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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (PRO 63/197,913 filed 07 June 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 6, and 22 recite the phrase “permanent or semi-permanent”. The disclosure describes such a phrase contextually: “In contrast with kiddie or wading pools that are movable by a single person, the pools described herein are permanent or semi-permanent vessels that have traditionally required plumbed circulation and filtration systems and are not easily movable without requiring significant disassembly of such vessels” (Specification, p0017). The Examiner will interpret the phrase “permanent or semi-permanent” as described. It is further noted that while Applicant has indicated “permanent or semi-permanent vessels” to “traditionally” have plumbed circulation and filtration systems, the claimed invention requiring a “pipeless pool” is directed toward “permanent or semi-permanent vessels” that do not have these “traditional” plumbed circulation and filtration systems.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections of Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 12, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by PORAT (US 2006/0053572 A1), Claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PORAT (US 2006/0053572 A1) in view of OSHLACK et al. (US 2003/0198673 A1), and Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PORAT (US 2006/0053572 A1) in view of PHILLIPS et al. (US 5,725,761), Applicant argues that PORAT fails to teach or suggest the limitation that “the portable circulation device is the sole water circulation system of the pipeless pool for circulating and filtering water of the pipeless pool” recited in Claims 1, 6, and 22 (pg. 5, middle). Applicant argues PORAT’s disclosure is directed to a chlorine generator that replaces in-line generators and that PORAT fails to address whether a pool for which the chlorine generator is designed for contains pipes or not (pg. 5-6). Even further, Applicant argues PORAT lacks any teaching of a “pipeless pool lacking operational, fixed water-circulation equipment, wherein the pipeless pool is a permanent or semi-permanent vessel” as required by claim 1 (pg. 6, bottom). For such reasons, Applicant argues PORAT fails to anticipate Claims 1, 6, and 22.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is understood in the art, a “pool” is simply a small body of water, e.g., a “swimming pool”. Further, at its most basic understanding, a pool is simply a tank or vessel of variable shape made for holding a liquid. There are no requirements for a pool to include piping systems, filters, cleaning systems, or the like. Such piping systems or filters are considered additional features that can be a part of a pool but are not required and do not alter or change the definition of a pool.
While Applicant has claimed a “pipeless pool lacking operational, fixed water-circulation equipment, wherein the pipeless pool is a permanent or semi-permanent vessel”, such a limitation does not add or detract from this basic definition of a pool. By broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claimed “pipeless pool lacking operational, fixed water-circulation equipment, wherein the pipeless pool is a permanent or semi-permanent vessel” is read upon by prior art that at least discloses a “pool” and is deficient in explicitly disclosing pipes or other operational, fixed water-circulation equipment or equivalent.
To that end, PORAT teaches such a “pool” lacking any pipes or other operational, fixed water-circulation equipment because PORAT does not teach such pipes or other operational, fixed water-circulation equipment are present or associated with their disclosed pool. Nowhere in the prior art does PORAT mention or allude to these additional features; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art will interpret PORAT to be teaching simply a “pool”. Even further, based on context, PORAT seems to imply that the taught chlorine generator is designed for pools without such piping or other features; in p0005:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PORAT explicitly discloses “an object of the present invention is to provide a method and apparatus for generating and adding chlorine to pools… the use of which requires no installation services by a plumber”; and in p0011:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PORAT teaches that in order to “equalize the distribution of chlorine ions in the pool”, the disclosed automated pool cleaner is programmed to periodically move to a new location. A similar statement is disclosed in p0039: “chlorine is distributed by the movement of the pool cleaner throughout the body of water in which it is moving”. Such disclosures anticipatorily indicate a lack of a fixed water-circulation capability as claimed.
For the same reasons, these cited sections further read on the claimed limitation “the portable circulation device is the sole water circulation system of the pipeless pool for circulating and filtering water of the pipeless pool”. The latter half of the instant limitation, i.e., “for circulating and filtering water of the pipeless pool”, is directed toward an intended use of the claimed portable circulation device. So long as the taught automated pool cleaner by PORAT has the capability to circulate and filter water, such a limitation is met. Indeed, as described by PORAT, the cleaner includes a conventional pump motor 24 that draws water through a filter at a lower portion of the housing and discharges filtered water through an outlet 13 in the housing 12 (p0028; FIG. 1); such a combination of motor and filter and the drawing and discharging of water/filtered water reads on the instant limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 12, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by PORAT (US 2006/0053572 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 22, PORAT discloses an automated self-propelled robotic pool cleaner (abstract) for use in a pool, e.g., such as those found in the residential pool market (p0004). Although not explicitly disclosed, it is generally understood by any one of ordinary skill in the art that the residential pool market includes such permanent or semi-permanent pools such as in-ground pools (i.e., wherein the… pool is a permanent or semi-permanent vessel). PORAT does not teach pipes or other operational, fixed water-circulation equipment are present or associated with their disclosed pool. Nowhere in the prior art does PORAT mention or allude to these additional features; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art will interpret PORAT to be teaching simply a “pool”. Even further, based on context, PORAT seems to imply that the taught chlorine generator is designed for pools without such piping or other features; in p0005:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PORAT explicitly discloses “an object of the present invention is to provide a method and apparatus for generating and adding chlorine to pools… the use of which requires no installation services by a plumber”; and in p0011:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PORAT teaches that in order to “equalize the distribution of chlorine ions in the pool”, the disclosed automated pool cleaner is programmed to periodically move to a new location. A similar statement is disclosed in p0039: “chlorine is distributed by the movement of the pool cleaner throughout the body of water in which it is moving”. Such disclosures anticipatorily indicate a lack of a fixed water-circulation capability as claimed (i.e., pipeless pool lacking operational, fixed water-circulation equipment).
For the same reasons, these cited sections further read on the claimed limitation “the portable circulation device is the sole water circulation system of the pipeless pool for circulating and filtering water of the pipeless pool”. The latter half of the instant limitation, i.e., “for circulating and filtering water of the pipeless pool”, is directed toward an intended use of the claimed portable circulation device. So long as the taught automated pool cleaner by PORAT has the capability to circulate and filter water, such a limitation is met. Indeed, as described by PORAT, the cleaner includes a conventional pump motor 24 that draws water through a filter at a lower portion of the housing and discharges filtered water through an outlet 13 in the housing 12 (p0028; FIG. 1); such a combination of motor and filter and the drawing and discharging of water/filtered water reads on the instant limitation.
As indicated, PORAT discloses the automated self-propelled robotic pool cleaner 10 comprises a housing 12 (i.e., a body), drive means 14, a conventional pump motor 24 that draws water through a filter, e.g., via “intake openings” at a lower portion of the housing (i.e., a body with an inlet… a pump within the body and a filter within the body), and discharges filtered water through an outlet 13 (i.e., an outlet) in the housing 12 (i.e., a portable circulation device within the pool; wherein the portable circulation device is movable within the pool while circulating water of the pool; the portable circulation device comprises an automatic swimming pool cleaner comprising one or more inlets, a pump, and one or more outlets; p0028; FIG. 1).
The limitation requiring that “the portable circulation device is movable within the pool while circulating water of the pool” is directed toward an intended use of the portable circulation device. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). Indeed, as indicated above, PORAT discloses the automated pool cleaner is “programmed to periodically move to a new location on the bottom of the pool to equalize the distribution of chlorine ions in the pool” (i.e., the portable circulation device is movable within the pool; p0011); the pool cleaner 10 is further disclosed to include a pump motor 24 that draws and discharges water/filtered water (i.e., while circulating water of the pool).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, PORAT discloses the pool systems of Claims 1 and 6, respectively. PORAT further discloses the robotic pool cleaner includes a chlorine generator 20 (i.e., a water treatment chemical; p0028).
Regarding Claim 21, PORAT discloses the pool system of Claim 1. PORAT further discloses a “filter that draws water through a hose or conduit” (p0018) and discharges filtered water through outlet 13 of the housing 12 (i.e., wherein the automatic swimming pool cleaner further comprises a filter within a body of the automatic swimming pool cleaner; p0028).
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PORAT (US 2006/0053572 A1) in view of OSHLACK et al. (US 2003/0198673 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, PORAT discloses the pool system of Claim 3. While PORAT further discloses a chlorine generator 20 (p0028), PORAT is deficient in explicitly disclosing said chlorinator comprises a chemical puck as the water treatment chemical.
OSHLACK discloses a disinfecting agent, e.g., a chlorine compound such as calcium hypochlorite, for use in treating a surrounding body of water, e.g., a recreational pool (p0112, p0115). OSHLACK further discloses the use of a controlled release formulation comprising the active agent and a controlled release tablet comprising a core containing the active agent (i.e., a chemical puck; p0015, p0040) for advantageously providing a reproducibly stable dissolution profile (p0116). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a chemical puck as disclosed by OSHLACK as the water treatment chemical of the chlorine generator disclosed by PORAT.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PORAT (US 2006/0053572 A1) in view of PHILLIPS et al. (US 5,725,761).
Regarding Claim 10, PORAT discloses the pool system of Claim 6. PORAT is deficient in disclosing the portable circulation device further comprises a skimmer.
PHILLIPS discloses a modular apparatus for circulating, filtering, and chlorinating water in an in-ground swimming pool (abstract). PHILLIPS discloses the modular system 5 is removable (i.e., portable circulation device; c7/8-13) and further comprises both a traveling main drain 110 and a skimmer 40 to effectively draw water from two sources, i.e., at the pool bottom via the main drain 110 and at the pool surface via the skimmer 40 (i.e., wherein the portable circulation device further comprises a skimmer; c7/35-37). The inclusion of a skimmer to the modular system advantageously reduces pool construction costs and conserves energy by eliminating or minimizing necessary pipes to connect the skimmer to the circulation system (c7/44-51). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a skimmer to the portable circulation device as taught by PHILLIPS in the pool system disclosed by PORAT to advantageously draw from multiple sources of water in the pool (i.e., not just the pool bottom) and to provide cost savings.
Regarding Claim 11, PORAT in view of PHILLIPS makes obvious the pool system of Claim 10. PHILLIPS further discloses the skimmer 40 is fluidically connected to the suction line 190 leading to the pump 10 in the module 5 (i.e., wherein the skimmer is tethered to the automatic swimming pool cleaner; FIG. 1).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights