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 § 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.
Claims 5, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wavelength region between 350 nm and 1000 nm" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the wavelength region between 350 nm and 1000 nm" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, regarding claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation ‘the wavelength region between 350 nm and 1000 nm, and the claim also recites ‘especially between 350 nm and 700 nm’ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the UV and/or NIR range" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the respective plurality of spectral channels" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the respective plurality of spectral channels" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. For claim 5, ‘wherein said at least one broadband channel is configured to cover light in the wavelength region between 350 nm and 1000 nm’ refers back to an intended use recitation in claim 1 (‘for the plurality of spectral channels and at least one broadband channel.’).
The examiner notes that ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Houck (2020/0064248).
As for claim 1, Houck in a multispectral sensor based alert condition detector discloses/suggests the following: a smoke detector (FIG. 1C: 105 with paragraph 0028; FIG. 2: 230, FIG. 3: 300; FIG. 7A: 700 with FIG. 7B: 754; noting FIG. 4 with paragraph 0071), comprising: a detector chamber (interpreting a housing as a detector chamber: FIG. 7A: 708 and paragraphs 0024, 0046, 0084, and 0100); a number of emitters (the ‘number’ may be 1 emitter (FIG. 1C: 105-1: paragraphs 0017-0019), 2 emitters (FIG. 1C: 105-1: paragraph 0019) or a plurality of emitters (paragraph 0020) and note FIG. 2: 231 and FIG. 7A: 702) and at least one optical sensor (FIG. 1C: 105-2, FIG. 2: 233, and FIG. 7A: 704 with FIG. 7B: 754); a plurality of spectral channels numbering between 4 and 20 spectral channels (paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0044, 0045: specifically noting: ‘In the case, multispectral filter 232 may have 32 channels, 64 channels, 128 channels, and/or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, any other quantity of channels may be possible, such as 31 channels, 33 channels, 100 channels, and/or the like’, and paragraph 0101), the plurality of spectral channels comprising photodiodes arranged as a photodiode array (paragraph 0045: noting ‘Optical receiver 2333 may include a photodiode, a sensor element, a sensor element array, and/or the like…’ and paragraph 0101 with FIG. 7B: 754); wherein the at least one optical sensor is built as a multi-spectral optical sensor (abstract, paragraphs 0045, 0046, 0047,0058, 0100, and 0101) wherein the multi-spectral sensor comprises a plurality of spectral filters (paragraphs 0044, 0045, 0101 with FIG. 7B).
Regarding ‘for the plurality of spectral channels and at least one broadband channel,’ this appears to be an intended use recitation. The examiner notes the following: it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
As for claim 5, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). ‘Wherein said at least one broadband channel is configured to cover light in the wavelength region between 350 nm and 1000 nm’ refers back to the intended use recitation in claim 1 (‘for the plurality of spectral channels and at least one broadband channel.’).
The examiner notes the following: it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
As for claim 7, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Houck discloses/suggests wherein said number of emitters comprise a broad-band light source (as stated above with claim 1 ‘said number’ may be 1 or 2 emitters (FIG. 1C: 105-1: paragraphs 0017-0019, noting that paragraph 0019 refers to an optical transmitter (single light source) with a ‘wavelength range of between 100 nm and 2000 nm, between 190 nm and 1100 nm, between 950 nm and 1650 nm, and/or the like’ and 2 LEDs with wavelength ranges of 190 nm to 650 nm and 650 nm to 1100 nm).
As for claim 8, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 7). In addition, Houck discloses/suggests wherein said broad-band light source is configured to emit light in the wavelength range between 350 nm and 1000 nm, especially between 350 nm and 700 nm (see claim 7 above: ‘noting that paragraph 0019 refers to an optical transmitter (single light source) with a ‘wavelength range of between 100 nm and 2000 nm, between 190 nm and 1100 nm, between 950 nm and 1650 nm, and/or the like’ and 2 LEDs with wavelength ranges of 190 nm to 650 nm and 650 nm to 1100 nm’).
As for claim 9, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Houck discloses/suggests wherein said number of emitters comprise at least one narrow-band light source (as stated in claim 1 above: the number may be ‘2 emitters (FIG. 1C: 105-1: paragraph 0019) or a plurality of emitters (paragraph 0020)’; again, paragraph 0019: wherein 2 LEDs both have wavelength ranges narrower than 100 nm and 2000 nm or 190 nm and 1100 nm; and paragraph 0020: demonstrating 32 beams, 64 beams, 128 beams, and/or the like will be produced by 32, 64, or 128 narrow-band light sources (‘to enable multispectral sensing of a corresponding quantity of wavelengths.’)).
As for claim 10, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 9). In addition, Houck discloses/suggests wherein said narrow-band light source is configured to emit in the UV and/or NIR range (paragraphs 0019-0020: for UV note the ranges 100 nm to 2000 nm, 190 nm to 1100 nm, and 190 nm to 650 nm and for NIR note ranges 100 nm to 2000 nm, 190 nm to 1100 nm, and 650 nm to 1100 nm).
As for claim 11, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Houck discloses/suggests wherein for each spectral range, two emitters are arranged in the detector chamber (paragraph 0019: the spectral range being ‘between 100 nm and 2000 nm, between 190 nm and 1100 nm, between 950 nm and 1650 nm, and/or the like’ and 2 LEDs with wavelength ranges of 190 nm to 650 nm and 650 nm to 1100 nm; noting, again, FIG. 7A: 702 within the housing 708).
As for claim 12, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Houck discloses/suggests data registers (FIG. 3 with paragraphs 0058 and 0050: evidence of data registers by having data read, stored, and output).
As ‘for the respective plurality of spectral channels,’ this appears to be an intended use recitation. The examiner notes the following: it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
As for claim 13, Houck discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Hueck discloses wherein the smoke detector is configured to provide a control signal for a respective emitter (paragraphs 0020, 0050, 0106).
As for claim 14, Houck in a multispectral sensor based alert condition detector discloses/suggests the following a method for detecting smoke (FIG. 4 with paragraph 0071 and paragraph 0028) the method comprising: emitting light by at least one broadband emitter and/or a number of narrow range emitters into a detector chamber (paragraphs 0058 with paragraphs 0017-0020 and paragraphs 0024, 0046, 0084, and 0100); sensing light scattered by smoke particles by a multi-spectral sensor (FIG. 4: 410-430 with paragraphs 0071, 0003, and paragraph 0028; noting FIG. 1C: shows light scattering from smoke (140)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
