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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 13 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the coupling bar" in L2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Imai et al. (US 6,371,925 B1; pub. Apr. 16, 2002).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. disclose: A sensing device, comprising:
an infrared sensor (fig.1 item 17);
a condenser lens (col.5 L18-24, col.9 L8-10) located adjacent to a front side of the infrared sensor; and
a cover located (fig.1 item 1) adjacent to a front side of the condenser lens and covering the condenser lens, and the cover having a hole that is smaller than the condenser lens (the opening formed by item 1 of fig.1 is smaller than 14).
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. disclose: the cover includes a portion having an increasing inner diameter that from a front side thereof remote from the condenser lens toward a rear side thereof adjacent to the condenser lens (the diameter increases from the tip of item 1 of fig.1 toward item 14 of fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. disclose: a distance between the hole of the cover and the infrared sensor is larger than a diameter of the hole (fig.3A – fig.3D).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. disclose: the cover extends rearwards from a front side thereof remove from the condenser lens to a rear side thereof adjacent to the condenser lens (fig.3A – fig.3D).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. disclose: an inner surface of the cover has an emissive structure recessed into or protruding from the inner surface (fig.6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 6,371,925 B1; pub. Apr. 16, 2002) in view of Chen (US 2019/0059142 A1; pub. Feb. 21, 2019).
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. are silent about: the condenser lens has a shape protruding frontward away from the infrared sensor, and the cover accommodates at least a portion of the condenser lens within an inner space thereof.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chen discloses: the condenser lens has a shape protruding frontward away from the infrared sensor, and the cover accommodates at least a portion of the condenser lens within an inner space thereof (fig.3B item 13A) motivated by the benefits for improved motion detector (Chen para. [0036]).
In light of the benefits for improved motion detector as taught by Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al. disclose: a warning unit (fig.1 item 20) disposed in the body and configured to output sound or light in response to infrared light detected through by the infrared sensor.
Chen et al. are silent about: a body into which the infrared sensor is installed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chen discloses: a body into which the infrared sensor is installed (para. [0046]) motivated by the benefits for a scalable sensor.
In light of the benefits for a scalable sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Chen.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 6,371,925 B1; pub. Apr. 16, 2002) in view of Young et al. (US 4,873,469; pub. Oct. 10, 1989).
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. are silent about: the cover includes a shield wall protruding inward from an inner surface, the shield wall partially and covering the condenser lens.
In a similar field of endeavor, Young et al. disclose: the cover includes a shield wall protruding inward from an inner surface, the shield wall (fig.24 item 319) partially and covering the condenser lens motivated by the benefits for preventing external interference.
In light of the benefits for preventing external interference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Young et al.
Regarding claim 8, Young et al. disclose: the shield wall defines a shield hole therein having a smaller diameter than the hole of the cover (fig.24 item 319) motivated by the benefits for preventing external interference.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 6,371,925 B1; pub. Apr. 16, 2002) in view of Mans et al. (US 2015/0008325 A1; pub. Jan. 8, 2015).
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. are silent about: the cover is rotatable relative to the infrared sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mans et al. disclose: the cover is rotatable relative to the infrared sensor (para. [0021]) motivated by the benefits for easily movable detector (Mans et al. para. [0007]).
In light of the benefits for improved motion detector as taught by Mans et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Mans et al.
Claims 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 6,371,925 B1; pub. Apr. 16, 2002) in view of Shinomiya (JP2020012747A; pub. Jan. 23, 2020).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. are silent about: a body into which the infrared sensor is installed; and a pair of sights protruding outwardly from an upper surface of the body.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shinomiya discloses: a body (fig.1 items 50 & 51) into which the infrared sensor is installed; and a pair of sights (fig.3 items 40) protruding outwardly from an upper surface of the body motivated by the benefits for improved measurement accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved measurement accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Shinomiya.
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. are silent about: a mount that is coupled to the coupling bar.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shinomiya discloses: a mount (fig.1 items 52) that is coupled to the coupling bar (fig.1 items 50 & 51) motivated by the benefits for an adjustable sensor.
In light of the benefits for an adjustable sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Shinomiya.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 6,371,925 B1; pub. Apr. 16, 2002) in view of Liao et al. (US 6,653,635 B2; pub. Nov. 25, 2003).
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. are silent about: a body into which the infrared sensor is installed; and a coupling bar extending outwardly from a lower surface of below the body.
In a similar field of endeavor Liao et al. disclose: a body into which the infrared sensor is installed (fig.4); and a coupling bar (fig.4 item 23) extending outwardly from a lower surface of below the body motivated by the benefits for an adjustable sensor.
In light of the benefits for an adjustable sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen et al. with the teachings of Liao et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884