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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/17/25, 07/22/25, have been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings/Specification
3. The drawings filed on 01/17/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims 1-5 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first incidence suppressing unit”, “a second incidence suppressing unit”, “a fixing unit”, “a guide unit”, “a sensitivity adjustment unit”, in claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a first incidence suppressing unit” – The detector cover 70F is a first incidence suppressing unit that suppresses incidence of ambient light into the detection space 60F, … and is the first incidence suppressing unit that covers a part of the detection space 60F, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0164384, [0331]).
“a second incidence suppressing unit” - The detector body 80D is a second incidence suppressing unit that suppresses incidence of ambient light into the detection space 60D and covers another part of the detection space 60D, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0164384, [0228]).
“a fixing unit” - fixing unit is configured to be able to fix a tool, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0164384, [0494]). There is no description for sufficient structure of “fixing unit” in the specification. Further, Collins Dictionary discloses: if something is fixed somewhere, it is attached there firmly or securely (www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/description). Therefore, the wording “fixing unit” is considered as any element that is able to fix a tool.
“a guide unit” - the first guide portion 121D is a guide unit that guides the detector cover 70D or the detector body 80D to the first fixing portion 111D … The guide portion 151E is a guide unit that guides the protrusion 150E … a guide unit that guides the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit to the fixing unit, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0164384, [0240, 0301, 0484]). There is no description for sufficient structure of “guide unit” in the specification. Therefore, the wording “guide unit” is considered as any element that is able to guide a tool.
“a sensitivity adjustment unit” - a tool used at the time of performing sensitivity adjustment of the first light emitting unit, the second light emitting unit, and the light receiving unit, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0164384, [0248]). There is no description for sufficient structure of “a sensitivity adjustment unit” in the specification. Therefore, the wording “a sensitivity adjustment unit” is considered as an element that is able to adjust the emitting light, and receiving light.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. (Pub. No. 2011/0068936). Hereafter “Shimada”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Shimada discloses a fire detection apparatus for detecting a fire in a monitored area (figures 1-3, 6-10, 11B, 12B, 16, 18, 22B, 23, 31, 38, 39A-B, 43-44), comprising:
a detection space in which detection of a detection target is performed (figures 1-3, 6-10, 11B, 12B, 16, 18, 22B, 23, 31, 38, 39A-B, 43-44, detecting part area 3, 30, is not different from a detection space); and
an incidence suppressing unit configured to inhibit ambient light from entering the detection space (([0305], lines 1-4; figure 44, the structure of labyrinth 302 to inhibit ambient light is not different from incidence suppressing unit, detection space of detecting part 3. Please see 112f in paragraphs 4-5 above), wherein
the incidence suppressing unit includes
a first incidence suppressing unit configured to cover a part of the outer periphery of the detection space ([0305], lines 1-4; the following figure 44, portion AA of labyrinth 302 is not different from a first incidence suppressing unit, configured to cover another part of the outer periphery of detection space of detecting part 3. Please see 112f in paragraphs 4-5 above),
a second incidence suppressing unit configured to cover another part of the outer periphery of the detection space, ([0305], lines 1-4; the following figure 44, portion BB of labyrinth 302 is not different from a second incidence suppressing unit, configured to cover another part of the outer periphery of detection space of detecting part 3. Please see 112f in paragraphs 4-5 above),
a fixing unit configured to fix the first incidence suppressing unit and the second incidence suppressing unit to each other (Figure 43, and the following figure 44, guide wall 51 is not different from a fixing unit, to fix the first incidence suppressing unit AA and the second incidence suppressing unit BB to each other. Please see 112f in paragraphs 4-5 above), and
a guide unit configured to guide the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit to the fixing unit when the first incidence suppressing unit and the second incidence suppressing unit are fixed through the fixing unit (figures 38, 39A-B and the following figure 44, holding member 21 is not different from a guide unit configured to guide the first incidence suppressing unit AA or the second incidence suppressing unit BB to the fixing unit 51, Please see 112f in paragraphs 4-5 above),
the guide unit is formed in a long hollow or solid shape (figures 38, 39A-B and the following figure 44, holding member 21 is not different from a guide unit), and
the first incidence suppressing unit, the second incidence suppressing unit, the fixing unit, and the guide unit are configured such that the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit is allowed to be inserted through the guide unit and the fixing unit and detachably fixed to the fixing unit (figures 38, 39A-B and the following figure 44, the portion AA of labyrinth 302 is not different from a first incidence suppressing unit, the portion BB of labyrinth 302 is not different from a second incidence suppressing unit, the guide wall 51 is not different from a fixing unit, holding member 21 is not different from a guide unit. The first incidence suppressing unit AA or the second incidence suppressing unit BB is allowed to be inserted through the guide unit 21 and the fixing unit 51, and detachably fixed to the fixing unit 51).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Shimada discloses a longitudinal length of the guide unit is set to a length that allows suppression of contact between the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit and a component provided in the detection space or a vicinity of the detection space when the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit is inserted into the guide unit or when the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit is guided to the fixing unit after the insertion (figures 38, 39A-B and the following figure 44, a longitudinal length of the guide unit 21 is set to a length that allows suppression of contact between the first incidence suppressing unit AA or the second incidence suppressing unit BB and a component provided in the detection space 3, 30, the fixing unit 51).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Shimada discloses a pair of fixing units is provided at an interval therebetween (figures 38, 39A-B and the following figure 44, a pair of fixing units 51).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Shimada discloses the pair of fixing units is disposed such that a substantially central portion of the detection space is located on a straight line from one of the pair of fixing units to the other one of the pair of fixing units (figures 38, 39A-B and the following figure 44, a pair of fixing units 51A, 51B).
[AltContent: textbox (51B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (51A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BB)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AA)]
PNG
media_image1.png
400
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 5 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.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claim 5.
11. As claim 5, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a fire detection apparatus for detecting a fire in a monitored area, comprising a first incidence suppressing unit configured to cover a part of the outer periphery of the detection space, a second incidence suppressing unit configured to cover another part of the outer periphery of the detection space, a fixing unit configured to fix the first incidence suppressing unit and the second incidence suppressing unit to each other, and a guide unit configured to guide the first incidence suppressing unit or the second incidence suppressing unit to the fixing unit when the first incidence suppressing unit and the second incidence suppressing unit are fixed through the fixing unit, the guide unit is formed in a long hollow or solid shape, and is allowed to be inserted through the guide unit and the fixing unit and detachably fixed to the fixing unit;
wherein the fixing unit is configured to be able to fix a tool used when sensitivity of the detection unit is adjusted to the fixing unit, and a support unit configured to support the sensitivity adjustment unit, the support unit including a support body, and a first leg portion and a second leg portion configured to support the support body, the fixing unit includes a first fixing portion having a first fitting hole into which the first leg portion can be fit, and a second fixing portion having a second fitting hole into which the second leg portion can be fit; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 5.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 23, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights