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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/19/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 1, filed 9/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly applied prior art US 2008/0016610 (Kuo) which teaches an activity pool comprising an activity pool reservoir, water reservoir and an axial flow pump vertically arranged and configured to move water from the water reservoir into the activity pool reservoir.
Claim Objections
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.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Applicant’s submission contains typographical errors which appear to be caused by a numbering or bulleting automatic formatting complication. The misnumbered claims have been renumbered, based upon previous submissions and the claim language, as indicated below:
Submitted dependent claim 1 has been renumbered Claim 2.
Submitted dependent claim 7 has been renumbered Claim 10.
Submitted dependent claim 8 has been renumbered Claim 11.
Submitted dependent claim 10 has been renumbered Claim 14.
Submitted dependent claim 12 has been renumbered Claim 16.
For clarity, the renumbered claims and their text are provided below:
Claim 2: The activity pool according to claim 1, wherein the activity deck comprises a composite material coupled with a metallic frame.
Claim 10: The activity pool according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of hydraulic lifts are arranged in an H-shaped configuration or a U-shaped configuration.
Claim 11: The activity pool according to claim 1, further comprising an accessory mechanism removably coupled with a top surface of the activity deck.
Claim 14: The activity pool according to claim 12, wherein the configurations include a kiddie pool configuration where the activity deck is positioned below the top opening of the pool at a third level, the third level being above the first level and the second level.
Claim 16: The activity pool according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of hydraulic lifts are arranged in an H-shaped configuration or a U-shaped configuration.
Claims 7 and 8 were previously cancelled and remain cancelled.
Claims 13 and 15, although not submitted, were previously cancelled and remain cancelled.
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 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR3054536 (Barre) in view of US 2018/0334822 (Kanetis) and US 2008/0016610 (Kuo).
Regarding claim 1, Barre discloses an activity pool comprising:
a pool comprising a top opening and a depth (Fig. 4; annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
563
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an activity deck disposed within the pool (vertically moveable deck; Fig. 4, annotated figure above);
wherein the pool comprises an activity pool reservoir (pool interior) and the activity deck is disposed in the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 4);
the activity deck being moveable in a vertical direction (Fig. 4; annotated figure above) between the following configurations (Fig. 4; annotated figure below):
a full pool configuration where the activity deck is positioned at a first level, the first level being lowest vertical position (Top view of Fig. 4, lowest configuration);
a sport pool configuration where the activity deck is positioned below the top opening of the pool at a second level, the second level being above the first level (Middle view of Fig. 4, any configuration above the lowest point);
and an activity court configuration where the top surface of the activity deck is approximately coplanar with the top surface of the pool (Fig. 4, bottom view);
PNG
media_image2.png
563
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of hydraulic lifts (Figs. 2-4), wherein each of the plurality of hydraulic lifts are disposed between the activity deck and a bottom of the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 4), each of the plurality of hydraulic lifts are arranged in a vertical orientation (Fig. 4), and the plurality of hydraulic lifts move the activity deck between the configurations.
PNG
media_image3.png
563
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the set heights for different configurations, Barre discloses that the adjustable range of the activity deck is dependent upon the range of motion of the hydraulic cylinders and the number of cylinders stacked/utilized (Specification). Barre specifically discloses that the adjustable activity deck is configured to move such that its surface varies between 680mm (2’2”) above the bottom of the pool (Fig. 2) and 2280mm (7’5”) above the bottom of the pool (Fig. 2) while providing an example of a pool with a depth of 2500 mm (8’2”) (Specification). Such an arrangement would produce an adjustable range of ~8 inches to ~5’11 inches below the top opening of the pool. As such Barre discloses that the deck can be adjusted into a sport pool configuration which is between 1 and 3 feet below the top surface of the pool
Barre, however, does not explicitly disclose that the activity court configuration results in the activity deck being coplanar with the top opening of the activity pool reservoir. Barre also does not disclose the inclusion of a water reservoir adjacent the activity pool reservoir, and separated in part from the activity pool reservoir by a wall, with an axial flow pump vertically arranged within the water reservoir.
Kanetis teaches an activity pool (100) comprising a vertically adjustable activity deck (102/104) which is configured to be adjusted through a variety of heights/configurations including an activity court configuration (Fig. 1.1, 3.1) in which the activity deck is coplanar with the top opening of the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 1.1, 3.1 – deck 102 is coplanar with surrounding surface 126 as the top of the pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the activity deck to be adjustable to a height which is coplanar with the top opening of the activity pool reservoir, as taught by Kanetis, so that the activity deck can be adjusted to a position where a user can utilize the deck as a dry activity area while also avoiding a drop/change in height between the activity deck and surrounding area which could pose a tripping hazard.
Kuo teaches an activity pool comprising an activity pool reservoir and a water reservoir adjacent the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 4; annotated figure below) with the activity pool reservoir and the water reservoir are separated in part by a wall (Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
318
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kuo further teaches the provision of an axial flow pump (3) arranged vertically (Fig. 4) within the water reservoir and comprising a motor (31), a drive shaft (32) and an impeller (33) with the motor disposed above the water reservoir (Fig. 4), the drive shaft extending below the motor along a vertical axis and coupled at one end with the motor and at the other end with the impeller (Para. 0036; Rotation rods/drive shafts couple the impellers to the motors). Wherein the axial flow pump is configured to force water from the water reservoir through the axial flow pump and into the activity pool reservoir (Para. 0036, Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water reservoir adjacent the activity pool reservoir, and separated from the activity reservoir in part by a wall, along with an axial flow pump arranged vertically within the water reservoir and configured to force water from the water reservoir into the activity pool reservoir, as taught by Kuo, so as to facilitate the creation of a controlled water current within the activity pool reservoir for various purposes such as exercise or entertainment while also providing separation between the pump operation area (water reservoir) and the region where a user is present (activity pool reservoir) for safety.
Regarding claim 2, Barre does not provide details regarding the construction of the activity deck.
Kanetis teaches a pool (100) with a vertically adjustable deck (102/104) coupled to a frame (122). The deck material can comprise a composite material (Para. 0059) while the frame it is attached to can be metallic (Para. 0081). The deck material can comprise a composite material (Para. 0059) while the frame it is attached to can be metallic (Para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the deck such that it comprises a composite material coupled with a metallic frame, as taught by Kanetis, so that the deck is waterproof and sufficiently strong to support user activities while also reducing/minimizing the weight of the deck which could make it easier to install and/or reduce the complexity/weight/costs of its associated support structures.
Regarding claim 10, Barre states that the hydraulic lifts are arranged in an H-shaped configuration or a U-shaped configuration (in so much as applicant’s hydraulic lifts are arranged in such configurations).
PNG
media_image5.png
292
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre in view of Kanetis and Kuo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8,499,373 (Saviano).
Regarding claim 11, Barre does not state the inclusion of an accessory mechanism removably coupled with a top surface of the activity deck.
Saviano teaches a mounting arrangement for removably coupling various accessory mechanisms (18/20) to a pool floor/deck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an accessory mechanism removably coupled to the activity deck, as taught by Saviano, so that a user can easily install or remove various accessory mechanisms to facilitate use of the activity deck for different activities (such as removed for open swimming or attached to provide seating supports).
Claims 12, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre in view of Kanetis and Kuo.
Regarding claims 12, 14 and 17, Barre discloses an activity pool comprising:
a pool comprising a top opening and a depth (Fig. 4; annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
563
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an activity deck disposed within the pool (vertically moveable deck; Fig. 4, annotated figure above);
wherein the pool comprises an activity pool reservoir (pool interior) and the activity deck is disposed in the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 4);
the activity deck being moveable in a vertical direction (Fig. 4; annotated figure above) between the following configurations (Fig. 4; annotated figure below):
a full pool configuration where the activity deck is positioned at a first level, the first level being lowest vertical position (Top view of Fig. 4, lowest configuration);
a sport pool configuration where the activity deck is positioned below the top opening of the pool at a second level, the second level being above the first level (Middle view of Fig. 4, any configuration above the lowest point);
a kiddie pool configuration where the activity deck is positioned below the top opening of the pool at a third level, the third level being above the first level and the second level (Middle view of Fig. 4/any height above the ‘full pool’ and ‘sport pool’ configurations);
and an activity court configuration where the top surface of the activity deck is approximately coplanar with the top surface of the pool (Fig. 4, bottom view);
PNG
media_image2.png
563
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of hydraulic lifts (Figs. 2-4), wherein each of the plurality of hydraulic lifts are disposed between the activity deck and a bottom of the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 4), each of the plurality of hydraulic lifts are arranged in a vertical orientation (Fig. 4), and the plurality of hydraulic lifts move the activity deck between the configurations;
PNG
media_image3.png
563
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the set heights for different configurations, Barre discloses that the adjustable range of the activity deck is dependent upon the range of motion of the hydraulic cylinders and the number of cylinders stacked/utilized (Specification). Barre specifically discloses that the adjustable activity deck is configured to move such that its surface varies between 680mm (2’2”) above the bottom of the pool (Fig. 2) and 2280mm (7’5”) above the bottom of the pool (Fig. 2) while providing an example of a pool with a depth of 2500 mm (8’2”) (Specification). Such an arrangement would produce an adjustable range of ~8 inches to ~5’11 inches below the top opening of the pool. As such Barre discloses that the deck can be adjusted into a sport pool configuration which is between 1 and 3 feet below the top surface of the pool
Barre, however, does not disclose the inclusion of a water reservoir adjacent the activity pool reservoir, and separated in part from the activity pool reservoir by a wall, with an axial flow pump disposed vertically within the water reservoir. Barre also does not disclose details regarding the construction/material of the activity deck and isn’t explicit about whether or not the deck reaches a level coplanar with the top of the pool.
Kanetis teaches an activity pool (100) comprising a vertically adjustable activity deck (102/104) coupled to a frame (122) which is configured to be adjusted through a variety of heights/configurations including an activity court configuration (Fig. 1.1, 3.1) in which the activity deck is coplanar with the top opening of the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 1.1, 3.1 – deck 102 is coplanar with surrounding surface 126 as the top of the pool).The deck material can comprise a composite material for the top surface (Para. 0059) while the frame it is attached to can be metallic (Para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the activity deck to be adjustable to a height which is coplanar with the top opening of the activity pool reservoir, as taught by Kanetis, so that the activity deck can be adjusted to a position where a user can utilize the deck as a dry activity area while also avoiding a drop/change in height between the activity deck and surrounding area which could pose a tripping hazard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the deck such that it comprises a composite material top surface coupled with a metallic frame, as taught by Kanetis, so that the deck is waterproof and sufficiently strong to support user activities while also reducing/minimizing the weight of the deck which could make it easier to install and/or reduce the complexity/weight/costs of its associated support structures.
Kuo teaches an activity pool comprising an activity pool reservoir and a water reservoir adjacent the activity pool reservoir (Fig. 4; annotated figure below) with the activity pool reservoir and the water reservoir are separated in part by a wall (Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
318
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kuo further teaches the provision of an axial flow pump (3) arranged vertically (Fig. 4) within the water reservoir and comprising a motor (31), a drive shaft (32) and an impeller (33) with the motor disposed above the water reservoir (Fig. 4), the drive shaft extending below the motor along a vertical axis and coupled at one end with the motor and at the other end with the impeller (Para. 0036; Rotation rods/drive shafts couple the impellers to the motors). Wherein the axial flow pump is configured to force water from the water reservoir through the axial flow pump and into the activity pool reservoir (Para. 0036, Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water reservoir adjacent the activity pool reservoir, and separated from the activity reservoir in part by a wall, along with an axial flow pump arranged vertically within the water reservoir and configured to force water from the water reservoir into the activity pool reservoir, as taught by Kuo, so as to facilitate the creation of a controlled water current within the activity pool reservoir for various purposes such as exercise or entertainment while also providing separation between the pump operation area (water reservoir) and the region where a user is present (activity pool reservoir) for safety.
Regarding claim 16, Barre states that the hydraulic lifts are arranged in an H-shaped configuration or a U-shaped configuration (in so much as applicant’s hydraulic lifts are arranged in such configurations).
PNG
media_image5.png
292
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre in view of Kanetis and Kuo as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Saviano.
Regarding claim 18, Barre does not state the inclusion of a plurality of nut sleeves disposed within the activity deck.
Saviano teaches a mounting arrangement for attaching various accessories to a pool floor/deck comprising a plurality of nut sleeves (76) disposed within the deck/floor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of nut sleeves within the activity deck, as taught by Saviano, so as to provide mounting points for a user to selectively install various accessories for use during various activities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754