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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on 22 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, “the internal housing” in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. (EP 2166520 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a system comprising: a housing (6) defining an internal test chamber (101) (see figure 5, sensor body 6 having main part 60, side wall 61, and base 63 having smoke sensing chamber 101 disposed therein); a sensor element (11) exposed to the internal test chamber (101) to generate a signal representing an illuminance (see figure 6, light receiving unit 11 disposed in chamber 101; and ¶60, the light from the light emitting unit 10 is irradiated in the direction shown with the light axis L1 and the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit, thereby detecting smoke); one or more passageways allowing air flow into the internal test chamber (101) from a surrounding area (see figure 6, smoke flow D; and ¶64, Namely, the smoke entered from the smoke inlet 12a does not stay in the place between the light emitting unit 10 and the light receiving unit 11 by means of the partition member 19 and is guided to the smoke sensing zone 15 as shown with the arrow D); and a shroud (18/17/12C) blocking entrance of light into the internal test chamber (101) through the one or more passageways along a dominant interference path to reduce noise in the illuminance signal (see figure 6, light shielding wall 18 disposed in the smoke flow path, shielding wall 17 disposed in smoke flow path, and smoke guide end 12C disposed in the smoke paths; ¶64, the light shielding wall 18 is provided around the center of the smoke sensing chamber 101, namely around the smoke sensing zone 15 so as to prevent the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 from directly entering the light receiving unit 11; ¶63, a shielding wall 17a is provided to effectively shield the outside light around the light receiving unit 11; and see ¶¶64-66 for further details).
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto teaches the system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the shroud (18/17/12C) is mounted in the one or more passageways (see figure 6, light shielding walls 18 and 17 disposed in the smoke flow path; ¶64, the light shielding wall 18 is provided around the center of the smoke sensing chamber 101, namely around the smoke sensing zone 15 so as to prevent the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 from directly entering the light receiving unit 11; ¶63, a shielding wall 17a is provided to effectively shield the outside light around the light receiving unit 11; and see ¶¶64-66 for further details).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto teaches the system as recited in Claim 1, further comprising a source (10) emitting light into the internal test chamber (101) (see figure 6, light emitting unit 10).
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto teaches the system as recited in Claim 1, further comprising a source (10) emitting light into the internal test chamber (101) (see figure 6, light emitting unit 10); wherein an orientation of the light source (10) with respect to the sensor element (11) defines an axis of reflection (¶50, the light emitting unit 10 and the light receiving unit 11 are mounted on the circuit board 2 in such a manner that the light axis L1 of the light emitting element L and the light axis L2 of the light receiving element PD intersect with a fixed angle θ; and ¶60, the light from the light emitting unit 10 is irradiated in the direction shown with the light axis L1 and the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit, thereby detecting smoke); and the dominant interference path comprises a dominant interference direct path through the axis of reflection to the sensor element (11) (¶64, the light shielding wall 18 is provided around the center of the smoke sensing chamber 101, namely around the smoke sensing zone 15 so as to prevent the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 from directly entering the light receiving unit 11).
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto teaches the system as recited in Claim 1, further comprising a source (10) emitting light into the internal test chamber (101) (see figure 6, light emitting unit 10); wherein an orientation of the light source (10) with respect to the sensor element (11) defines an axis of reflection (¶50, the light emitting unit 10 and the light receiving unit 11 are mounted on the circuit board 2 in such a manner that the light axis L1 of the light emitting element L and the light axis L2 of the light receiving element PD intersect with a fixed angle θ; and ¶60, the light from the light emitting unit 10 is irradiated in the direction shown with the light axis L1 and the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit, thereby detecting smoke); and the dominant interference path comprises a dominant interference reflection path through the axis of reflection to the light source (10) (¶46, When thus constructed smoke guide end 12c is provided for the labyrinth wall 12(#2) facing the light emitting unit 10, the area of the end face of the portion of the labyrinth wall 12(#2) facing the light emitting unit 10 becomes small. Therefore, the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 is diffusely reflected on the smoke guide end 12c of the labyrinth wall 12(#2), so that it can be prevented from directly inputting into the light receiving unit 11).
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto teaches a system comprising: a light source (10) emitting light into a test volume (101) (see figure 6, light emitting unit 10; AND ¶52, the light emitting unit 10 includes the light emitting element L like LED (refer to Fig. 5 ) and the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 is collected by the light condenser lens 10d and irradiated to the smoke sensing zone 15); a sensor element (11) exposed to light in the test volume (101) to generate a signal representing an illuminance (see figure 6, light receiving unit 11 disposed in chamber 101; and ¶52, Thus, the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit 11); and a shroud (18/17/12C) reducing entrance of light into the test volume along a dominant interference path to reduce noise in the illuminance signal (see figure 6, light shielding wall 18 disposed in the smoke flow path and smoke guide end 12C disposed in the smoke paths; ¶64, the light shielding wall 18 is provided around the center of the smoke sensing chamber 101, namely around the smoke sensing zone 15 so as to prevent the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 from directly entering the light receiving unit 11; ¶63, a shielding wall 17a is provided to effectively shield the outside light around the light receiving unit 11; and see ¶¶64-66 for further details).
Regarding claim 14, Sakamoto teaches a system as recited in Claim 12, wherein: an orientation of the light source (10) with respect to the sensor element (11) defines an axis of reflection (¶50, the light emitting unit 10 and the light receiving unit 11 are mounted on the circuit board 2 in such a manner that the light axis L1 of the light emitting element L and the light axis L2 of the light receiving element PD intersect with a fixed angle θ; and ¶60, the light from the light emitting unit 10 is irradiated in the direction shown with the light axis L1 and the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit, thereby detecting smoke); and the dominant interference path comprises a dominant interference direct path through the axis of reflection to the sensor element (11) (¶64, the light shielding wall 18 is provided around the center of the smoke sensing chamber 101, namely around the smoke sensing zone 15 so as to prevent the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 from directly entering the light receiving unit 11).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (EP 2166520 A1) in view of Wang et al. (USPGPub 20250244222 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto teaches the system as recited in Claim 1, further comprising: a circuit board (2) with a base (see figure 5, circuit board 2 having a base); and a source (L/10) disposed within the base (see figure 5, light emitting element L disposed on circuit board 2; and ¶32, At the lower surface of the circuit board 2, a light emitting element L constituted with a light emitting diode and the like and a light receiving element PD constituted with a photo diode and the like are mounted); wherein the sensor element (PD/11) is disposed within the base (see figure 5, light receiving element PD disposed on circuit board 2; and ¶32, At the lower surface of the circuit board 2, a light emitting element L constituted with a light emitting diode and the like and a light receiving element PD constituted with a photo diode and the like are mounted); the internal housing (1) is mounted to the circuit board (2) (see figure 5, optical base 1 (i.e. internal housing) mounted to circuit board 2; ¶31, The circuit board 2 is fixed to the optical base 1; and ¶29, an optical base 1 having a smoke sensing chamber 101); the source (L/10) emits light from the base into the internal test chamber (101) (¶52, the light emitting unit 10 includes the light emitting element L like LED (refer to Fig. 5 ) and the light emitted from the light emitting unit 10 is collected by the light condenser lens 10d and irradiated to the smoke sensing zone 15); and the illuminance measured by the sensor element (PD/11) detects light reflected from inside the internal test chamber (101) to the sensor element (PD/11) (¶52, Thus, the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit 11). However, Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the circuit board is a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, Wang teaches wherein the circuit board (11) is a printed circuit board (PCB) (see figure 1A, substrate 11; and ¶26, The substrate 11 is, for example, a printed circuit board or a flexible board, and electrically connected to the light source 12 and the light sensor 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakamoto to incorporate the teachings of Wang to have the circuit board be a printed circuit board because printed circuit boards offer high reliability, smaller sizes, and lower mass-production costs. Additionally, PCBs contain no loose wires and therefore prevent short circuits.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (EP 2166520 A1) in view of Wang et al. (USPGPub 20250244222 A1) and Washizu et al. (USPGPub 20230417665 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sakamoto teaches the system as recited in Claim 12, further comprising: a circuit board (2) (see figure 5, circuit board 2); and wherein the illuminance measured by the sensor element (PD/11) detects light reflected from inside the test volume (101) to the sensor element (PD/11) (¶60, the light from the light emitting unit 10 is irradiated in the direction shown with the light axis L1 and the scattering light scattered by the smoke particles entered in the smoke sensing zone 15 is received in the light receiving unit, thereby detecting smoke). However, Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the circuit board is a printed circuit board (PCB); and a base disposed within the PCB.
However, Wang teaches wherein the circuit board (11) is a printed circuit board (PCB) (see figure 1A, substrate 11; and ¶26, The substrate 11 is, for example, a printed circuit board or a flexible board, and electrically connected to the light source 12 and the light sensor 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakamoto to incorporate the teachings of Wang to have the circuit board be a printed circuit board because printed circuit boards offer high reliability, smaller sizes, and lower mass-production costs. Additionally, PCBs contain no loose wires and therefore prevent short circuits. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a base disposed within the circuit board.
However, Washizu teaches a base (5) disposed within the circuit board (62) (see figure 6, smoke detector base 5 disposed in circuit board 62).
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 combination of Sakamoto and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Washizu to further include a base within the circuit board in order to provide further protection and shielding for both the light emitting and sensing elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gamperl et al. (USPGPub 20260227307 A1): Gamperl teaches a detector chamber (6) of a smoke detector (2) containing a sensor (38) surrounded by light blocking walls (54) (see figure 3).
Yang et al. (USPGPub 20240230503 A1): Yang teaches a smoke detector having a light emitter (10), a light receiver (20) and a light blocking wall (30) (see figure 1C).
Chu et al. (USPGPub 20220268682 A1): Chu teaches a smoke detector having a light source (1011) and a light sensor (1013) having a plurality of light blocking walls (see figures 14A-14C).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights