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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03 September 2025 has been entered.
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.
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 further does not disclose the use of the robotic pool cleaner with any other cleaning system or pool piping associated with other cleaning systems (i.e., a pipeless pool lacking operational, fixed water-circulation equipment). As further support for this disclosure, PORAT specifically addresses the usefulness of the disclosed pool cleaner for residential pools to supplant the “use of electrochemical chlorine generators” that are “typically limited to larger commercial and institutional pools” that would otherwise require “expenses associated with installation by plumbers and electricians” (p0003-0004). Indeed, PORAT discloses that the “object of the present invention [is] to provide a method and apparatus for generating and adding chlorine to pools that is essentially self-contained and the use of which requires no installation services by a plumber and requires no separate or specialized electrical power connections for its operation” (p0005). As such, it is interpreted that PORAT’s disclosure is directed toward residential pools (or at least, non-commercial or non-institutional pools) having no dedicated chlorine generators (i.e., no internal plumbing or piping) because such a pool cleaner would provide the necessary chlorine to treat any water.
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). PORAT does not disclose the use of the robotic pool cleaner with any other water circulation system (i.e., the portable circulation device is the sole water circulation system of the pool).
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, materials and articles worked upon (i.e., water of the pool) by the claimed pool system, and a manner or method by which the system is used. 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). The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
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).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 03 September 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 have overcome the Claim Objections of Claim 1; these objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 10 and 12 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of Claims 1 and 12; the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of Claims 10, 11, and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues PORAT “fails to teach a pool system where "a portable circulation device within the pipeless pool, wherein the portable circulation device is the sole water circulation system of the pipeless pool" (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 6” (pg. 6, top) and further discloses that “[t]he purpose of Porat is to replace inline electrochemical generators with an electrochemical generator onboard the pool cleaner. Porat at [0009], for example. Electrochemical generators, whether onboard the pool cleaner per Porat or not, are not "water circulation systems," nor would the skilled person understand them to be as they lack at least a pump. As acknowledged by Porat, the pools in which Porat operates include "main pumping and filter system outside of the pool." Porat at [0002]” (pg. 6, middle).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PORAT explicitly makes a distinction between residential pools (for which the disclosed pool cleaner is designed for) and commercial/institutional pools that have dedicated chlorine generator systems. PORAT indicates that it is unreasonable/unfeasible for the smaller-scale residential pools to adopt the in-line chlorine generator systems of such larger-scale pools due to the prohibitive cost to install such systems (p0003-0004) and therefore provides this alternative solution of the disclosed pool cleaner to advantageously forgo “installation services by a plumber and requires no separate or specialized electrical power connections for its operation” (p0005).
Even further, PORAT discloses that the pool cleaner is also “programmed to periodically move to a new location on the bottom of the pool to equalize the distribution of chlorine ions in the pool” (p0011)—this further indicates the lack of any other circulation system in the pool.
While it is understood that it may be advantageous for a residential pool to include its own dedicated circulation/filtration system to provide for continuous cleaning services to maintain the upkeep and longevity/usefulness of the pool, not all residential pools have such plumbing (which may be prohibitively expensive for some pool owners). The disclosure by PORAT of a pool cleaner that generates chlorine and distributes chlorine evenly throughout the pool addresses such maintenance needs for residential pools that lack any circulation system.
All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
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