CTFR 18/920,908 CTFR 89299 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarosz et al. (“Jarosz”, US 4419658 A, on the record) in view of Lee (WO 2018174540 A1, on the record), Du et al. (“Du”, CN 202160278 U, on the record) and Chilla et al. (“Chilla”, US 20210349066 A1). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 9, a portable fire alarm device, comprising: As per the limitation sensing unit configured to receive a plurality of signals from at least one of one or more on-board sensors and one or more remotely located sensor devices to generate sensor related data corresponding to an environment. Jarosz discloses, in Col. 2, lines 21-43 with reference to Figs. 2-3, the use of a sensing unit 18 to enable detection of the presence of smoke. While, Jarosz discloses a single sensor chamber 52. In the same art, Lee discloses, on page 4; Fig. 4, the concept of providing a fire detection means (corresponding to a sensing unit) configured to mount a smoke and gas sensor and various other fire sensor device to enable detection of fire conditions and provide a corresponding alert. In an analogous art of providing, emergency warnings via a portable device Du discloses, in ¶¶31-32; Fig. 3, the concept of connecting external sensors to enable emergency warnings via external sensors. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a fire detection means configured to mount a smoke and gas sensor and various other fire sensor device to enable detection of fire conditions and provide a corresponding alert and the concept of connecting external sensors to enable emergency warnings via external sensors, with the motivation to enhance the fire detection and alerting features of the system. As per the limitation an alert generation unit (Lee: page 4; Fig. 3: alarm means 20) configured to generate an alert based on the sensor-related data indicating a potential fire hazard within the environment (Lee: page 4) . As per the limitation the alert generation unit configured to generate to validate signals from the one or more on-board sensors and the one or more remotely located sensor devices before generating the alert, and wherein the alert generation unit is configured to generate the alert based on a determination that sensor related data from at least two sensors of the one or more on-board sensors and the one or more remotely located sensor devices satisfies respective predefined criteria. Chilla discloses, in ¶¶32-33, 51, 73-75, 148-160; Figs. 1 & 6-7, the concept of receiving signals from a plurality of fire detection sensors (FDS) and then confirming (corresponding to validating) that more than one FDS confirms a hazardous condition by using threshold criteria analysis. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of receiving signals from a plurality of fire detection sensors (FDS) and then confirming that more than one FDS confirms a hazardous condition by using threshold criteria analysis, with the motivation to enhance the determination features of the system. As per the limitation a power unit comprising: a pluggable power interface to enable a connection of the portable fire alarm device with an Alternating Current (AC) outlet to supply power to the sensing unit and the alert generation unit to generate the alert (see Jarosz: Col. 2, lines 21-43; Figs. 1-2: plug 34 being interfaced into the portable unit via cord 32 which enable AC power to supplied) . As per the limitation a power interface to enable a connection of the portable fire alarm with an external Direct Current (DC) power source to supply power to the sensing unit. Du discloses, in ¶32, the concept of providing a DC input interface to enable connection of a DC power source with a portable emergency sensing and warning device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a DC input interface to enable connection of a DC power source with a portable emergency sensing and warning device, with the motivation to enhance power supply features of the system . As per the limitation the alert generation unit to generate the alert (Jarosz: Col. 2, lines 21-43; also see Lee page 4) ; and an internal DC power source configured to supply power to the sensing unit (Jarosz: claim 1) and the alert generation unit to generate the alert (Jarosz: claim 1) . As per the limitation an interface mole configured to establish a connection with a communication mole of another device to send the generated alert to one or more external electronic devices. Du discloses, on page 4, the concept of providing a communication means to enable generated alarm notifications to be transmitted to an external smartphone. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a communication means to enable generated alarm notifications to be transmitted to an external smartphone, with the motivation to enhance alarm notification features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 2 and 10, wherein the at least one of the one or more on-board sensors and the one or more remotely located sensor devices comprise at least one of a temperature sensor (Lee: page 4 with regard to the heat sensor) , a gas sensor (Lee: page 4) , a smoke sensor (Jarosz: Col. 2, lines 21-57; Lee: page 4) , and a flame sensor (Lee: page 4 with regard to the illumination sensor 15) . 3) Regarding claims 3 and 11, wherein the sensor-related data indicates at least one of a change in temperature, a detection of flame, a detection of a target gas (Lee: page 4) , or a detection of smoke in the environment (Jarosz: Col. 2, lines 21-57; Lee: page 4) . 4) Regarding claims 4 and 12, wherein the alert generation unit is configured to compare the at least one of the change in the temperature (Lee: page 6) , the detection of flame (Lee: page 6) , the detection of the target gas (Lee: page 4 with regard to the detection of combustion gas) , or the detection of smoke in the environment with a corresponding predefined criteria to determine whether the received sensor-data corresponds to the potential fire hazard (Jarosz: Col. 2, line 44 through Col. 3, line 17; Lee pages 5-6) . 5) Regarding claims 5 and 13, wherein the alert corresponds to at least one of an activation of one or more visual indicators, an activation of a sound signal, or a combination thereof (Jarosz: Col. 2, line 44 through Col. 3, line 17; Lee pages 4-6) . 6) Regarding claims 6 and 14, wherein the external DC power source comprises a battery powered device (Du: ¶18, with regard to the cigar lighter interface can be directly connected to the vehicle, hence connected to an external device powered by a battery ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarosz in view of Lee, Du and Chilla, and in further view of Ellul (US 20070132575 A1, IDS) 1) Regarding claims 7 and 15, wherein the another device comprises at least one of a smart lock device, an Internet of Thing (IOT) home device, and an external alarm system. Du discloses, in ¶41; Fig. 1, the concept of providing an alarm notification to a remote alarm 14 device . At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing an alarm notification to a remote alarm device, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarosz in view of Lee, Du and Chilla, and in further view of Balaji et al. (“Balaji”, US 20190287363 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claims 8 and 16, wherein the sensor-related data indicates at least one of a change in a temperature or a change in gases in an environment, and the alert generation unit is configured to determine whether the at least one of the change in the temperature or the changes in the gases in the environment exceeds a corresponding predefined threshold value. Balaji discloses, in ¶75, the concept of evaluating temperature change indicating an threshold exceeding condition that triggers an alert transmission event. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of evaluating temperature change indicating an threshold exceeding condition that triggers an alert transmission event, with the motivation to enhance the fire detection and notification features of the system. As per the limitation generate the alert based on a determination that the at least one of the change in the temperature or the changes in the gases in the environment exceeds the corresponding predefined threshold value (Balaji: ¶75) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 05/18/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of prior art reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F. 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. CHICO A. FOXX Primary Examiner Art Unit 2685 /CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 3 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 7 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 8 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 9 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/920,908 Page 10 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights