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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “wherein platform” and should be amended to --wherein the platform--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims 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.
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 6, 8, 16, and 23 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.
Claims 6 and 8 recite “substantially parallel to the surface of the hazard detector”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the term “substantially parallel”. What is “substantially parallel” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be “substantially parallel” to another of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of examination only, “substantially parallel” will be interpreted as “parallel”.
Claim 16 recites “substantially cooperates”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of what the Applicant intends for a mask layer to “cooperate” with an internal wall of the hazard detector. For purposes of examination only, “substantially cooperates” will be interpreted as “cooperates”.
Claim 23 recites “the arrangement”. Because claim 23 depends on claim 22, and claim 22 depends on claim 1, it is unclear as to which arrangement “the arrangement” refers. Claim 1 establishes a sensing arrangement and a spacing arrangement.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 22-23, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (JP 2008 250858 A, with reference to the English machine translation provided by the Applicant).
Claim 1, Ito teaches:
A hazard detector testing system (Ito, Fig. 2: 30) comprising:
a sensing arrangement (Ito, Fig. 2: 33) configured to detect electromagnetic radiation (Ito, Paragraphs [0017-0019], The light receiving means 33 receives light pulses/sensitivity information from sensitivity indicator lamp 18 and operation indicator lamp 19.) produced by a hazard detector (Ito, Fig. 2: 20, The photoelectric smoke detector 20 includes the sensitivity indicator lamp 18 and the operation indicator lamp 19.); and
a spacing arrangement (Ito, Fig. 2: 32) configured to engage with the hazard detector and to maintain a predefined distance between the hazard detector and the sensing arrangement when the spacing arrangement is engaged with the hazard detector (Ito, Paragraphs [0018-0020], The nozzle opening means 32 engages with photoelectric smoke detector 20 by injecting a test gas into an area covered by hood 35. As seen in Fig. 2, the nozzle opening means 32 maintains the distance between the photoelectric smoke detector 20 and the light receiving means 33. Therefore, nozzle opening means 32 is functionally equivalent to a spacing arrangement.);
wherein the spacing arrangement is in the form of a platform or a ring structure or includes one or more walls and / or a plurality of columns (Ito, Paragraphs [0018-0020], As seen in Fig. 2, the “rod-like” structure of nozzle opening means 32 is equivalent to having one or more walls. Additionally, the nozzle opening means 32 is interpretable as a “platform”, i.e. a device or structure for providing a platform, wherein the nozzle opening means 32 provides a platform for opening the nozzle of the gas cylinder 31.).
Claim 8, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the platform comprises a wall defining a separation distance and a hazard detector engagement member and optionally, wherein the surface that is to engage with the hazard detector surface is substantially parallel to the surface of the hazard detector (Ito, Fig. 2: 32, The “rod-like” structure of opening means 32 defines a wall, wherein the opening means 32 defines the separation distance between the smoke detector 20 and the gas cylinder 31/light receiving means 33. The portion of opening means 32 that touches smoke detector 20 is a hazard detector engagement member. It is further noted that the limitations follow “optionally” are not required, i.e. optional.).
Claim 22, Ito further teaches:
Apparatus for spacing a hazard detector from a hazard detector testing apparatus during a test on the hazard detector, comprising: a spacing arrangement of claim 1 (Ito, Paragraphs [0018-0020], The nozzle opening means 32 engages with photoelectric smoke detector 20 by injecting a test gas into an area covered by hood 35. As seen in Fig. 2, the nozzle opening means 32 maintains the distance between the photoelectric smoke detector 20 and the light receiving means 33. Therefore, nozzle opening means 32 is functionally equivalent to a spacing arrangement.), configured to engage a surface of the hazard detector and to maintain a predefined distance between an emitter of electromagnetic radiation on the hazard detector and a sensing arrangement in the hazard detector testing apparatus when the hazard detector testing apparatus is positioned to carry out a test on the hazard detector (Ito, Fig. 2: 32, The “rod-like” structure of opening means 32 defines a wall, wherein the opening means 32 defines the separation distance between the smoke detector 20 and the gas cylinder 31/light receiving means 33. The portion of opening means 32 that touches smoke detector 20 is a hazard detector engagement member. The opening means 32 establishes a distance between the sensitivity indicator lamp 18 and operation indicator lamp 19 and the light receiving means 33.).
Claim 23, Ito further teaches:
The spacing apparatus of claim 22, wherein the arrangement comprises a mechanism for mechanically fixing within the hazard detector testing apparatus (Ito, Fig. 2: 32, As seen in Fig. 2, the opening means 32 is mechanically fixed within the inspection device 30.).
Claim 35, Ito further teaches:
A hazard detector test tool (Ito, Fig. 2) comprising:
a dispenser to receive a hazard detector during a test (Ito, Fig. 2: 35), the dispenser further comprising: the hazard detecting testing system of claim 1 (Ito, Fig. 2); a spacing arrangement configured to engage a surface of a hazard detector and to maintain a predefined distance between an emitter of electromagnetic radiation on the hazard detector and a sensing arrangement in a hazard detector testing apparatus when the hazard detector testing apparatus is positioned to carry out a test on the hazard detector; or a restricting apparatus comprising at least one mask arrangement, comprising an opening configured to restrict a field of view of at least one sensor provided on the sensing arrangement in the hazard detector testing apparatus when the hazard detector testing apparatus is positioned to carry out a test on the hazard detector and optionally wherein, the hazard detector testing system is in the form of an integrated single unit positioned in the dispenser (Ito, Paragraphs [0018-0020], The nozzle opening means 32 engages with photoelectric smoke detector 20 by injecting a test gas into an area covered by hood 35. As seen in Fig. 2, the nozzle opening means 32 maintains the distance between the photoelectric smoke detector 20 and the light receiving means 33. Therefore, nozzle opening means 32 is functionally equivalent to a spacing arrangement. It is noted that every limitation following the “or” limitation, including the “optionally” limitation is interpreted as not being required.).
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.
Claims 5-6, 11-17, 19-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2008 250858 A).
Claim 5, Ito teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the platform is configured to overlay the sensing arrangement.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the size and shape of the nozzle opening means 32 of Ito, as a matter of engineering and/or design choice, such that the nozzle opening means 32 is at a size that at least partially “overlays”, e.g. overlaps, the light receiving means 33. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 6, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the platform comprises a surface to engage with a surface of the hazard detector and optionally, wherein the surface that is to engage with the hazard detector surface is substantially parallel to the surface of the hazard detector (Ito, Fig. 2: 32, As can be seen in Fig. 2, the opening means 32 physically engages with smoke detector 20. It is further noted that the limitations follow “optionally” are not required, i.e. optional.).
Claim 11, Ito teaches:
The system of any preceding claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach:
Further comprising at least one mask arrangement comprising an opening configured to restrict a field of view of at least one sensor provided on the sensing arrangement.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the hood 35 to be capable of restricting the field of view of the light receiving means 33 by enabling the test gas emitted by gas cylinder 31 to travel throughout the area covered by hood 35 (see Ito, Paragraph [0019]). Therefore, the presence of the test gas within the area covered by hood 35 could restrict the field of view of light receiving means 33 by inhibiting the radiation that is detectable by light receiving means 33. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. It is noted that a “mask arrangement” is interpreted as a section or portion of hood 35.
Claim 12, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the opening of the at least one mask arrangement is sized to restrict an angle of a field of view of the at least one sensor so as to limit an amount of ambient electromagnetic radiation detected by the at least one sensor (Ito, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the test gas emitted by gas cylinder 31 and trapped within the area covered by hood 35 to restrict the angle of a field of view of the light receiving means 33. It is noted that the claims do not inherently or explicitly recite how the at least one mask arrangement causes the restriction, and only requires the opening of the at least one mask arrangement to be “sized to restrict”.).
Claim 13, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the opening of the at least one mask arrangement is sized to restrict the angle of a field of view of the at least one sensor so as to limit an amount of ambient electromagnetic radiation normal to the at least one sensor (Ito, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the test gas emitted by gas cylinder 31 and trapped within the area covered by hood 35 to restrict the angle of a field of view of the light receiving means 33, wherein the angle includes an angle “normal” to the light receiving means 33. It is noted that the claims do not inherently or explicitly recite how the at least one mask arrangement causes the restriction, and only requires the opening of the at least one mask arrangement to be “sized to restrict”.).
Claim 14, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one mask arrangement is provided as part of a mask layer that is configured to overlay the sensing arrangement and reduce an amount of ambient electromagnetic radiation detected by the sensing arrangement (Ito, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the test gas emitted by gas cylinder 31 and trapped within the area covered by hood 35 to reduce the amount of radiation receivable by the light receiving means 33. The term “mask layer” is interpreted as encompassing or overlaying the light receiving means 33, and to be a culmination of a plurality of “mask arrangements”, i.e. sections or portions of hood 35.).
Claim 15, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein the mask layer is opaque (Ito, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the design and/or color of hood 35 to be functionally opaque, as a matter of design choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 16, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein an outer edge of the mask layer substantially cooperates with an internal wall of the hazard detector testing system to close a portion of the hazard detection testing system in which the sensing arrangement is housed (Ito, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0019], The outer portion of hood 35 cooperates with the inner portion of hood 35 to close a portion of the fire detector inspection device 30 to enable the spraying of the test gas and to cover the light receiving means 33 within the area covered by hood 35.).
Claim 17, Ito further teaches:
The system of any of claim 11, wherein there are a plurality of mask arrangements and each of the mask arrangements is positioned to correspond to respective one of a plurality of sensors provided on the sensing arrangement (Ito, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to duplicate the inspection device 30 to have a plurality of inspection devices 30, each having at least one hood 35 and light receiving means 33. Collectively, a plurality of inspection devices 30 have a plurality of hoods 35 and a plurality of light receiving means 33. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 19, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 11, further comprising a protective layer configured to seal the opening of the at least one mask arrangement and to provide protection to the sensing arrangement (Ito, Fig. 2: Paragraph [0019], The portion of the hood 35 that encapsulates sensor 20 and simultaneously enables test gas to travel through hood 35 is functionally equivalent to a protective layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for this portion of the hood 35 to prevent some unwanted substance or gas to enter the hood 35, thereby effectively providing protection to the light receiving means 33.).
Claim 20, Ito further teaches:
The system of claim 19, wherein the protective layer is non- opaque at a predetermined wavelength that corresponds to the electromagnetic radiation produced by the hazard detector so that the sensing arrangement is able to detect the electromagnetic radiation (Ito, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the design and/or color of hood 35 to be partially non-opaque, as a matter of design choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 24, Ito further teaches:
Apparatus for restricting a field of view of at least one sensor provided on a sensing arrangement in a hazard detecting apparatus that is to detect electromagnetic radiation emitted by a hazard detector (Ito, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the test gas emitted by gas cylinder 31 and trapped within the area covered by hood 35 to restrict the field of a field of view of the light receiving means 33.); comprising:
at least one mask arrangement of claim 11, comprising an opening configured to restrict a field of view of at least one sensor provided on the sensing arrangement in the hazard detector testing apparatus when the hazard detector testing apparatus is positioned to carry out a test on the hazard detector (Ito, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the test gas emitted by gas cylinder 31 and trapped within the area covered by hood 35 to restrict the field of a field of view of the light receiving means 33.).
Claim 25, Ito further teaches:
The restricting apparatus of claim 24, wherein the at least one mask arrangement comprises means for fixing the at least one masking arrangement to the sensing arrangement (Ito, Fig. 2, As can be seen in Fig. 2, the hood 35 is fixed to the inspection device 30.).
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2008 250858 A) in view of Polsky (U.S. 2011/0126498 A1).
Claim 18, Ito teaches:
The system of claim 14.
Ito does not specifically teach:
Wherein the mask layer is positioned between the sensor arrangement and the spacing arrangement.
Polsky teaches:
High efficiency particle filters and exhaust filters (Polsky, Paragraphs [0041-0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the fire detector inspection device in Ito by integrating the filters of Polsky between the opening means and the light receiving means of Ito.
The motivation would be to control the type of gas(es) that may be able to flow, including removing particular particles (see Polsky, Paragraphs [0041-0042]). Such a modification would ensure that the light receiving means of Ito would be capable of operating for its intended purpose and would therefore yield predictable results.
Claim 21, Ito teaches:
The system of claim 19.
Ito does not specifically teach:
Wherein the protective layer is positioned on the at least one mask arrangement which is positioned between the sensor arrangement and the spacing arrangement.
Polsky teaches:
High efficiency particle filters and exhaust filters (Polsky, Paragraphs [0041-0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the fire detector inspection device in Ito by integrating the filters of Polsky between the opening means and the light receiving means of Ito.
The motivation would be to control the type of gas(es) that may be able to flow, including removing particular particles (see Polsky, Paragraphs [0041-0042]). Such a modification would ensure that the light receiving means of Ito would be capable of operating for its intended purpose and would therefore yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights