: 10,634,366 B1) and Popkowski (Pub. No.: 2019/0266884 A1).
1) In regard to claim 8, Goriparti discloses the claimed computing device (fig. 1A: 104 discloses as a smart phone; see ¶0034), comprising:
a user interface (its inherent the smart phone has a user interface);
a memory (its inherent the smart phone has a memory); and
a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory (its inherent the smart phone has a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory) to:
receive, via the user interface, a selection to initiate a fire response (¶0040 TEST command);
receive, via the user interface, a selection of a self-testing fire sensing device to initiate the fire response (¶0040 TEST 102A-102D); and
transmit a command to the self-testing fire sensing device to initiate the fire response (¶0060).
Goriparti does not explicitly disclose fire response is generated by generating an aerosol density within the self-testing fire sensing device and drawing the aerosol density level through the self-testing fire sensing device to an optical scatter chamber within the self-testing fire sensing device, wherein the optical scatter chamber is configured to measure the aerosol density level, and wherein the self-testing fire sensing device is configured to activate responsive to the measured aerosol density level reaching a threshold aerosol density level, wherein an output device is triggered to perform an output event responsive to the activation of the self-testing fire sensing device, wherein the output event includes at least one of opening a door, closing a door, opening a vent, closing the vent, and bringing an elevator to a ground floor.
However, Penney discloses it is known for a self-test fire system to generate aerosol density to flow through an optical scatter chamber within the self-testing fire sensing device (¶0049-¶0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Goriparti to generate an aerosol density level within a self-testing fire sensing device, as taught by Penney.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to notify a user of a test result.
Furthermore, Barson discloses it is known for a smoke testing device to draw the aerosol density level through the self-testing fire sensing device (¶0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Goriparti to draw the aerosol density through the chamber, as taught by Barson.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to allow rapid and accurate smoke detection, as taught by Barson (¶0014).
In addition, Rodriguez discloses it has been known to generate an aerosol density within a self-testing fire sensing device (fig. 2: 270 and ¶0024 discloses the aerosol may be generated within the detector)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Goriparti to generate the aerosol within the sensing device, as taught by Rodriguez.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to integrate an electronic vaporizer-atomizer into a smoke detector, as taught by Rodriguez (¶0024).
Also, Bentley discloses it is known for a smoke detection system to have an optical scatter chamber to be configured to measure an aerosol density level, and the self-testing fire sensing device is configured to activate responsive to the measured aerosol density level reaching a threshold aerosol density level (col. 5, lines 64-67 to col. 6, lines 1-10), and an output device is triggered to perform an output event responsive to the activation of the self-testing fire sensing device (col. 4, lines 61-67 to col. 5, lines 1-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Goriparti to measure smoke density to determine an activation event, as taught by Bentley.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to set a trigger to activate the device.
Lastly, Popkowski discloses it is known for an inspection system to allow an output event to include at least one of opening a door, closing a door, and bringing an elevator to a ground floor (¶0024 initiation of a smoke detector automatically open or closes doors, and recall elevators to a floor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Goriparti output event be one of opening a door, closing a door, and bringing an elevator to a ground floor, as taught by Popkowski.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to prevent the spread of the fire and eliminate emergency situations, as taught by Popkowski (¶0024).
2) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 8), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to receive a notification of an output event triggered (Goriparti ¶0040 and ¶0049).
3) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 9), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, on the user interface, the output event triggered (Goriparti ¶0040 and ¶0049).
4) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 9), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, on the user interface, a number of output events not triggered (Goriparti ¶0040 and ¶0049).
5) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 9), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, on the user interface, an output event that was supposed to be triggered (Goriparti ¶0040 and ¶0049).
6) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 8), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, via the user interface, a selection to open an application; and
display, via the user interface, the selection to initiate the fire response responsive to receiving the selection to open the application (Goriparti ¶0040).
7) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 8), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to display a type, location, address, or label of the self- testing fire sensing device (Goriparti ¶0051)
8) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 8), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, via the user interface, a selection to end the fire response; and
transmit a command to end the fire response to the self-testing fire sensing device responsive to receiving the selection (Goriparti ¶0047).
9) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the computing device of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit a command to reset a control panel responsive to receiving the selection to end the fire response (Goriparti ¶0047).
10) In regard to claim 1, claim 1 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the self-testing fire sensing device of claim 1, further comprising a variable airflow generator configured to draw the aerosol density level through the self- testing fire sensing device to the optical scatter chamber (Barson ¶0027).
12) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the self-testing fire sensing device of claim 1.
Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski do not explicitly disclose a light-emitting diode (LED) configured to turn on responsive to initiating the fire response.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a sensing device to provide an LED indication for initiating a fire response.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the sensing device to include an LED indicator.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to provide a use a visual indication the command has been received.
13) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the self-testing fire sensing device of claim 1.
Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski do not explicitly disclose initiating the fire response includes providing audio alarms.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a sensing device to initiate an audio alarm in response to a fire response.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the sensing device of Goriparti to initiate an audio alarm.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Goriparti as described above in order to provide a use an audio indication the command has been received.
14) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the self-testing fire sensing device of claim 1, further comprising an adjustable particle generator configured to generate the aerosol density level (Barson ¶0027).
15) In regard to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 18), claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 18), Goriparti, Penney, Barson, Rodriguez, Bentley and Popkowski further disclose the control panel of claim 18, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a command to reset the control panel; and
reset the control panel responsive to receiving the command to reset (Goriparti ¶0046-¶0047).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the /Patent claims together met all of the claim subject matter of current claims. Furthermore, Patent is a sub-genus of the examined application and, therefore, a patent of the genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of the sub-genus should the genus be issued as a patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims. Furthermore, the well-known in the art statements in the above Office action is taken to be admitted prior art due to applicant failure to traverse the examiner’s official notice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685