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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action..
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson (US 20210166553 A1), Cree (US 20150348399 A1) and further in view of Krasulsky (DE 102020108583 A1).
Claim 1. Pederson teaches a manual initiating device
(Fig. 1)
, comprising:
a switch configured to activate a fire alarm system
([0041] The manual call point can perform a self-verification procedure in order to determine if at least one of the contactless switches 12, 14 is functional without the need to activate the operating element 18. );
and a controller
([0041] The self-verification procedure may be performed via controller, such as a microprocessor, which may be a controller provided as a part of the manual call point) .
configured to: receive a command to enter the manual initiating device into a test mode
([0041] The self-verification procedure may be performed via controller, such as a microprocessor, which may be a controller provided as a part of the manual call point or an external controller, which may for example be an alarm system of a building... e.g. checking the contactless switches 12, 14
(e.g. external controller sends a self-verification command)); and
receive an actuation of the switch while the manual initiating device is in the test mode
([0042][0043] To aid and enhance the self-verification capability the receiver and emitter components of the two contactless switches 12, 14 are placed either side of a working path for the operating element...The operating element 18 hence block or permit the passage of electromagnetic radiation between the receiver and emitter components in order to change the state of the contactless switches 12, 14...The self-verification procedures include cross-checking the operation of the contactless switches 12, 14 via interaction between the LEDs 20, 26 and photodiodes 22, 24.).
Pederson further discloses the process of testing by an external controller ([0041]) and utilizing an evaluation module ([0044]) but does not specifically disclose the controller configured to indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode.
However, Cree teaches the controller configured to: indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode
([0049] the devices 109-1 to 109-z provide visual and/or audible indication (e.g., flashing LEDs or audible noises) that the devices are in test mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the controller as taught by Cree within the system of Pederson for the purpose of visually notifying operational status at the designated location and status of the internal components are responsive at the fire control panel.
Pederson and Cree further discloses the process of generating event data and logs and testing a call point but does not specifically disclose indicate the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch.
However, Krasulsky teaches indicating the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch
(Page 1/2- These functional tests include in particular that the respective fire alarms of the fire alarm system are deliberately triggered at regular intervals. This is done, for example, by a test gas, by applying heat or by pressing the actuation button on the manual call point.
Page 3- In particular, a comparison is carried out to determine whether the fire alarm recognition recognized by the alarm recognition module and transmitted to the verification box is identical to a fire alarm recognition data record previously stored in the verification box for this fire alarm center. In a further embodiment of the method, the result of the comparison is displayed on the display module. In particular, given a positive result of the comparison, further data available for this fire alarm, for example a last test date, are displayed on the display module and, in particular, the test device control unit is instructed to activate the test unit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of indicating the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch as taught by Krasulsky within the system of Pederson for the purpose of automating confirmation of switching the manual initiating device and maintaining logs for periodic compliance review.
Claim 4. Pederson, Cree and Krasulsky teach the device of claim 1, further comprising a light-emitting diode (LED), wherein the LED is configured to indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode
(Cree [0002][0041]examples of the fire annunciation devices generally include speakers, horns, bells, chimes, light emitting diode (LED) reader boards).
Claim 5. Pederson, Cree and Krasulsky teach the device of claim 1, further comprising a light-emitting diode (LED), wherein the LED is configured to indicate the manual initiating device has been tested
(Cree [0002][0041]examples of the fire annunciation devices generally include speakers, horns, bells, chimes, light emitting diode (LED) reader boards).
Claim 6. Pederson, Cree and Krasulsky teach the device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to isolate the manual initiating device from other components of the fire alarm system in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode
(Pederson [0043] The condition of the first LED 20 of the normally open first contactless switch 12 is checked by using the photodiode 24 of the second contactless switch 14 to detect light from the first LED 20... these steps also check the condition of the second LED 26 and second photodiode 24, with a further check being possible by straightforward confirmation that this second, normally closed, contactless switch 14 is indeed a closed switch, with the second photodiode 24 detecting light from the second LED 26 when it is illuminated, but not when it is not illuminated.).
Claim 7. Pederson, Cree and Krasulsky teach the device of claim 1, wherein the command to enter the test mode is received from a fire control panel of the fire alarm system
(Cree [0049] First, the technician 108 puts the control panel 102 into test mode. In an alternative embodiment, the technician 108 instructs the control panel to place only one or more of the zones into test mode. ).
Claim 8. Pederson, Cree and Krasulsky teach the device of claim 1, wherein the command to enter the test mode is received from a mobile device
(Cree 0048] FIG. 2 is a sequence diagram illustrating how the control panel 102, the remote access unit 104, the mobile computing device 110, and the technician 108 interact to enable remote control of the control panel 102 via the mobile computing device 110.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson, Cree, Krasulsky and further in view of Peters (US 8009021 B1).
Claim 2. Pederson, Cree and Krasulsky teach the device of claim 1, and further discloses an actuating element which can trigger an alarm but do not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to cease the test mode in response to the actuation of the switch.
However, Peters teaches wherein the controller is configured to cease the test mode in response to the actuation of the switch
(Col 4 lines 1-5 e.g. Directly above the LED 14, lies a "cancel" actuator 15, which is used to stop the sending of either an emergency or non-emergency message within the hospital communication network. The "cancel" actuator 15 can be but is not limited to a push-button switch.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the controller and actuation of the switch as taught by Peters within the system of Pederson for the purpose of providing an option to cancel the test.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson, Cree, Krasulsky and further in view of Kanazawa (JP H0528371 A).
Claim 3. Pederson and Cree teach the device of claim 1, and discloses the process of testing the device but does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to receive a command to cease the test mode.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive a command to cease the test mode
(Page 8- The test procedure is as follows. That is, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped. Then, the indicator light Z.sup.3 .sub.b lights up to indicate that the test mode has been entered…
Page 8- Further, in order to perform a different interlocking control test, the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. Then, the fire receiving device turns off the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b and sends a stop control signal to all interlocking devices, and the fire receiving device enters the normal fire or gas leakage monitoring mode. After that, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped again to turn on the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b, and the same operation is repeated. The recovery key Z .sup.4 can give an instruction of all reset to the fire receiver,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use wherein the controller is configured to receive a command to cease the test mode as taught by Kanazawa within the system of Pederson for the purpose of allowing an inspector to remotely test and cancel alarms.
Claim(s) 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa, Cree, Krasulsky and further in view of Krasulsky.
Claim 9. Kanazawa teaches a method of isolating a manual initiating device, comprising:
receiving, by a fire control panel, a selection of the manual initiating device
(Fig. 1 The display operation unit 20 (e.g. fire control panel)
Page 8 - The test procedure is as follows. That is, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped. Then, the indicator light Z .sup.3 .sub.b lights up to indicate that the test mode has been entered. Next, the trigger device to be tested is selected from the sensing location display operation unit W, the interlocking device display operation unit X, and the district bell display operation unit Y, and the setting input switches W .sup.n .sub.c , X of the trigger device to be tested are selected.
(e.g. unit(s) w, x or y are selected within selection screen w));
placing the manual initiating device in a test mode in response to the selection of the manual initiating device
(Page 8- After that, when the control key Z .sup.8 is tapped, the blinking indicator lights W .sup.n .sub.b and X .sup.n of the trigger device for which the test is to be performed.
(e.g. control key Z .sup.8 places the selected devices to be activatd));
and isolating the manual initiating device from other components of a fire alarm system in response to placing the manual initiating device in the test mode
(Page 8- Further, in order to perform a different interlocking control test, the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. Then, the fire receiving device turns off the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b and sends a stop control signal to all interlocking devices, and the fire receiving device enters the normal fire or gas leakage monitoring mode. After that, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped again to turn on the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b, and the same operation is repeated.
(e.g. all of the tested devices are released which then operator can test other devices)).
Kanazawa teaches the use of a fire control panel but does not specifically disclose receiving, by a mobile device a selection of the manual initiating device.
However, Cree teaches receiving, by a mobile device a selection of the manual initiating device.
([0007] In general, the present system and method enable the walkthrough test to be performed by possibly one technician with the information from the control panel being conveyed to a mobile computing device of the technician.
[0078] FIG. 6C is used to provide for remote relay control. The remote access unit 104 contains two relay outputs 180 that can be controlled from this screen of the app. The screen allows each relay to be activated for a period of time from 1-60 s. In examples, the relays are used for any sort of remote control function where there is a need to close (or open) a circuit remotely from the mobile computing device 110.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use a mobile device as taught by Cree within the system of Kanazawa for the purpose of enhancing the system and improve efficiency by using a mobile device as an extension of the fire control panel in order to allow a technician to test and visually inspect the initiating device.
Kanazawa further discloses the process of testing by an external controller but does not specifically disclose the controller configured to indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode.
However, Cree teaches the controller configured to: indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode
([0049] the devices 109-1 to 109-z provide visual and/or audible indication (e.g., flashing LEDs or audible noises) that the devices are in test mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the controller as taught by Cree within the system of Kanazawa for the purpose of visually notifying operational status at the designated location and status of the internal components are responsive at the fire control panel.
Kanazawa and Cree further discloses the process of generating event data and logs and testing a call point but does not specifically disclose indicate the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch.
However, Krasulsky teaches indicating the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch
(Page 1/2- These functional tests include in particular that the respective fire alarms of the fire alarm system are deliberately triggered at regular intervals. This is done, for example, by a test gas, by applying heat or by pressing the actuation button on the manual call point.
Page 3- In particular, a comparison is carried out to determine whether the fire alarm recognition recognized by the alarm recognition module and transmitted to the verification box is identical to a fire alarm recognition data record previously stored in the verification box for this fire alarm center. In a further embodiment of the method, the result of the comparison is displayed on the display module. In particular, given a positive result of the comparison, further data available for this fire alarm, for example a last test date, are displayed on the display module and, in particular, the test device control unit is instructed to activate the test unit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of indicating the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch as taught by Krasulsky within the system of Pederson for the purpose of automating confirmation of switching the manual initiating device and maintaining logs for periodic compliance review.
Claim 10. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the method of claim 9, further comprising preventing the manual initiating device from triggering a fire alarm in response to isolating the manual initiating device from the other components of the fire alarm system
(Cree [0049] First, the technician 108 puts the control panel 102 into test mode. In an alternative embodiment, the technician 108 instructs the control panel to place only one or more of the zones into test mode. Typically, the test mode prevents the control panel 102 from initiating an alarm condition in response to receiving signals indicative of fire from the devices 109-1 to 109-z… This is to prevent the technician 108 from inadvertently activating a device that is not in test mode and causing an evacuation of the building 50.).
Claim 11. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, by the mobile device or the fire control panel, a selection of a zone or a loop associated with the manual initiating device
(Kanazawa page 8- That is, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped. Then, the indicator light Z .sup.3 .sub.b lights up to indicate that the test mode has been entered. Next, the trigger device to be tested is selected from the sensing location display operation unit W, the interlocking device display operation unit X, and the district bell display operation unit Y, and the setting input switches W .sup.n .sub.c , X of the trigger device to be tested are selected.
(e.g. zones or manual initiating device))
; and isolating components of the fire alarm system, including the manual initiating device, in the zone or the loop in response to the selection of the zone or the loop
(page 8- If X .sup.n .sub.b and Y .sup.n .sub.b are present, it can be understood that the linked device of the indicator lamp, which keeps blinking forever, is defective...Further, in order to perform a different interlocking control test, the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. (e.g. loop)).
Claim 12. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, by the mobile device or the fire control panel, a selection to cease the test mode; and ceasing the test mode in response to the selection to cease the test mode
(Kanazawa Page 8 - the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. Then, the fire receiving device turns off the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b and sends a stop control signal to all interlocking devices, and the fire receiving device enters the normal fire or gas leakage monitoring mode. (e.g. recovery z ceases all test operation)).
Claim 13. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the method of claim 12, further comprising activating a fire alarm of the fire alarm system in response to the switch of the manual initiating device being activated subsequent to ceasing the test mode
(Kanazawa page 8- When the fire receiver is in normal operation, it can also be used as a display of the location of a fire or gas leak or as a status display of the operating / stop status of interlocking devices.).
Claim 14. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the method of claim 9, further comprising reporting the manual initiating device was tested in response to the switch of the manual initiating device being activated subsequent to isolating the manual initiating device from the other components of the fire alarm system
(Cree [0072][0073] FIG. 5 is a table...the event data 502 is generated and stored as lines of text in a log file...the event data includes or specifies a time that the event data was generated, a date the event data was generated, an identification number of a device that was activated, a status of the device that was activated, and a descriptive text associated with the device.
Kanazawa page 8- it can be understood that the linked device of the indicator lamp, which keeps blinking forever, is defective.).
Claim 15. Kanazawa teaches a fire control system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a computing device
(Fig. 1 The display operation unit 20 (e.g. fire control panel);
and a manual initiating device configured to:
receive a command from the computing device to enter into a test mode
(Page 8 - The test procedure is as follows. That is, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped. Then, the indicator light Z .sup.3 .sub.b lights up to indicate that the test mode has been entered...After that, when the control key Z .sup.8 is tapped, the blinking indicator lights W .sup.n .sub.b and X .sup.n of the trigger device for which the test is to be performed..sub.b and Y .sup.n .sub.b are turned on, and the fire reception device sends an interlocking control signal to the interlocking device at the site according to the interlocking matrix. (e.g. fire reception devices responds to the test command));
isolate the manual initiating device from other components of a fire alarm system in response to the manual initiating device entering into the test mode
(Page 8- Further, in order to perform a different interlocking control test, the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. Then, the fire receiving device turns off the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b and sends a stop control signal to all interlocking devices, and the fire receiving device enters the normal fire or gas leakage monitoring mode. After that, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped again to turn on the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b, and the same operation is repeated.
(e.g. all of the tested devices are released which then operator can test other devices);
and indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to the manual initiating device being isolated from the other components of the fire alarm system
(Page 8-the fire reception device sends an interlocking control signal to the interlocking device at the site according to the interlocking matrix. At the same time, the display lamp W .sup.n .sub.b of the interlocking equipment fire alarm device raises an interlock control signal, X .sup.n .sub.b, Y .sup.n .sub.b is blinking... If X .sup.n .sub.b and Y .sup.n .sub.b are present, it can be understood that the linked device of the indicator lamp, which keeps blinking forever, is defective.).
Kanazawa further discloses the process of receiving status information from a panel for a manual initiating device but does not specifically disclose the manual initiating device configured to: enter into the test mode in response to receiving the command.
However, Cree teaches the manual initiating device configured to: enter into the test mode in response to receiving the command
([0049] the devices 109-1 to 109-z provide visual and/or audible indication (e.g., flashing LEDs or audible noises) that the devices are in test mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use manual initiating device as taught by Cree within the system of Kanazawa for the purpose of visually notifying a technician that the device has been activated.
Kanazawa teaches the use of a fire control panel but does not specifically disclose receiving, by a mobile device a selection of the manual initiating device.
However, Cree teaches receiving, by a mobile device a selection of the manual initiating device.
([0007] In general, the present system and method enable the walkthrough test to be performed by possibly one technician with the information from the control panel being conveyed to a mobile computing device of the technician.
[0078] FIG. 6C is used to provide for remote relay control. The remote access unit 104 contains two relay outputs 180 that can be controlled from this screen of the app. The screen allows each relay to be activated for a period of time from 1-60 s. In examples, the relays are used for any sort of remote control function where there is a need to close (or open) a circuit remotely from the mobile computing device 110.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use a mobile device as taught by Cree within the system of Kanazawa for the purpose of enhancing the system and improve efficiency by using a mobile device as an extension of the fire control panel in order to allow a technician to test and visually inspect the initiating device.
Kanazawa further discloses the process of testing by an external controller but does not specifically disclose the controller configured to indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode.
However, Cree teaches the controller configured to: indicate the manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to receiving the command to enter the test mode
([0049] the devices 109-1 to 109-z provide visual and/or audible indication (e.g., flashing LEDs or audible noises) that the devices are in test mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the controller as taught by Cree within the system of Kanazawa for the purpose of visually notifying operational status at the designated location and status of the internal components are responsive at the fire control panel.
Kanazawa and Cree further discloses the process of generating event data and logs and testing a call point but does not specifically disclose indicate the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch.
However, Krasulsky teaches indicating the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch
(Page 1/2- These functional tests include in particular that the respective fire alarms of the fire alarm system are deliberately triggered at regular intervals. This is done, for example, by a test gas, by applying heat or by pressing the actuation button on the manual call point.
Page 3- In particular, a comparison is carried out to determine whether the fire alarm recognition recognized by the alarm recognition module and transmitted to the verification box is identical to a fire alarm recognition data record previously stored in the verification box for this fire alarm center. In a further embodiment of the method, the result of the comparison is displayed on the display module. In particular, given a positive result of the comparison, further data available for this fire alarm, for example a last test date, are displayed on the display module and, in particular, the test device control unit is instructed to activate the test unit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of indicating the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch as taught by Krasulsky within the system of Pederson for the purpose of automating confirmation of switching the manual initiating device and maintaining logs for periodic compliance review.
Claim 16. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the system of claim 15, wherein the computing device is a mobile device
(Cree [0007] In general, the present system and method enable the walkthrough test to be performed by possibly one technician with the information from the control panel being conveyed to a mobile computing device of the technician. [0078] FIG. 6C is used to provide for remote relay control. The remote access unit 104 contains two relay outputs 180 that can be controlled from this screen of the app. The screen allows each relay to be activated for a period of time from 1-60 s. In examples, the relays are used for any sort of remote control function where there is a need to close (or open) a circuit remotely from the mobile computing device 110.).
Claim 17. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the system of claim 15, wherein the computing device is a fire control panel
(Kanazawa Fig. 1 The display operation unit 20 (e.g. fire control panel).
Claim 18. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the system of claim 15, wherein the computing device is configured to transmit the command in response to the manual initiating device being within a wireless range of the computing device
(Cree [0046] mobile computing device 110 connects to the remote access unit 104 via wireless communication links 112-1 and 112-2. In a current embodiment, the mobile computing device 110 is a smart phone mobile computing device.).
Claim 19. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the system of claim 15, further comprising an additional manual initiating device configured to: receive an additional command from the computing device; and enter into the test mode in response to receiving the additional command
(Page 8- Further, in order to perform a different interlocking control test, the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. Then, the fire receiving device turns off the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b and sends a stop control signal to all interlocking devices, and the fire receiving device enters the normal fire or gas leakage monitoring mode. After that, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped again to turn on the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b, and the same operation is repeated.
(e.g. all of the tested devices are released which then operator can test other devices in which the other devices respond)).
Claim 20. Kanazawa, Cree and Krasulsky teach the system of claim 19, wherein the additional manual initiating device is configured to: isolate the additional manual initiating device from the other
components of the fire alarm system in response to the additional manual initiating device entering the test mode
(Page 8- Further, in order to perform a different interlocking control test, the recovery key Z .sup.4 is tapped. Then, the fire receiving device turns off the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b and sends a stop control signal to all interlocking devices, and the fire receiving device enters the normal fire or gas leakage monitoring mode. After that, the test key Z .sup.3 is tapped again to turn on the indicator lamp Z .sup.3 .sub.b, and the same operation is repeated.
(e.g. all of the tested devices are released which then operator can test other devices));
and indicate the additional manual initiating device is in the test mode in response to the additional manual initiating device being isolated from the other components of the fire alarm system.
(Page 8 - After that, when the control key Z .sup.8 is tapped, the blinking indicator lights W .sup.n .sub.b and X .sup.n of the trigger device for which the test is to be performed..sub.b and Y .sup.n .sub.b are turned on, and the fire reception device sends an interlocking control signal to the interlocking device at the site according to the interlocking matrix. At the same time, the display lamp W .sup.n .sub.b of the interlocking equipment fire alarm device raises an interlock control signal, X .sup.n .sub.b, Y .sup.n .sub.b is blinking. ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 04 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,4-8 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson (US 20210166553 A1), Cree (US 20150348399 A1) and further in view of Krasulsky (DE 102020108583 A1).
The newly found prior art of Krasulsky provides an obviousness improvement for the manual initiating device to indicate the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch.
For claims 2 and 3, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-20 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa, Cree and further in view of Krasulsky.
The newly found prior art of Krasulsky provides an obviousness improvement for the manual initiating device to indicate the manual initiating device has been tested and a date the manual initiating device was tested in response to the actuation of the switch. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Lastly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights