The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the RCE amendments received January 30, 2026, amending Claims 23, 25-27, 32, 41-47, and 49-51. Claims 1-22, 24, 28-31, 33-40, and 48 have been cancelled. New Claims 52 was added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the Applicant claims that “the self-propelled pool cleaner is configured to provide information to the user responsive to a determination based on the ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors that the self-propelled swimming pool cleaner is within a predetermined distance from the underwater obstacle” in Claim 42. The Applicant discloses that Paragraphs [0025], [0024], and [0026] as providing support for this amendment, however, the Examiner disagrees. The Applicant discloses in Paragraph [0026] “As a further non-limiting example, the APC 10 may use the sensed information from the ToF sensor 12 to provide information to a customer. In such embodiments, the information need not necessarily be related to a distance or angular orientation of the APC 10. As an example, the APC 10 may provide information about filter status, power level, cleaning cycle time, and/or other information about the APC 10 as desired based on the APC 10 determining, for example, that it is within a predetermined distance from a wall.” The Examiner agrees that a wall is a specific type of obstacle, however, the Applicant has, without previous disclosure, increased the scope of the claim to include providing information to a user that the APC is within a predetermined distance from all obstacles beyond ONLY walls as disclosed in the specification. In other words, all walls are obstacles, however, all obstacles are not walls. Therefore, the scope of the Applicant’s claims improperly includes providing information to a user that the APC is predetermine distance from obstacles that are not walls. For these reasons, Claim 42 contains new matter that was not disclosed in the original application.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “propulsion system” in Claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 42 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In this case, Claim 42 contains new matter making the scope of the claim indefinite since it does not align with the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 23, 25-27, 32, 41-47, 49, 50, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regev et al. US 2020/0249690 (hereafter Regev et al.) in view of Biber EP 2960741 A2 (hereafter Biber).
Regarding Amended Claim 23, Regev et al. teaches:
23. (Currently Amended) A self-propelled
a body (body 90 including vision system housing 21, also shown in Figure 1A) comprising a water inlet (inlet, Paragraph [0097]) and a water outlet (outlet, Paragraph [0097]);
a propulsion system (drive system 93) for propelling the self-propelled pool cleaner (Paragraph [0097]);
at least one brush (brush of brushing system 97):
at least two time-of-flight (ToF) sensors (cameras 41 and 42 – see discussion below – modified to be ToF cameras as taught by Biber) on the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner (within vision system housing 21, Figure 2), wherein each ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors has a fixed orientations relative to the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner (best shown in Figure 6) and comprises
a controller (photographic computerized processor, Paragraph [0131]) communicatively coupled to the two ToF sensors, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive ToF measurements from each of the at least two ToF sensors (Step 410 – sensing distances using images from cameras, Paragraph [0250] and acquiring one or more images of the static pool elements by a stereoscopic camera of the robot—or estimating the distances in another manner (for example using other distance sensors), Paragraph [0253]);
based on the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors, identify an underwater obstacle (Step 410 – elements may be ladders, sidewalls, drain, and Paragraphs [0043] and [0129]); and
control navigation of the self-propelled pool cleaner based on the identified underwater obstacle and the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors (Steps 420 and 430, Paragraphs [0043] and [0139]).
Regev et al. discloses the use of two stereoscopic cameras 41 and 42 that are used to capture images and determine distances between the robot and static pool elements (ladders, sidewalls, stairs, etc.) using image processing. Regev et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0253] that includes acquiring one or more images of the static pool elements by a stereoscopic camera or estimating the distances using other distance sensors. The reference Biber discloses a service robot that can be configured for cleaning a swimming pool. Biber discloses an optical detection device employing at least one time-of-flight camera that is configured to BOTH collect images and measure distances by measuring a transit time of a reflective portion of a modulated light signal from different directions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both cameras taught by Regev et al. with time-of-flight cameras as taught by Biber, allowing the modified device to process camera data that simultaneously provides camera images and ToF distance measurements with the motivation to reduce image processing burden and provide advantageously precise detection of the surroundings as taught by Biber. Therefore, the performance of the Regev et al. device would be enhanced by replacing the two cameras with ToF cameras as taught by Biber since the time-of-flight measurements from the Biber cameras will be more accurate than estimating the distances using only the Regev et al. cameras and processing stereoscopic images without a secondary distance sensor.
Regarding Amended Claim 25, Regev et al. teaches:
25. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras) are submergible (vision PCB system is packaged in a water tight, waterproof casing, Paragraph [0134]).
Regarding Amended Claim 26, Regev et al. teaches:
26. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras) are configured to transmit (using As modified by Biber - each ToF camera includes illumination elements 24 (infrared LEDs)) and receive light (cameras receive reflected light, Paragraph [0154]) underwater.
Regarding Amended Claim 27, Regev et al. teaches:
27. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras) are at different locations (spaced apart as best shown in Figure 6) on the body (body 90 including vision system housing 21, also shown in Figure 1A) of the self-propelled pool cleaner.
Regarding Amended Claim 32, Regev et al. teaches:
32. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled self-propelled pool cleaner based on the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors (Steps 420 and 430, Paragraphs [0043] and [0139]).
Regarding Amended Claim 41, Regev et al. teaches:
41. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors (Step 410 and Paragraphs [0043] and [0129]), the self-propelled pool cleaner is configured to provide information to a user (Paragraphs [0140]-[0144]).
Regarding Amended Claim 42, Regev et al. teaches:
42. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled 41, wherein the self-propelled pool cleaner (pool cleaning robot 10) is configured to provide information to the user responsive to a determination based on the ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors that the self-propelled swimming pool cleaner is within a predetermined distance from the underwater obstacle (notifying a user that the device is within a predetermined distance from an “obstacle” is new matter as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection).
Regarding Amended Claim 43, Regev et al. teaches:
43. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled
Regev et al. discloses a status indicator 55, however, he does not specifically disclose what “status” the indicator is configured to convey. The Regev et al. device employs a filtering unit 92 comprising a filter which would obviously collect debris to a point where it needs to be cleaned. The Regev et al. device employs a rechargeable battery system that would obviously discharge during operation to a point where it needs to be charged. In Paragraph [0242], Regev et al. discloses a battery resources status, however, he does not clearly link the status to the status indicator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the status indicator 55 is employed to signal to a user, the operating status of the filter or battery as claimed, since these will change over time to a point where the operation of the device is degraded. Motivation to provide a status of the filter or battery would allow the user to monitor the status of operation and take action if user intervention is necessary.
Regarding Amended Claim 44, Regev et al. teaches:
44. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled self-propelled pool cleaner and the underwater obstacle based on the ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras)(see discussion below).
Regev et al. discloses in Figure 12 the measurement of the device to sidewalls 101 and 102 (D1 and D2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be configured to maintain minimum distance between the robot and sidewall where the device can clean as close to the wall as possible without collision with the sidewall with the motivation to maximize cleaning coverage of the pool.
Regarding Amended Claim 45, Regev et al. teaches:
45. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras), the controller (photographic computerized processor, Paragraph [0131]) is configured to identify the underwater obstacle as a wall and determine an inclination of the wall relative to a surface along which the self-propelled pool cleaner is positioned (Paragraphs [0122] and [0197]).
Regarding Amended Claim 46, Regev et al. teaches:
46. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras), the controller (photographic computerized processor, Paragraph [0131]) is configured to determine a size of the underwater obstacle (creates to-scale imaging allowing size determination, Paragraphs [0106] and [0108]).
Regarding Amended Claim 47, Regev et al. teaches:
47. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled ToF measurements obtained by the at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras), the self-propelled pool cleaner (pool cleaning robot 10) is configured to determine a location of the self-propelled pool cleaner relative to a waterline of a pool (Paragraph [0118]).
Regarding Amended Claim 49, Regev et al. teaches:
49. (Currently Amended) A[[The ]]self-propelled
comprising:
a body (body 90 including vision system housing 21, also shown in Figure 1A) comprising a water inlet (inlet, Paragraph [0097]) and a water outlet (outlet, Paragraph [0097]);
a propulsion system (drive system 93) for propelling the self-propelled pool cleaner (Paragraph [0097]);
at least one brush (brush of brushing system 97):
at least two time-of-flight (ToF) sensors (cameras 41 and 42 – see discussion below – modified to be ToF cameras as taught by Biber) on the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner (within vision system housing 21, Figure 2), wherein each ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors has a fixed orientations relative to the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner (best shown in Figure 6) and comprises at least one emitter (As modified by Biber - each ToF camera includes illumination elements 24 (infrared LEDs)), and at least one receiver (as modified by Biber - each ToF camera includes a detecting sensor of optical detection device 12)), wherein a first ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors is oriented at a first angle relative to the body (see “toe-in” discussion below) and a second ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors is oriented at a second angle relative to the body (see “toe-in” discussion below),
wherein the second angle is have different from the first angle[[s]] relative to the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner (see “toe-in” discussion below); and
a controller (photographic computerized processor, Paragraph [0131]) communicatively coupled to the two ToF sensors, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive ToF measurements from each of the at least two ToF sensors (Step 410 – sensing distances using images from cameras, Paragraph [0250] and acquiring one or more images of the static pool elements by a stereoscopic camera of the robot—or estimating the distances in another manner (for example using other distance sensors), Paragraph [0253]);
based on the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors, identify an underwater obstacle (Step 410 – elements may be ladders, sidewalls, drain, and Paragraphs [0043] and [0129]); and
control navigation of the self-propelled pool cleaner based on the identified underwater obstacle and the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors (Steps 420 and 430, Paragraphs [0043] and [0139]).
Regev et al. discloses the use of two stereoscopic cameras 41 and 42 that are used to capture images and determine distances between the robot and static pool elements (ladders, sidewalls, stairs, etc.) using image processing. Regev et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0253] that includes acquiring one or more images of the static pool elements by a stereoscopic camera or estimating the distances using other distance sensors. The reference Biber discloses a service robot that can be configured for cleaning a swimming pool. Biber discloses an optical detection device employing at least one time-of-flight camera that is configured to BOTH collect images and measure distances by measuring a transit time of a reflective portion of a modulated light signal from different directions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both cameras taught by Regev et al. with time-of-flight cameras as taught by Biber, allowing the modified device to process camera data that simultaneously provides camera images and ToF distance measurements with the motivation to reduce image processing burden and provide advantageously precise detection of the surroundings as taught by Biber. Therefore, the performance of the Regev et al. device would be enhanced by replacing the two cameras with ToF cameras as taught by Biber since the time-of-flight measurements from the Biber cameras will be more accurate than estimating the distances using only the Regev et al. cameras and processing stereoscopic images without a secondary distance sensor.
Regev et al. teaches the use of a stereoscopic camera comprising cameras 41 and 42 mounted to a main PCB as shown in Figure 6. Regev et al. does not disclose that the cameras are mounted at a specific angle relative to each other. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that prior art stereoscopic cameras typically use either a parallel arrangement or a “toe-in” alignment where the cameras are set to a convergence point where the cameras’ optical axes intersect. In this case, the underwater viewing distance will be limited resulting in a distance for the convergence point using a “toe-in” arrangement that would improve the stereoscopic images. That being said, the “toe-in” arrangement would result in the cameras being symmetrically rotated at an equal, but opposite direction, angle resulting in a first angle and a second angle that are different relative to the same reference point.
Regarding Amended Claim 50, Regev et al. teaches:
50. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled at least two ToF sensors (cameras 41 and 42 modified to be ToF cameras) have a same angle relative to the body (vision system housing 21, also shown in Figure 1A) of the self-propelled pool cleaner (pool cleaning robot 10).
Regarding New Claim 52, Regev et al. teaches:
52. (New) A self-propelled pool cleaner (pool cleaning robot 10) comprising:
a body (body 90 including vision system housing 21, also shown in Figure 1A) comprising a water inlet (inlet, Paragraph [0097]) and a water outlet (outlet, Paragraph [0097]);
a propulsion system (drive system 93) for propelling the self-propelled pool cleaner (Paragraph [0097]);
at least one brush (brush of brushing system 97;
at least two time-of-flight (ToF) sensors (cameras 41 and 42 – see discussion below – modified to be ToF cameras as taught by Biber) on the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner (within vision system housing 21, Figure 2), wherein each ToF sensor has a fixed orientation[s] relative to the body of the self- propelled pool cleaner (two cameras spaced apart as best shown in Figure 6) and the ToF sensor comprises at least one emitter (As modified by Biber - each ToF camera includes illumination elements 24 (infrared LEDs)) and at least one receiver (as modified by Biber - each ToF camera includes a detecting sensor of optical detection device 12), wherein a first ToF sensor (camera 41 modified to be a ToF camera) of the at least two ToF sensors is on a first portion (shown with first lens 43 in Figure 6) of the self-propelled pool cleaner with a first sensing region relative to the body (camera field of view when located as shown with first lens 43 in Figure 6), and a second ToF sensor (camera 42 modified to be a ToF camera) of the at least two ToF sensors is on a second portion (shown with second lens 44 in Figure 6) of the self-propelled pool cleaner different from the first portion and with a second sensing region relative to the body (camera field of view when located as shown with second lens 44 in Figure 6) of the self-propelled pool cleaner, the second sensing region different from the first sensing region (they are not co-axially positioned, therefore, their field of views will sense different regions); and
a controller (photographic computerized processor, Paragraph [0131]) communicatively coupled to the two ToF sensors, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive ToF measurements from each of the two ToF sensors (Step 410 – sensing distances using images from cameras, Paragraph [0250] and acquiring one or more images of the static pool elements by a stereoscopic camera of the robot—or estimating the distances in another manner (for example using other distance sensors), Paragraph [0253]);
based on the ToF measurements from the two ToF sensors, identify an underwater obstacle (Step 410 – elements may be ladders, sidewalls, drain, and Paragraphs [0043] and [0129]); and
control navigation of the self-propelled pool cleaner based on the identified underwater obstacle and the ToF measurements from the two ToF sensors (Steps 420 and 430, Paragraphs [0043] and [0139]).
Regev et al. discloses the use of two stereoscopic cameras 41 and 42 that are used to capture images and determine distances between the robot and static pool elements (ladders, sidewalls, stairs, etc.) using image processing. Regev et al. additionally discloses in Paragraph [0253] that includes acquiring one or more images of the static pool elements by a stereoscopic camera or estimating the distances using other distance sensors. The reference Biber discloses a service robot that can be configured for cleaning a swimming pool. Biber discloses an optical detection device employing at least one time-of-flight camera that is configured to BOTH collect images and measure distances by measuring a transit time of a reflective portion of a modulated light signal from different directions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both cameras taught by Regev et al. with time-of-flight cameras as taught by Biber, allowing the modified device to process camera data that simultaneously provides camera images and ToF distance measurements with the motivation to reduce image processing burden and provide advantageously precise detection of the surroundings as taught by Biber. Therefore, the performance of the Regev et al. device would be enhanced by replacing the two cameras with ToF cameras as taught by Biber since the time-of-flight measurements from the Biber cameras will be more accurate than estimating the distances using only the Regev et al. cameras and processing stereoscopic images without a secondary distance sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 51 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them unsatisfactory. Therefore, the examiner maintains the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them unsatisfactory. Therefore, the examiner maintains the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the examiner withdraws the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed September 17, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). Arguments regarding rejections of Claims 23, 25-27, 32, 35, 41-47, 49, 50, and 52 under Regev et al. US 2020/0249690 in view of Biber EP 2960741 A2 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the rejections have been modified to reflect the current claim language.
Detailed responses to the Applicant’s arguments follow.
The Applicant argues: Ҥ 103 Rejections
Claims 23, 25-27, 32, 35, 41-47, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0249690 of Regev et al. ("Regev") in view of EP Patent No. 2960741 of Biber et al. ("Biber"). Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration as explained below.
With respect to claim 23, Applicant submits that Regev and Biber fail to teach or suggest a self-propelled pool cleaner with "at least two time-of-flight (ToF) sensors on the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner" and a controller adapted to "receive ToF measurements from each of the at least two ToF sensors,""based on the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors, identify an underwater obstacle," and "control navigation of the self-propelled pool cleaner based on the identified underwater obstacle and the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the Office Action, Regev discloses two cameras that provide captured images of static pool obstacles (walls, ladders, etc.) that is merged and synced and provided to a processor. These images are processed to estimate distances to the static pool obstacles during navigation. In Paragraph [0253], Regev discloses that other distance sensors could be combined with the camera images for estimating distances which highlights a potential improvement to the device. That being said, the reference Biber discloses a pool cleaning machine that employs at least one, therefore, perhaps more than one, ToF cameras that capture both camera images and distance measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both cameras taught by Regev with ToF camera taught by Biber resulting in an improved Regev device, highlighted in Regev Paragraph [0253], with two ToF cameras providing the processor both images and accurate distance measurements, eliminating the need to rely upon distances “estimated” by processing the stereoscopic images.
The Applicant argues: “Referring to the figure below, for example, Regev teaches that pool cleaner includes LEDs (53, 54) and cameras (41, 42) for the purpose of obtaining images of the pool environment. Regev further teaches ornametnal laser beams (51, 52). In this manner, Regev's system functions as a "vision system" for the pool cleaner that the pool cleaner may rely on for navigation purposes. See, e.g., Regev at [0203] ("FIGS. 4-8 illustrate examples of various components of the vision system 20 such as first camera 41,... second camera 42,... merge and sync unit 45 for merging and synchronizing between images from the first and second cameras, processor 46 for processing the images,... first ornamental angled laser beam 51, second ornamental angled laser beam 52, first LED 53, [and] second LED 54."); see also Regev at [0045] ("sensing may include illuminating a surrounding of the robot to provide an illuminated surrounding; acquiring one or more images of the illuminated surrounding; and processing the one or more images to determine whether the surrounding include the one or more static pool elements"); see, e.g., Regev at [0106] ("vision system 20 may be configured to photographing the actual surrounding area of a pool cleaning robot in order to recognize and memorize the entire environment of the pool."); see also Regev at [0151] ("choice between different colored light beams such white, green, blue, red, laser and the like, may be automatic and subject to quality of real time processed photographic views' qualities such as sharpness, contrasts and color that may automatically initiate a lighting procedure, which may be able to constantly improve the captured views."); see also Regeve at [0155] ("[t]he at least one lighting system may include at least one laser beam emitter that may be used for ornamental purposes, providing an entertaining light show in the pool and may also be used as photographic capturing tool.").
The fact that Regev includes "cameras" and light sources does not make Regev a ToF system (or sensor) as asserted by the Office Action, nor would the skilled person conflate the two. The skilled person would understand that a ToF sensors obtain ToF measurements which determine a distance by timing how long it takes a signal to travel from a source to a target and back to a sensor. Regev's "vision system" does no such thing and instead simply obtains photographs / images. Regev at [0106] ("The vision system 20 may be configured to photographing the actual surrounding area of a pool cleaning robot in order to recognize and memorize the entire environment of the pool") (emphasis added). Thus, while Regev might determine a distance based on image processing, this is not a ToF measurement.
When properly considered, Regev at best teaches a pool cleaner with a vision system, at least two ToF sensors, nor does Regev teach or suggest any control based on ToF measurements.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the Office Action, Regev discloses two cameras that provide captured images of static pool obstacles (walls, ladders, etc.) that is merged and synced and provided to a processor. These images are processed to estimate distances to the static pool obstacles during navigation. The Applicant argues that “while Regev might determine a distance based on image processing, this is not a ToF measurement”. The Examiner agrees that Regev is not a ToF measurement. In Paragraph [0253], Regev discloses that other distance sensors could be combined with the camera images for estimating distances which highlights a potential improvement to the device. For this reason, the Examiner turned to the prior art and found a solution consistent with the Regev disclosure. The reference Biber discloses a pool cleaning device that employed at least one ToF camera that produced both camera images and distance measurements using ToF physics. As presented in the rejections, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace both of the two original Regev cameras with ToF cameras, which results in an improved Regev device (in combination with Biber) that includes two ToF cameras that both send camera images and distance measurements to the processor.
The Applicant argues: “Biber fails to cure this deficiency. For example, while Biber describes an autonomous service robot with a "time-of-flight camera" which will "emit a light pulse in several directions simultaneously and to measure the transit time of a reflective component of a modulated light signal from the different directions" (Biber at [0010]), Biber at best teaches a single ToF camera. Thus, Biber fails to teach "at least two ToF sensors" as recited in claim 23, nor does Biber teach an identification of underwater obtacles or control of navigation of a pool cleaner baased on the ToF measurements from at least two ToF sensors.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the Office Action, Biber discloses at least one ToF camera (not only one) that captures both camera images and distance measurements using ToF physics. Since the Regev device includes two cameras, replacement of both cameras with a ToF camera, resulting in two ToF cameras on the modified Regev/Biber device would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The Applicant argues: “Accordingly, even if Regev were modified to include the time-of-flight camera of Biber, the modified assembly would still fail to teach or suggest "at least two time-of-flight (ToF) sensors on the body of the self-propelled pool cleaner" and a controller adapted to "receive ToF measurements from each of the at least two ToF sensors,""based on the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors, identify an underwater obstacle," and "control navigation of the self-propelled pool cleaner based on the identified underwater obstacle and the ToF measurements from the at least two ToF sensors" as required by claim 23. The only teaching or suggestion of such features is the instant application, and Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight to modify the references in a manner neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 23 is allowable.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons previously presented. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 49 is allowable for similar reasons as claim 23, and is further allowable because Regev and Biber fail to teach or suggest "a first ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors is oriented at a first angle relative to the body and a second ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors is oriented at a second angle relative to the body, wherein the second angle is different from the first angle relative to the body of the self- propelled pool cleaner" as recited in claim 49.
As noted above, at best, the combination of Regev and Biber teach a single time-of-flight camera (in Biber). Thus, not only does Regev and Biber fail to teach at least two ToF sensors or control noted above, the proposed modification further fails to teach or suggest "a first ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors is oriented at a first angle relative to the body and a second ToF sensor of the at least two ToF sensors is oriented at a second angle relative to the body, wherein the second angle is different from the first angle relative to the body of the self- propelled pool cleaner" as recited in claim 49. For at least these additional reasons, claim 49 is allowable.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claims 23 and 49 are allowable. Claims 25-27, 32, 41-47, 50, and 51 are allowable as they depend from claim 23 or 49, and may be allowable for additional reasons. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons previously presented. Regarding the first and second angles, the Examiner describes in the rejection that it would have been obvious to create a “toe-in” arrangement that would improve the stereoscopic images. That being said, the “toe-in” arrangement would result in the cameras being symmetrically rotated at an equal, but opposite direction, angle resulting in a first angle and a second angle that are different relative to the same reference point.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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 KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights