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 .
Status of Claims
Amendments filed 12 November 2025 and 17 December 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5 and 8-13 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 3-4 and 6 are as originally presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11 August 2025.
In view of the amendment to the Claims 1, 5 and 8-13 the previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment to the claims. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 and 12-13 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, please refer to the detailed discussion below.
Priority
Foreign translation filed 12 November 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 recites “the sidewall of the swimming pool” in line 2 and should be “a sidewall of a swimming pool” since neither of these objects have been previously recited in the claim language. The Examiner does not interpret the objects recited to be part of the structure of the invention and therefore is only providing this objection.
Claims 10 recites “the sidewall of the swimming pool” in lines 2-3 and should be “a sidewall of a swimming pool” since neither of these objects have been previously recited in the claim language. The Examiner does not interpret the objects recited to be part of the structure of the invention and therefore is only providing this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 8-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an idling state" twice in line 3. Where the second instance of “an idling state” is not clear if it is the same or different than the first instance. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interpret the second instance of “an idling state” to be “the idling state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected based on the claim 3 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a preset angle" in line 4. Claim 4 line 3 recites "a preset angle". Where it is not clear if "a preset angle" of line 4 is the same or different than "a preset angle" of line 3. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interpret the second instance of “a preset angle” to be “the preset angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected based on the claim 4 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a distance" in line 2. Claim 1 line 12 recites "a distance". Where it is not clear if "a distance" of claim 8 is the same or different than "a distance" of claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 8’s "a distance" to be "the distance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a preset distance" in lines 2 and 7-8. Claim 1 line 13 recites "a preset distance". Where it is not clear if "a preset distance" of claim 8 is the same or different than "a preset distance" of claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 8’s "a preset distance" to be "the preset distance" {Examiner notes: there are two instances of "a preset distance", please ensure both are changed.}. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a first motion state" in line 5. Claim 1 line 12 recites "a first motion state". Where it is not clear if "a first motion state" of claim 8 is the same or different than "a first motion state" of claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 8’s "a first motion state" to be "the first motion state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wheel" in lines 2 and 5. The claim tree for claim 9 goes to claim 7 and then claim 1. Where “a wheel” is not found in claims 1, 7 or 9 {Examiner notes: “a wheel” is found in at least claim 3}. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9’s "the wheel" in line 2 to be "a wheel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the angle" in at least line 2. The claim tree for claim 10 goes to claim 7 and then claim 1. Where “an angle” is not found in claims 1, 7 or 10 {Examiner notes: “an angle” is found in at least claim 4}. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10’s "the angle" in line 2 to be "an angle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a preset angle" in lines 7-8. Claim 4 line 3 recites "a preset angle". Where it is not clear if "a preset angle" of lines 7-8 is the same or different than "a preset angle" of line 3. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interpret the second instance of “a preset angle” to be “the preset angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-7 and 11 are allowed.
Claims 3-4, 8-10 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…when the distance between the vehicle body and the obstacle in front of the vehicle body is less than or equal to the preset distance, the first electric motor starts to control the first water outlet to drain water backwards.” The closest prior art is Erlich et al. (US 10294686 B1) in view of either Chafik et al. (US 20220333395 A1) or Besnier et al. (US 20220043450 A1) {Examiner notes: prior art previously cited in PTO-892 mailed 11 August 2025}. Erlich et al. discloses “...tilt and current sensors, and other electronics and controls the operation of the pumps based upon inputs from the sensors and the particular program selected for operation...” (See at least: col. 3 lines 52-55). Chafik et al. teaches time-of-flight (ToF) sensor 12 which “facilitate a detection or determination of various characteristics of underwater obstacles (e.g., a distance, an inclination of a wall, a height of a step, a size of an obstacle, a corner of a pool, etc.)” (See at least: para. [0022] which also recites “...the ToF sensors 12 may be arranged at various locations on, within, or relative to the APC 10 as desired.”). Besnier et al. teaches “...sensor 118 may detect various characteristics of the APC 114 relative to the wall 106 and/or other potential obstacle, including but not limited to a distance between the wall 106 and the APC 114, an orientation or angle of the APC 114 relative to the wall 106, combinations thereof, and/or other characteristics as desired...” (See at least: para. [0022]). It would be obvious to combine the rechargeable robotic pool cleaning apparatus 10 of Erlich et al. with either ToF sensor 12 of Chafik et al. or sensor 118 of Besnier et al. to have a robotic pool cleaning apparatus capable of detecting distances and angles of various objects. However, it is not obvious that once an object is detected that the robotic pool cleaning apparatus is programed such that “...the first electric motor starts to control the first water outlet to drain water backwards.”. Therefore, this is the novel feature. See selected figs. from the prior art below.
PNG
media_image1.png
553
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
794
1235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights