DETAILE 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the title of the invention, “SENSING SENSOR” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “light transmitting window” should perhaps read --light transmission window--.
Regarding claim 2, “through one of opposing surfaces” should perhaps read
--through one surface of a pair of opposing surfaces--.
Further regarding claim 2, “through the other of the opposing surfaces” should perhaps read --through the other surface of the pair of opposing surfaces--.
Further regarding claim 2, “the light is transmitted” should perhaps read--at least a part of the light transmitted to the outside of the casing is transmitted--.
Regarding claim 4, “is formed at least one of the pair of the opposing surfaces” should perhaps read --is formed on at least one surface of the pair of opposing surfaces--.
Claims 2-4 are further objected to by virtue of dependency.
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, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomooka (JP H11250362 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tomooka discloses a sensing sensor (Fig. 3, security sensor 1) comprising
a sensor part that detects an object to be detected (Fig. 3, pyroelectric sensor 4; ¶ 12, sensor 4 detects intrusion of a human body) and
a masking detection structure (Figs. 3 & 6, light emitting element 11, light receiving element 12, light guide member 8, detection circuit 15) that detects a masking material that nullifies a detection function of the sensor part (Fig. 7, film 19; ¶¶ 3, 12, 16 & 20-22, film blocks infrared rays used by sensor 4 “so that the security sensor cannot detect a human body” where the masking is determined by circuit 15), wherein
the masking detection structure comprises a light source and a light receiver housed in a casing together with the sensor part (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12, and 4 in casing 3), and
a light transmission window that closes an opening formed in the casing (Fig. 3, light guide member 8 closes opening of casing 3), and
the light transmitting window has a concave portion recessed toward an inside of the casing (Fig. 3, inward concave valleys of front surface 8a indented towards the inside of casing 3; ¶¶ 13, 17), and
light emitted from the light source is transmitted from the inside of the casing to an outside thereof through the concave portion (Fig. 6, ray L1 passing outward through surface 8a; ¶¶ 14-15).
Regarding claim 3, Tomooka discloses the sensing sensor of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the masking detection structure is configured such that at least a part of the light emitted from the light source is guided to the light receiver in a normal state in which the masking material is not detected (Fig. 6 & 7(a); ¶¶ 14-15, light travels through member 8 to receiver 12 remains constant in the unobstructed state).
Regarding claim 5, Tomooka discloses the sensing sensor of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the masking detection structure further comprises a reflecting member that reflects the light emitted from the light source toward the concave portion, or a reflecting member that reflects the light transmitted from the outside of the casing to the inside thereof through the concave portion toward the light receiver (Fig. 5, reflective film 8h; ¶¶ 13-14, reflecting member 8h reflects light from back surface 8b towards concave portion front surface 8a).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhevelev (US 20090014654 A1) in view of Shpater (US 6215399 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhevelev discloses a sensing sensor (Figs. 14-15, detector 582; ¶¶ 297, 302) comprising
a sensor part that detects an object to be detected (Fig. 15, subdetectors 516, 526, 536, 546, 556, 566, and 576; ¶¶ 299-301, intruder detection) and
a masking detection structure that detects a masking material (Figs. 14-15, emitter 590, receiver 594, and window 584; ¶¶ 309-310, detects masking material sprayed on window 584) […], wherein
the masking detection structure comprises a light source and a light receiver housed in a casing together with the sensor part (Figs. 14-15, emitter 590 and receiver 594 within housing element 580 together with subdetectors 516, 526, 536, 546, 556, 566, and 576), and
a light transmission window that closes an opening formed in the casing (Figs. 14-15, window 584), and
the light transmitting window has a concave portion recessed toward an inside of the casing (Fig. 15, window 584 depicts inward bow recessed towards the inside of housing 580), and
light emitted from the light source is transmitted from the inside of the casing to an outside thereof through the concave portion (¶ 309, emitter 590 emits radiation from inside of housing 580 to outside through window 584; Fig. 15).
Although Zhevelev further discloses that masking can reduce subdetector sensitivity associated with object detection (¶¶ 195, 320-321), Zhevelev does not expressly disclose that the masking material reduces the response of the sensor part sufficiently to prevent detection of an otherwise detectable low signal object, specifically, the limitation: [a masking material] “that nullifies a detection function of the sensor part.” However, Shpater teaches the nullification of detector function in sensing an intruder when sensitivity is lowered (Col. 1:30-33), and that only objects producing sufficiently large infrared disturbances are detected (Col. 4:4-8) corresponding to when the sensor signal exceeds a predetermined threshold (Col. 5:36-43). 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 sensor of Zhevelev with the teachings of Shpater, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to identify masking materials capable of nullifying detection of a low signal object and reduce the known risk of failing to detect intruder motion when detector sensitivity is lowered, thereby yielding a more reliable sensor with improved protection against masking attacks that could otherwise allow intrusions to go undetected (Shpater, Col. 1:30-33; Col. 4:4-8; Col. 5:36-43).
Regarding claim 2, Zhevelev in view of Shpater teaches the sensing sensor of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein at least a part of the light emitted from the light source is transmitted from the inside of the casing to the outside thereof (Zhevelev, ¶ 309) through one of opposing surfaces that form the concave portion (see Annotated Figs. 14-15 of Zhevelev, introduced below) and that face each other (see Annotated Fig. 15 of Zhevelev, below), and the light is transmitted from the outside of the casing to the inside thereof (Zhevelev, ¶ 309) through the other of the opposing surfaces (see Annotated Fig. 15 of Zhevelev, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
1227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Zhevelev in view of Shpater does not teach the sensor of claim 2, wherein a step portion is formed on at least one of the opposing surfaces. Tomooka does not remedy the deficiency of Zhevelev in view of Shpater.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include:
Wieser (US 5942976 A) discloses an infrared sensor with a light source and receiver that monitor an entrance window for masking using an optical grating structure. However, Wieser does not teach the specific step portion on either of two opposing surfaces defining a concave portion, as cover under claim 4.
Richard (US 20080231444 A1) discloses an infrared intrusion sensor having an entrance window with groves which light passes before reaching a detector, enabling masking spray detection through changes in received intensity. However, Richard does not disclose a concave portion defined by opposing surfaces where a step portion is formed on at least one of the opposing surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights