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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18 and 20-25 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18 and 20-25 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 2, recites the limitation “the life safety device” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, is also rejected because it depends on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 16, 21, 23 and 25are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pedersen (Pub. No.: US 2019/0147716 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen teaches a device (Fig. 1, detector 10), comprising:
at least one control circuit (para [0029], “The electromagnetic sensor 26 is configured to detect the light, and with the use of additional circuitry and/or a controller, generate an alert that the fire detector 10 is in the covered condition.”. The detector includes a controller);
a housing that houses the at least one control circuit (Fig. 1, shows the housing the detector 10); and
a first ambient light sensor coupled to the at least one control circuit (Fig. 1, electromagnetic sensor 26, para [0007], “In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an alternative, further embodiments may include that the electromagnetic emitter comprises an infrared light source.”);
wherein the first ambient light sensor is configured to detect ambient light present outside the housing (Fig. 1 – Fig. 2, the sensor 26 detects ambient light indicator 22 reflected over from an external object / cover 18);
wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to:
in a calibration mode (Fig. 1, detector is not covered):
receive, from the first ambient light sensor, a first signal representing a first intensity of ambient light present outside the housing (Fig. 1, the sensor receives an inactive indicator signal 22 when the detector is not covered by object 18); and
determine a first baseline ambient light level based on the first signal from the first ambient light sensor (para [0014], “The method compares the received signal measured when the indicator is inactive with the received signal when the indicator is active. The difference between the two signals is used to identify when the sensor assembly is covered or partially covered”. The detector stores the inactive indicator signal); and
in a proximity detection mode (Fig. 2, detector is covered):
receive, from the first ambient light sensor, a second signal representing a second intensity of ambient light present outside the housing (Fig. 2, the sensor receives an active indicator signal 22 when the detector is covered by object 18);
compare the second signal from the first ambient light sensor to the first baseline ambient light level;
determine by a first analysis that a first difference in ambient light from the first baseline ambient light level indicates a presence of an object in proximity to the device (para [0014], “The method compares the received signal measured when the indicator is inactive with the received signal when the indicator is active. The difference between the two signals is used to identify when the sensor assembly is covered or partially covered.”. The detector compares the active indicator signal with the inactive indicator signal to determine if the detector is covered); and
issue an alert indicating the presence of the object in the proximity to the device based at least in part on the first analysis (para [0029], “The electromagnetic sensor 26 is configured to detect the light, and with the use of additional circuitry and/or a controller, generate an alert that the fire detector 10 is in the covered condition.”).
Regarding claim 11, recites a method for the device of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 16, recites an article of manufacture for the device of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 21, Pedersen teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising:
an environmental sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one control circuit;
wherein the environmental sensor is configured to send a signal representing a presence of an environmental hazard to the at least one control circuit; and
wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to issue an alert to indicate the presence of the environmental hazard in response to receiving the signal from the environmental sensor (para [0024], “In particular, the fire detector 10 is configured to detect heat, smoke, and/or other conditions that are indicative of a safety and/or damage concern to the environment 16. The fire detector 10 may be a single detector used in a residential or commercial setting, or may be part of a safety system that includes a plurality of fire detectors.”. The detector detects smoke).
Regarding claim 23, recites a method for the device of claim 21. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 25, recites an article of manufacture for the device of claim 21. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 6, 15, 20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (Pub. No.: US 2019/0147716 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Pedersen teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising:
a second ambient light sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one control circuit and disposed at a different position relative to the first ambient light sensor;
wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to:
in the calibration mode:
receive, from the second ambient light sensor, a third signal representing a third intensity of ambient light present outside the housing; and
determine a second baseline ambient light level based on the third signal from the second ambient light sensor; and
in the proximity detection mode:
receive, from the first ambient light sensor, a fourth signal representing a fourth intensity of ambient light present outside the housing;
compare the fourth signal from the second ambient light sensor to the second baseline ambient light level;
determine by a second analysis that a second difference in ambient light from the second baseline ambient light level indicates the presence of the object in the proximity to the life safety device; and
issue the alert indicating the presence of the object in the proximity to the life safety device based at least in part on the second analysis.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen’s detector with a second electromagnetic sensor to obtain a second inactive indicator signal and a second active indicator signal that are similar to the first electromagnetic sensor because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 15, recites a method for the device of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, recites an article of manufacture for the device of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 22, Pedersen teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first ambient light sensor is placed outside the housing.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen’s sensor 26 to be placed outside of the detector housing to achieve the same expected result since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ70.
Regarding claim 24, recites a method for the device of claim 22. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 12-13 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685