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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/18/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-17 are pending.
The drawings have been amended to overcome the previous drawing objection, therefore, the previous drawing objection are withdrawn.
Claim 13 has been cancelled due to a drawing objection in the office action dated 04/06/2026 for the drawings not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the previous drawing objection for not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims is moot.
Claims 1, 7, and 12 have been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12 are withdrawn.
Claims 3-5, 10, and 13 have been cancelled, therefore the previous 112(b) rejection of claims 3-5, 10, and 13 are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Coffy (US 20210135069 A1). Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites twice that there is a light sensor, arranged on the substrate (lines 3-4). Either line 3 or line 4 should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 04/15/2022 of the parent application 17/722,132) in view of Coffy (US 20210135069 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Deliwala teaches an optical machine of a smoke detector, the optical machine (Abstract and shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1: substrate 110);
a light sensor (Fig. 1: photodetector 150), arranged on the substrate (shown in Fig. 1);
a first light source (Fig. 1: light emitting diode 130), arranged on the substrate and having a first emission angle (shown in Fig. 1), and comprising:
a first edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), and
a second edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), adjacent to the light sensor (Fig. 1: photodetector 150), wherein
the first edge is opposite to the second edge and farther away from the light sensor than the second edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a light blocking member (Fig. 1: blocking member 120), comprising a first opening upon the first light source, and the first opening exposing a part of the first emission angle of the first light source close to the light sensor (shown in Fig. 1), and the first opening comprising:
a first opening edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), adjacent to the light sensor (Fig. 1: photodetector 150), and
a second opening edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), opposite to the first opening edge and farther away from the light sensor than the first opening edge (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deliwala appears to be silent to the second opening edge is between a central line (see central line (dashed line) of first light source in Deliwala in annotated Fig. 1 above) of the first light source and the first edge of the first light source.
Coffy, related to an optoelectronic device, does teach that the second opening edge is between a central line of the first light source and the first edge of the first light source (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
659
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deliwala so that the second opening edge is between a central line of the first light source and the first edge of the first light source, as disclosed by Coffy. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that the light rays emitted by the emitter may cross opening 118a and may reach the receiver via opening 118b ([0061] from Coffy).
Regarding Claim 2, Deliwala modified by Coffy teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 1.
Deliwala modified by Coffy further teaches a second opening upon the light sensor, wherein the second opening exposes the whole light sensor (Deliwala, shown in Fig. 1 where an opening above the photodetector 150 exposes the whole photodetector 150).
Regarding Claim 9, Deliwala modified by Coffy teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 1.
Deliwala modified by Coffy further teaches a side wall (Deliwala, Fig. 1: blocking member 120) arranged on the substrate (Deliwala, Fig. 1: substrate 110) and surrounding the light sensor (Deliwala, Fig. 1: PD 150) and the first light source (Deliwala, Fig. 1: LED 130), wherein the light blocking member (Deliwala, Fig. 1: blocking member 120) is attached to a top surface of the side wall (Deliwala, shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
624
1041
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Deliwala modified by Coffy teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 9.
Deliwala modified by Coffy further teaches that the side wall (Deliwala, Fig. 1: side walls of blocking member 120) comprises a light blocking wall (Deliwala, Fig. 1: septum 140) between the first light source (Deliwala, Fig. 1: light emitting diode 130) and the light sensor (Deliwala, Fig. 1: photodetector 150), and
a top surface of the light blocking wall is inclined toward the first light source to form an inclined top surface (Deliwala, shown in Fig. 1 where septum 140’s top surface is inclined towards light emitting diode 130).
Regarding Claim 16, Deliwala modified by Coffy teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 15.
Deliwala modified by Coffy further teaches that a top edge of the inclined top surface of the light blocking wall (Deliwala, Fig. 1: septum 140) has the same height as an upper surface of the light blocking member (Deliwala, shown in Fig. 1 where septum 140 is a part of blocking member 120 and the top surface of septum 140 is the same height as an upper surface of the blocking member 120).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 04/15/2022 of the parent application 17/722,132) in view of Coffy (US 20210135069 A1) and further in view of Deliwala 2 (US 20190187038 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Deliwala modified Coffy teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 1.
Deliwala modified by Coffy further teaches the light blocking member (Deliwala, Fig. 1: blocking member 120) and the first light source (Deliwala, Fig. 1: light emitting diode 130).
Deliwala modified by Coffy appears to be silent to the light blocking member blocks less than 25% of the first light source.
Deliwala 2, related to a smoke detector, does teach that the light blocking member (Fig. 6: light blocking members 610 and opto-isolator 680) blocks less than 25% of the first light source (Fig. 6: The light blocking members 610 and the opto-isolator 680 does not block much of the top of the LED 660 which can be seen as less than 25% of the LED 660).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deliwala combined with Coffy so that the light blocking member blocks less than 25% of the first light source, as disclosed by Deliwala 2. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that the opto-isolator can block LED light from being directly received by the photodetectors ([0112] from Deliwala 2) where the light directly from the LED can be noise light which can cause a false alarm ([0068] from Deliwala 2).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 04/15/2022 of the parent application 17/722,132) in view of Coffy (US 20210135069 A1) and Vollenweider (US 20130201479 A1) and further in view of Deliwala 3 (US 20200175848 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Deliwala modified by Coffy teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 1.
Deliwala modified by Coffy appears to be silent to having a second light source having a second emission angle, wherein
the first light source, the light sensor and the second light source are arranged on the substrate in a first direction, and the light sensor is between the first light source and the second light source.
Vollenweider, related to a smoke detector, does teach a second light source (Fig. 1: second emitter 5’) having a second emission angle (shown in Fig. 1), wherein
the first light source (Fig. 1: first emitter 5), the light sensor (Fig. 1: receiver 9) and the second light source are arranged on the substrate in a first direction (shown in Fig. 1), and the light sensor is between the first light source and the second light source (shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deliwala combined with Coffy to incorporate a second light source having a second emission angle, wherein the first light source, the light sensor and the second light source are arranged on the substrate in a first direction, and the light sensor is between the first light source and the second light source, as disclosed by Vollenweider. The advantage of having a second light source is that scatter signals from both the first and second light sources can be compared with each other and their quotient is advantageously determined and compared with a lower and upper limit value where a more comprehensive evaluation can result if the pattern of the quotient over time is recorded and compared with known patterns ([0023-0025] from Vollenweider).
Deliwala modified by Coffy and Vollenweider appears to be silent to the light blocking member further comprises a third opening upon the second light source, and the third opening exposes a part of the second emission angle of the second light source adjacent to the light sensor.
Deliwala 3, related to a smoke detector, does teach that the light blocking member (Fig. 1: optical module 190 redirects light [0091]) further comprises an opening upon the second light source (Fig. 1: LEDs 165 where the region marked by dashed box 120 may represent a single optical module containing multiple LEDs 165 [0106]), and the opening exposes a part of the second emission angle of the second light source close to the light sensor (shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deliwala combined with Coffy and Vollenweider so that the light blocking member further comprises an opening upon the second light source, and the opening exposes a part of the second emission angle of the second light source close to the light sensor, as disclosed by Deliwala 3. The advantage of having a second light source is that multiple color LEDs can be used which allows for multi-wavelength and multi-angle scattering which allows one to distinguish different particle types ([0076-0077] from Deliwala 3).
Deliwala 3 appears to be silent to the light blocking member further comprises a third opening upon the second light source, and the third opening exposes a part of the second emission angle of the second light source close to the light sensor. However, from paragraph [0039] from the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that Fig. 4B shows light source 317 and light source 311 shares a first opening 321 while in other aspects there are separate openings for light source 317 and light source 311, where it is not disclosed a clear advantage between either configuration. Therefore, it would appear that light sources sharing an opening or having their own respective openings provides the same function in either configuration with no discernable advantage from one configuration over the other. It is recognized that the Applicant fails to present that the use of openings for light sources solves a longstanding and critical problem in the art. Therefore, absent any demonstration of criticality, the use of a third opening upon a second light source where the third opening exposes a part of a second emission angle of the second light source is a matter of design choice, and would have been an obvious possibility to one with ordinary skill in the art. “Design choice may be an acceptable rationale for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known configuration.” See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding Claim 8, Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider and Deliwala 3 teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 7.
Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider and Deliwala 3 further teaches that the first light source and the second light source emit light of different wavelengths (Vollenweider, [0023] and [0035]: One or more transmitters may be used which can emit light of different wavelengths from each other.).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 04/15/2022 of the parent application 17/722,132) in view of Coffy (US 20210135069 A1), Vollenweider (US 20130201479 A1) and Deliwala 3 (US 20200175848 A1), and further in view of Gadonniex (US 20210233373 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider and Deliwala 3 teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 7.
Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider and Deliwala 3 appears to be silent to having a third light source arranged on the substrate and at the same side of the light sensor as the first light source.
Gadonniex, related to a smoke detector, does teach a third light source (Figs. 4 or 6: light source 48a) arranged on the substrate (Figs. 4 and 6: base 46 or light ring 42 which are the base that light sources 48a-48c are on) and at the same side of the light sensor (Figs. 4 and 6: optical chamber assembly 40) as the first light source (Figs. 4 and 6: light source 48b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deliwala combined with Coffy, Vollenweider and Deliwala 3 to incorporate a third light source arranged on the substrate and at the same side of the light sensor as the first light source, as disclosed by Gadonniex. Multi-wave and multiangle smoke detectors have the advantage of being able to discriminate between large-size non-smoke particles and small-size non smoke particles that age generated by certain types of cooking scenarios ([0003-0004] from Gadonniex).
Regarding Claim 12, Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider, Deliwala 3, and Gadonniex teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 11.
Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider, Deliwala 3, and Gadonniex appears to be silent to the first opening also exposes a part of the third light source adjacent to the light sensor. However, from paragraph [0039] from the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that Fig. 4B shows light source 317 and light source 311 shares a first opening 321 while in other aspects there are separate openings for light source 317 and light source 311, where it is not disclosed a clear advantage between either configuration. Therefore, it would appear that light sources sharing an opening or having their own respective openings provides the same function in either configuration with no discernable advantage from one configuration over the other. It is recognized that the Applicant fails to present that the use of openings for light sources solves a longstanding and critical problem in the art. Therefore, absent any demonstration of criticality, the use of the first opening also exposing a part of the third light source close to the light sensor is a matter of design choice, and would have been an obvious possibility to one with ordinary skill in the art. “Design choice may be an acceptable rationale for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known configuration.” See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding Claim 14, Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider, Deliwala 3, and Gadonniex teaches the optical machine as claimed in claim 11.
Deliwala modified by Coffy, Vollenweider, Deliwala 3, and Gadonniex teaches that the third light source (Gadonniex, Figs. 4 and 6: light source 48a) is configured to emit light of wavelength different from those of the first light source (Gadonniex, Figs. 4 and 6: light source 48b) and the second light source (Gadonniex, Figs. 4 and 6: light source 48c) (Gadonniex, [0059]: “The first light source 48a and the second light source 48b may be selected to emit light having different wavelengths…The third light source 48c is arranged at an angle to the light emitted by the first and second light sources 48a. 48b and may emit light having the same wavelength or a different wavelength than the first and second light sources 48a, 48b.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 04/15/2022 of the parent application 17/722,132) in view of Barrett (WO 2004104959 A2).
Regarding Claim 17, Deliwala teaches an optical machine of a smoke detector, the optical machine (Abstract and shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1: substrate 110);
a light sensor (Fig. 1: photodetector 150), arranged on the substrate (shown in Fig. 1);
a first light source (Fig. 1: light emitting diode 130), arranged on the substrate and having a first emission angle (shown in Fig. 1), and comprising:
a first edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), and
a second edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), adjacent to the light sensor (Fig. 1: photodetector 150), wherein
the first edge is opposite to the second edge and farther away from the light sensor than the second edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a light blocking member (Fig. 1: blocking member 120), comprising a first opening upon the first light source, the first opening exposing a part of the first emission angle of the first light source close (shown in Fig. 1), and the first opening comprising:
a first opening edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), adjacent to the light sensor (Fig. 1: photodetector 150), and
a second opening edge (Shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), opposite to the first opening edge and farther away from the light sensor than the first opening edge (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deliwala appears to be silent to the second opening edge is aligned with the first edge of the first light source.
Barrett, related to a smoke detector, does teach that the second opening edge is aligned with the first edge of the first light source (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
545
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deliwala so that the second opening edge is aligned with the first edge of the first light source, as disclosed by Barrett. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that the aperture blocks all light rays (including stray light) except those extending close to the optical axis of the LED (Page 24, lines 18-27).
Other References Considered but not Cited
Lincoln (US 20180252654 A1), related to a smoke detector, teaches in Fig. 2A apertures 116,118,120,122, and 124 in but does not specify the open edges in relation to light source or light sensors.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights