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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/03/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Status
Claims 2-4 are newly added, therefore claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler et al. (Fiedler; US 2015/0194127) in view of Li et al. (Li; US 2024/0078879) and further in view of Edwards (Edwards; WO 2005/116519).
As per claim 1, Fiedler teaches a fire light safety system comprising:
a smoke detector for generating a fire signal in response to a fire in an interior living space (one or more sensors, see e.g. FIG. 3, wherein the sensors can be including but not limited to a smoke sensor or detector, see e.g. para. [0016], which can generate a fire or no fire signal as known in the art when fire or smoke is detected, see e.g. para. [0116], wherein the disclosed system is located in a residence; see e.g. para. [0016]);
a first transmitter located adjacent said smoke detector, responsive to said fire signal from said smoke detector for transmitting said fire signal wirelessly to a control circuit adjacent said fire safety light (transmitting detection signals to an RGBW controller, see e.g. FIG. 3, wherein the controller can receive the signal wirelessly, see e.g. para. [0093], wherein the controller further conveys one or more commands or information to one or more output devices including illumination devices, see e.g. FIG. 3, which means that the controller at least comprises a transceiver wherein the sensor/detector comprises a transmitter; even though the disclosed transmitter/detector and the controller/safety light are not expressly located adjacent to each other, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the transmitter/detector and the controller/safety light located adjacent to each other [single device] or remotely from one another [separate devices] since it has been held obvious by courts, see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, part V);
a control circuit responsive to said fire signal for generating a trigger signal to control the illumination of said fire safety lights, wherein said control circuit includes a second transceiver for receiving said fire signal from said first transmitter and generating a trigger signal; and a plurality of fire safety lights that illuminate in response to said trigger signal (in response to the received signal, i.e. fire detection, a control or trigger signal can be generated and an LED or strip of lights are actuated or turned on; para. [0058-62]. As discussed earlier, the disclosed system of Fiedler at least comprises a transmitter on the sensor/detector side and transceiver on the RGBW on the controller side, see e.g. FIG. 3 and para. [0093] and [0058-62]).
Fiedler does not teach a transceiver for the disclosed smoker detector.
Li, however, teaches a smoke detector, at an interior of the premises comprising (inter alia) a smoke detector housing and a smoke detector wireless transceiver (see e.g. abstract). Fielder and Li 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 a transceiver included in a smoke detector for a future proof sensor system where the sensor(s) may receive over-the-air updates.
Even though Fiedler and Li teach a plurality of fire safety lights and control circuit, they do not explicitly teach a housing for the safety lights and control circuit mounted in exit path in a building.
Edwards, however, teaches a plurality of fire safety lights (guidance lamps, path lamps etc.; see e.g. FIG. 1) and control circuit (microcontroller 12; see e.g. FIG. 1) in a housing 10 mounted in exit path in a building (see e.g. FIG. 2 and abstract). Fielder, Li and Edwards are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved escape in case of fire by indicating direction of movement as suggested by Edwards (see e.g. page 1, first paragraph).
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Li, Edwards and further in view of Kaiser (Kaiser; US Patent No. 6,222,455).
As per claim 2, the fire safety system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Fielder, Li and Edwards, except the claimed wherein said enclosure is mounted to an interior door.
Kaiser, however, teaches an alerting enclosure is mounted to an interior door (see e.g. FIGS. 7-8 and col. 3, lines 56-64). Fielder, Li, Edwards and Kaiser are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of warning occupants of a building which in turn may reduce fire or smoke related accidents.
As per claim 3, the fire safety system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Fielder, Li and Edwards, except the claimed wherein said enclosure is mounted to adjacent a bottom portion of the interior door.
Kaiser, however, teaches an alerting enclosure is mounted adjacent a bottom portion (the area below the door knob is interpreted as bottom portion, see e.g. FIG. 1) of the interior door (see e.g. FIGS. 7-8 and col. 3, lines 56-64). Fielder, Li, Edwards and Kaiser are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of warning occupants of a building which in turn may reduce fire or smoke related accidents.
As per claim 4, the fire safety system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Fielder, Li and Edwards, except the claimed wherein said enclosure is mounted to an exterior portion of an interior door.
Gonchar, however, teaches an alerting enclosure is mounted to an interior door (see e.g. FIGS. 7-8 and col. 3, lines 56-64). Furthermore, Kaiser teaches that the housing can be removably hung from door knob (see e.g. col. 2, lines 9-13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed one or more sensors can be mounted inside an interior room and the disclosed signal light or signal device 11 (see e.g. FIG. 1) can be mounted outside a child’s room, for example, in order to alert parents outside of the child’s room.
Fielder, Li, Edwards and Kaiser are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of warning occupants of a building which in turn may reduce fire or smoke related accidents.
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
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.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688