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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: No. 106-3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 27, Line 1: It appears a verb such as –detect—is missing before the phrase “fire spread”.
Paragraph 31, Line 3: The beginning of this sentence is not capitalized.
Paragraph 39, Line 5: There is no closing parenthesis to match the opening one in this line.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method of determining a likelihood of fire spread following detection in a facility, sorting each of the plurality of event devices into three separate categories, and then receiving data collected in each category at different frequencies. All these steps can be performed by a user with no special processor or apparatus. Therefore, this falls under the Abstract Idea grouping Mental Processes found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, with particular similarity to the examples found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIIA such as the claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A. or a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the determination and sorting steps, the information is not applied to any use aside from gathering the data and sorting it. That is, nothing is done with the information once it is gathered. As noted above, everything in independent claim 9 can be done in the human mind or with a pen and paper, a processor would only perform this method faster. The Examiner will note that both independent claims 1 and 16 do have a practical application as both claims combine the abstract idea with providing, via an interface, graphical information descriptive of a spread of the fire based on the received data, thereby integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only elements found in the claim aside from the method are a computer readable medium and a processor, both of which are recited at a high level of generality using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,453. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to similar subject matter. In fact, each independent claim has removed the element of receiving an indication of a fire detected by an event device of a plurality of event devices installed in a facility, thereby rendering each independent claim broader than the independent claims of the ‘453 reference. Claim 9 of the current application takes this further by removing the step of providing graphical information descriptive of the fire based on the received data via an interface, thereby rendering the claim into the realm of abstract ideas as noted above.
A prior art rejection has not been formulated in this Office action.
The majority of the claimed subject matter has been found in the prior art. The method and system for monitoring fire taught by Lee et al [US 2021/0049885] (supplied by applicant) uses a plurality of fire detection sensors to receive data and provide a graphical depiction (Fig. 8) descriptive of a spread of the fire. The system taught by Schwarzkopf et al [U.S. 9,986,313] (supplied by applicant) gathers data during a fire event to predict the direction of propagation of a fire. However, the prior art does not also include the step of sorting the plurality of event devices into a plurality of priority levels based on predetermined likelihood of fire spread to each of the plurality of devices and then receive data collected by the plurality of event devices during the fire in order to provide graphical information descriptive of a spread of the fire based on the received data. Independent claim 9 takes this one step further with its three separate priority levels. The system for determining a propagation path of fire taught by Savanur et al [US 2024/0312174] (supplied by applicant) does teach similar subject matter to the claimed invention with its determining a class for a plurality of regions of interest; however, the priority date of the current application pre-dates the priority date of the ‘174 reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 W 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.
JAT
8/21/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights